Datasets:

mushroomsolutions

/

imdb_sentiment_3000_Test

like 0

This movie is NOT the same as the 1954 version with Judy Garland and James Mason, and that is a shame because the 1954 version is, in my opinion, much better. I am not denying Barbra Streisand's talent at all. She is a good actress and brilliant singer. I am not acquainted with Kris Kristofferson's other work and therefore I can't pass judgment on it. However, this movie leaves much to be desired. It is paced slowly, it has gratuitous nudity and foul language, and can be very difficult to sit through.<br /><br />However, I am not a big fan of rock music, so it's only natural that I would like the Judy Garland version better. See the 1976 film with Barbra and Kris, and judge for yourself.

Absolutely dreadful Mexican film supposedly based on a short story by Edgar Allan Poe about a newsman wanting to go into the confines of an asylum hidden in the woods to write a story about how it works, etc... When our hero, Gaston, is given the grand show by Dr. Maillard, head of the asylum, we see all kinds of things which are suppose to be horrific, such as men hanging around long in a dungeon, and comedic, such as our hero being joked upon by soldiers as he climbs down a ladder hanging over the side of a building. Then there is one sight which might have been meant to be both: a human man dressed as a chicken, yes, that's right a chicken, that pecks around the ground for chicken feed. The scene was to be a comedic highlight of the film, but, at least for me, it was the film's low point and really most revolting when you considered that grown men and women thought this might even be remotely entertaining. Ah! That is indeed the real horror that is Dr. Tarr and his Legion of Name Changes. And that brings me to this salient fact about the film which is most films that undergo multiple title changes usually have some kind of serious problem. Yes, this is obvious, but some have distribution problems and others, of which this is one, have numerous title changes so that someone might unsuspectingly buy the same garbage more than once. This is definitely garbage. It has very little going for it. The only performer worth having a look at is Claudio Brook as the head of the asylum. He is one huge slab of ham as he laughs maniacally, bellows orders, sashays with sword in hand, and praises the chicken. I got so tired of hearing him talk about the "soothing system" as his means to cure the mentally sick. What a bunch of ludicrosity(Hey, a film like this with a script like this deserves this kind of word). It won't take you long to figure out what is going on in the asylum nor will it be any more interesting. Cinematic chicken scratch!

Where would Hollywood have been without Fredric March as Robert Browning or Dennis Price as Lord Byron, famous lovers in their day? Even an actor as normally straitlaced as Michael Redgrave once brought some moody charm to a portrayal of W.B. Yeats. Writers' lives are an endless source of inspiration.<br /><br />But of all poets it was Dylan Thomas, the roistering, free-loving Welshman who enjoyed a pint or two (and drank himself to death in New York at the age of 39), who was closest in spirit to the film industry. During World War II, he produced scripts for British propaganda documentaries. He even wrote the screenplay of a vapid melodrama called The Three Weird Sisters, in which three old maids in a Welsh village plot the murder of their rich half-brother. All that is now forgiven.<br /><br />In John Maybury's The Edge of Love, Thomas is played by the Welsh actor Matthew Rhys. It's not a full-scale biopic. The film covers four years in the poet's life during World War II, when he lived with two women: his wife Caitlin (Sienna Miller) and a former lover Vera Phillips (Keira Knightley), whom he met again by chance during the war. It seems he loved them both. The relationship of these extraordinary women -- to Thomas and to each other -- is at the heart of Maybury's absorbing film.<br /><br />How it came to be made is a story almost as remarkable as that of the lovers themselves. Rebekah Gilbertson, the film's producer, is the granddaughter of Vera Phillips and William Killick. William, a war hero (played in the film by Cillian Murphy), married Vera while she was still in love with the poet. Gilbertson was inspired to make the film when she discovered a book about her grandparents, Dylan Thomas: A Farm, Two Mansions and Bungalow, by David Thomas, describing their tangled lives. Sharman Macdonald, who wrote the screenplay, is the mother of Knightley. The part requires Knightley to sing, and her mother included songs especially for her. Surely no film with such felicitous family connections deserves to do other than succeed.<br /><br />We begin in London during the Blitz. Bombs are falling, sirens are wailing, and Phillips is singing to sheltering crowds in an underground Tube station. In a pub, by chance, she meets Thomas and discovers after all these years that he has a wife and child. Phillips and Caitlin form a friendship untroubled by jealousy or rancour and are soon sharing beds and bathtubs, listening to Thomas read his poems, exchanging intimate secrets and smoking their heads off, as everyone did in wartime. Caitlin turns out to be more experienced in the ways of the world ("My first was Augustus John, he seduced me when I was 15"). But it's the refined and soulful Phillips who stirs Thomas's deepest responses and eventually succumbs to his charms. In the meantime, she has reluctantly married Killick, who has seen her in the Tube station and been instantly captivated by her beauty (if not her singing).<br /><br />It is an intense and strangely beautiful film, though Thomas himself may be its least impressive character. He is best remembered for Under Milk Wood, his verse radio play about a day in the life of the mythical Welsh village of Llareggub, whose name spelt backwards was not something polite English teachers drew attention to. I once had a vinyl recording of Richard Burton reading the poem (he appeared in a film of Under Milk Wood in 1971), and I've never forgotten the creamy, seductive quality of his voice. The legendary charisma, the magnetism of the man, is something I missed in Rhys's performance. Thomas comes across as a strangely pallid, even secondary, figure compared with the women in his life.<br /><br />In his previous film, Love Is the Devil, Maybury explored the turbulent life of painter Francis Bacon and his sadomasochistic relationship with his lover and model, George Dyer. The Edge of Love seems to me a richer and more satisfying film. If you ask what insights it offers into the springs of Thomas's creative inspiration, I would have to say Llareggub. But as an insight into his egotism, his smouldering moods and his general indifference to the feelings of others, it is wonderfully sad and revealing.<br /><br />Thomas had a good war, boozing and writing while other men (including Killick) were being traumatised by the horrors of battle. In one scene near the end, Thomas's behaviour towards his friends seems unforgivably callous. But this is not, after all, Thomas's film. Murphy gives us a magnificent study in doomed passion and the emotional debilitation of war. Miller is charming and pathetic as the wife. And Knightley looks almost too exquisitely delicate to be real (as she did in Pride and Prejudice). But this is probably her finest performance. And in every respect the film is worthy of her.

I own this movie. I've seen it over 20 times and every time I still get weepy. Its a Great love story, surprises, and you can definately feel chemistry between Klein and Sobiesky. I definately give this movie a perfect 10. I recommend this to anyone.

I rented this DVD having seen it while looking for something else. When I saw the title on the jacket I couldn't believe my eyes. I read Yalom's book about a year ago and loved it, in fact admire Yalom's work in general. (I am a clinical psychologist.) I have watched perhaps 30 minutes of this movie and have had to turn it off. I'm not sure if I can take much more. At a superficial level, the faux accents, as others have commented, are simply distracting at best and irritating and vapid at worst. The acting is dull when it should be passionate and comical when it should be serious. The portrayal of Lou Salome is simply flippant, and the brilliant Freud comes off as little more than a schoolboy. I see very little of the book's spirit conveyed thus far. I had hoped to be able to recommend this film to my students. Instead, I will refer them to the book. Imagine that.

TV pilots, don't you love them? Quinn Martin tried this one out after being successful in a bunch of other TV detective movies, but this one goes nowhere except in the realm of MST where it belongs. Roy Thinnes is Diamond Head who takes orders from Aunt Mary to find super spy Lovejoy, I mean Tree. Zulu and Tso-Tsing are there for ethnic comic relief and not much else. Tree sucks as a bad guy despite all his disguises that makes him look exactly the same as he normally does. There's more unnatural clothing fiber here than you can ever imagine (required in the 1970's)and the show itself is so anti-climatic. Why did it not go to series? You figure it out, it's quite blatant. Again it's fun for MST, but not a lot else!!

I picked this up in the 'Danger After Dark' box set, and watched it solely because of my interest in the performance of Hyde and Gackt. I expected a corny horror film that was a huge gore-fest and with very bad dialogue. Which is exactly what it would have been if it had been made in America. Instead I found myself intrigued by the good development of the characters, and the way that Sho (Gackt) develops through the movie as a person. The acting skills of both stars was surprisingly good, considering they aren't professional actors, and the director did a marvelous job with it all, setting it in the future minus the flying cars and holographic billboards.<br /><br />On a side note, Taro Yamamoto's performance was very surprising. The only other film I've seen him in is Battle Royale, where he plays Shogo Kawada, and in this film he seems to be the exact opposite of Shogo. Toshi is bright, exuberant and hyper, serving as a sort of comic relief with his antics. Shogo was the big tough guy on the island who killed without thinking anything of it. So, watch out for his performance, if you're familiar with Battle Royale, you'll be very surprised by him.<br /><br />But don't be thrown off by the summary on the back of the box, because this isn't really a vampire movie. It's just a movie with a vampire in it. That Hyde's character is a vampire is almost a background fact with what's really going on in the foreground, and you guys will love the last scene. It's a really moving picture at some points, the photography is really well done. It's definitely something to pick up the next time you're at Blockbuster.

The film really challenges your notions of identity and the society we live in. It is well made and very powerful. The persons in the film are honest and revealing about the world that exists outside of the normative ideological perspective. I believe it give great insight into a sub-culture who shakes the very ideas that the viewer has of society. It is shocking at times and more powerful because of it. Some parts were difficult to watch, as most reality is, but it is not over done. Its good the first time you watch it, but it becomes even better the second or third time around; because you have had the chance to wrap your mind around the very topics they discuss and challenge.

This movie is George C. Scott at his very best, Bernard Hughes at his very best and Diana Rigg at her most pithy, and of course Paddy Chaevsky writing at "masterpiece" warp! There are also very brief snippets of future biggies like Susan Sarandon, Stockard Channing etc., who have one scene lines that you don't necessarily spot until your fifth or sixth time watching. Nancy Marchand as a young to middle age nurse supervisor is also superb, as well as practically every "face" in Hollywood of 1970.<br /><br />It is one of the few movies that gets better the more times you see it. Watch for the "surprise" scene ala "Wait until Dark"! This is one of the few movies I have ever bought on DVD. It is that superb.

One of the few comedic Twilight Zones that's actually really good. We have Floyd The Barber from Andy Griffith Show,The stock in trade Old Geezer dude from Many old westerns,and lovable old Frisby. It also has that cool spacecraft interior that I believe was used in the Sci Fi classic Forbidden Planet.Or else The Day The Earth Stood Sill.Plus the new guys in town are driving an exotic Renault(I think) sports car back in the days when European automobiles were known as "Foreign Jobs" in the U.S.. The whole idea of harmonica as weapon is a hoot.And the fact that Frisby's buddies love him despite being the fact he's a total BS artist is a heartwarming moment.

Considered by almost all the critics to be the best of the Johnny Weissmuller Tarzan films, I have no argument with that, although there are a couple of others I thought just as entertaining. One thing: it's the longest of the series that I've seen at 105 minutes. I've only seen six of them but this was longer than I'm used to and with the drawn-out action finale I thought the whole thing was a bit too long.<br /><br />Nonetheless, it is a good mixture of action, suspense and romance. The only things missing are color and stereo sound. The primitive special-effects don't bother me, as that was all that they had back in the 1930s.<br /><br />Among some, this film is most noted for one thing: skin! "Jane" never wore anything this skimpy after this film as the Hays' Code was instituted by the time the next Tarzan film was made. Her outfit showed what a great figure Maureen O'Sullivan possessed. The nude underwater scene, however, was not her - by a longshot. The woman under the water didn't have a good figure at all, whoever it was.<br /><br />There is plenty of action in here. Up to the finale, it was not overdone, either. The ending went on for 15 minutes, though, and was so intense that it was almost too much to watch.<br /><br />Still, this movie offers about everything - except "Boy" (their adopted son) - you'd want to see in a Tarzan film, even O'Sullivan doing her Tarzan yell about a dozen times. With her pair of "lungs," that was no problem.

In the aftermath of September 11th in New York, this drama about American firefighters was conceived as a salute and tribute to their professionalism. The story is told with a series of flashbacks, where after firefighter Jack Morrison (Joaquin Phoenix) has crashed through the floor of a burning building, and only communicating with Captain Mike Kennedy (John Travolta) via the radio. The flashbacks basically show how Jack grows from being a recruit, seeing Kennedy as a father figure, to being a firehouse legend. Of course, in the present day, Jack's fellow firefighters are trying to reach him, but they are too late, and in the end, he lets them leave him, and it forwards to his funeral, where he is praised as one of the best firefighters they have known. Also starring Jacinda Barrett as Linda Morrison, Terminator 2's Robert Patrick as Lenny Richter, Morris Chestnut as Tommy Drake, Billy Burke as Dennis Gauquin, Balthazar Getty as Ray Gauquin and Tim Guinee as Tony Corrigan. The blazes of the film are ultimately all I could pay attention to and enjoy seeing the characters tackle them, the rest is a bit too chatty for my liking. Adequate!

I have barely managed to view the entire film... Only after about 85min out of the movie's 110min did the journey to Mars begin, and then there were 5min left for the closure. These 85 long minutes were VERY boring and didn't contribute anything to the film. When finally reaching Mars, it wasn't much better plot wise. It all could have been fitted into much shorter running time and nothing would have been missed.<br /><br />What I cannot understand is the piece of trivia saying the because of the film new-born Babies were named "Aelita"... Why would someone want to name his/her baby after a villain, who despite having only one eyebrow, apparently has 3 breasts???<br /><br />The only interesting thing here is the sets and costumes for the Mars scenes. They are an interesting experiment in Constructivism, just as "The cabinet of Dr. Caligari" was for Expressionism, five years earlier.<br /><br />I give it 4/10 for the great looking design...

Recap: Something mysteriously dense that transmits radio signals is discovered in the ice of Antarctica. The mysterious block is dug out and brought to a research station on Antarctica. Julian Rome, a former SETI-worker, is brought in to decipher the message. Problem is that one of the researchers is a old girlfriend of his, and the situation quickly turns awkward, especially since the other female researchers practically throw themselves at him. And the block of ice with the thing inside is melting unnaturally quickly. Soon the object is in the open. The mystery continues though as the object generates a huge amount of electricity. It is decided to open the object, but just before that is done, Julian decodes the signal. "Do not open". But too late, and the object explodes as it is finally breached, and two things unleashed on earth. The first is an alien, that had been dormant in the object, and the other is a virus that instantly kills the research staff. And Washington, that is suspiciously updated on this historic event, decides that those things can not be unleashed upon the earth. So a Russian nuclear submarine, carrying nuclear weapons is sent to Antarctica.<br /><br />Comments: The movie holds a few surprises. One is Carl Lewis who surprisingly puts in a good acting performance, and the other is that the special effects that are beautiful, well worked through and a lot better than expected. Unfortunately the story holds a lot of surprises of its own, and this time not in a good way. Actually it is so full of plot holes that sometimes the movies seem to consist of almost randomly connected scenes. It is never really explained why Washington know so much, why Washington is able to command Russian submarines, why the object is in the Antarctic and has woken up now. It is really puzzling that the alien pod is transmitting in understandable English. Some might want to explain this with that the alien had been to Earth before and knew the language (and obviously chose English, why?). But then it is very confusing why the nice aliens that apparently want to save the Earth from the virus, send their "Do not open" message encoded! And finally the end is as open as an end can be.<br /><br />The movie is a little entertaining but too much energy (from me) must be diverted to fill in the voids in the plot. Therefore the total impression of the movie is not too good.<br /><br />3/10

This often maligned movie is a must for fans of Blake Edwards, Julie Andrews, Henry Mancini, or Hollywood musicals. Other writers have commented on the shifts in tone, the confusion of plot, etc., but the film has many things to recommend it. The score is one of Henry Mancini's best (and he has written many wonderful ones), several songs are sung to perfection by Andrews, Julie's performance is nuanced and she is decked out in some beautiful clothes, (she is at her absolutely loveliest here), the on-location shots are breath-taking, and there are some funny Inspector Clouseau-type sight gags to boot. Rock Hudson basically phoned in his performance, but he is passably good. A real curiosity item in that it was the last major film Julie did for about 10 years and, in many ways, is a precursor to Victor/Victoria. It is lovely to look at and listen to. When will it be available on DVD??? When it is, I for one would like both versions--the longer and shorter, director's cut. Since it was lampooned in S.O.B., they would make a great two-pack!

Set in the Philipines, Lethal Panther 2 is a dreary early-90s martial-arts action flick which sees a reckless cop hunting down the nasty criminals who killed his wife. A rather cheap looking production with almost no artistic merit, this film relies on the quality and quantity of its action. But whilst there is no shortage of fisticuffs, gun fights and explosions, the quality is just not there. The endless battles are desperately lacking in originality or excitement, with poor editing and mundane direction making this film a real chore to sit through.<br /><br />The usually impressive Yukari Oshima is totally wasted, with her natural athletic ability overshadowed by some excruciatingly bad wire-work. The ballistic action scenes are an unimpressive mixture of 'slow-motion flying-through-the-air-whilst-shooting' heroics, crazy vehicle stunts, and endless bad guys lining up to be shot.<br /><br />With so many better examples of the 'girls and guns' genre now available on DVD, I suggest that you leave this one well alone (unless, like me, you'll endure pretty much any old rubbish in order to be a completist).

I blame "Birth of a Nation" myself - for commencing the long-running tradition of Hollywood travesties of history, of which there can be few greater examples than this. Apart from getting the names of Custer and his 7th Cavalry, Crazy Horse and the Sioux and President Grant spelt right, the geography correct and the fact that Custer and his men were indeed wiped out to a man, the rest just takes hyperbole and invention to ludicrous limits. Throw in some downright hackneyed scenes of the purest exposition, (try Custer and his wife's learning of the phony "Gold Rush" to excuse the invasion of the Sioux territory, Custer's testimony in front of Congress pleading the rights of the Red Indians and to top it all, Custer's storming into the president's office to beg to return to his post), honestly there's plenty more of the same, some of these scenes almost comical in their corniness... ...And yet, and yet, it's still a great actioner with Flynn as dashing as ever, DeHavilland as beguiling as ever, the young Anthony Quinn getting a start as Crazy Horse and director Walsh as barnstorming as ever in his depiction of crowd scenes and of course the tumultuous action sequences. Ford taught us in "Liberty Valance" to believe the legend before the truth. Here I think we're closer to the legend of the legend but hey, it's only a movie and a rollicking, wonderfully enjoyable classic Hollywood movie at that!

This is how I interpreted the movie: First things first. There was not a single scene in the movie where u see the bad guy (Taylor) torturing or nailing Ben's hands to the wall. However the same cannot be told of the gals. In the end too, u see Taylor disappear as he walks. Looks like the message there was "There was no Taylor". And the whole movie was a figment of imagination of Ben. Also, there was no scene during the torturing moments wherein any of the gals confront or are in the same frame as Ben. It was Taylor all the time. But in real, Taylor was Ben. If they were two different people, then why was there no scene showing both of them in one frame during the horrific times? But of course before that, u do see both of them together and THAT cud just be Ben's imagination at work. Also, when Ben was out of jail, the text on screen clearly says that Ben's story was unrealistic and there was no such place as he had explained (read mine, cars etc...)Even after Liz Hunter leaves Kristy and comes back to find Ben, she doesn't find him. Why??? Because Ben (Taylor) was out looking for the gals. Instead Kristy has all the time in the world to check out Taylor's (Ben) Web cam, photos etc...<br /><br />Somehow everything sums up to just one fact that Kristy and Liz, both of them knew that Taylor was Ben. So, my conclusion is that Ben was schizophrenic and the movie where you see him and Taylor in one frame was nothing but figments of his imagination. Otherwise if there really was a Taylor, then they should have found him out given all the detailed explanation coming from Ben.

I will never be a member of any club that would have me,<br /><br />especially this one.<br /><br />Starr Andreeff is a single mom/stripper who gets attacked by a<br /><br />female vampire and left for dead. She begins to get a hankering for<br /><br />blood, and meets up with John Savage, looking like he's<br /><br />wondering where he left Michael Cimino's phone number. Savage<br /><br />is also a vampire and wants to let Andreef join his little vampire<br /><br />family, which consists of a British vamp, the blonde vamp who<br /><br />attacked Starr, and a green haired midget (I am not making this<br /><br />up).<br /><br />The family does not want Starr, so they try to kill Savage and Starr<br /><br />and Starr's kid.<br /><br />Someone forgot to tell John Savage that this was a drama. He<br /><br />spends most of his screen time exhibiting more facial tics than<br /><br />Hugh Grant on a Jolt Cola bender, and he reads all of his lines like<br /><br />he is making a Farrelly Brothers film. Andreeff tries to make the<br /><br />most of a badly written role, but screenwriter/director Ruben goes<br /><br />for all the vampire cliches, like Starr eating her son's pet hamster<br /><br />and buying a lot of raw meat to fight the craving for blood. The kid<br /><br />also gets knocked around a lot, for those who think watching<br /><br />violence against children is really entertaining.<br /><br />The film is extra gory, but not in a wild, over the top way like "Killer<br /><br />Tongue." Here, the gore is gross and never justified, it just occurs.<br /><br />It is just in the budget. Most of the R rating goes to Andreeff's<br /><br />coworkers, who are put through embarassing strip routines in the<br /><br />background of conversation scenes. The budget does not include<br /><br />vampire fangs! All the vampires here must stab their prey to eat.<br /><br />Nifty idea, unless you have already seen George Romero's<br /><br />"Martin."<br /><br />Even at 77 minutes, and once you throw in Ruben's attempts at<br /><br />arty direction (skewed frames, blurred scenes), this is one<br /><br />tiresome, dull, and dirty ride. Leave this club and take a shower,<br /><br />you will need it.<br /><br />This is rated (R) for strong physical violence, gun violence, sexual<br /><br />violence, strong gore, strong profanity, female nudity, sexual<br /><br />references, drug abuse, and adult situations.<br /><br />

"Live Together, Die Alone" is divided into three main story lines, and each one of them alone would have been enough for a great episode. So when you put all of them together, you have a great ^ 3 episode. It was a daring move to give the flashbacks of a season finale to a character (Desmond) who had only appeared in 3 episodes up to that point, but it worked: his backstory is absolutely fascinating to watch, both informative about the past of the island & the Swan station itself and honestly moving. Desmond and Penny seem magically connected to each other, even when they are on opposite ends of the world, and both characters are beautifully acted (it's hard not to cry when Desmond reads Penny's letter). The action inside the hatch is edge-of-your-seat tense, as Locke is determined not to allow the button to get pushed again, convinced it was all just a psychological experiment, Desmond gradually realizes the consequences of this decision, and Eko is locked outside and tries desperately to get back in. The melting of the clock and Locke's "I was wrong" are unforgettable moments. The outside action has Jack, Kate, Sawyer and Hurley captured by the Others due to Michael's betrayal (after they make a puzzling discovery connected to the Pearl), and "Henry Gale"'s game-changing return as the Others' leader. Even the least important plot line, Sayid, Jin and Sun sailing to the beach where the Others are supposedly camping, contains one of the greatest mythological mysteries of the show, the giant statue that's almost entirely missing except for a foot with four toes. In short: emotion + history + mythology + adventure + suspense + the threat of annihilation + a ray of hope = a classic LOST episode. ***1/2 out of 4.

MacArthur is a great movie with a great story about a great man…General Douglas MacArthur. This is of course, the story of one of America's great military figures, and a figure made familiar to me from the earliest moments of my memory. Though there is a continuity issue (there may be others) e.g. MacArthur's speech portrayed in the film as his 1962 address to the U.S. Military Academy on accepting the Thayer award did not contain the phrase "old soldiers never die; they just fade away." (That was in his speech to Congress upon his dismissal by President Truman) in 1951 for his alleged insubordination (these two did not see eye to eye!) Gregory Peck is im-Peck-able as the general who vowed he would return to the Philippines in World War II. The film moves quickly and easily with the General, his family and his staff from the beginning of the Second World War to the end of his service career. This film would be of much greater significance to one familiar with both WW II and the Korean War. Nevertheless, Peck's portrayal of this great man who fought the twin evils of fascism and communism and who hated war as only a soldier can is a memorable one indeed. "In war there is no substitute for victory."

I can only believe that Garson Kanin must have been two people. The one who wrote the brilliant "A Double Life" and the funny "Born Yesterday" and co-wrote such excellent screenplays as "Adam's Rib" and "Pat And Mike" with his wife Ruth Gordon and then the one who wrote and/or directed such tiresome, sad drivel as "Bachelor Mother", "Some Kind Of A Nut", and this. The cast tries, but the script is so tired and clichéd that even the efforts of the always wonderful Brenda Vaccaro are defeated. The script sinks to it's nadir in the truly offensive sequence in which Janssen's character tests Drivas's character to make sure he's not gay. An ugly sequence, but sadly one which could easily play in a film today. "Ethnic" jokes are now totally verboten, but "fag" jokes are still "good, clean, family fun".

The mere fact that I still think of the movie a decade later is what really speaks volumes about the film. To me this substantiates Grand Canyon as a film that will touch you in one way or another. I truly believe that before the movie Crash there was Grand Canyon. The major difference between the two films in my opinion is the timing of their release. I'm not going to argue which one is better, but I will contend to the idea that they share the same message. I'd love to hear from those that have an opinion on this subject. I will start a commentary which you can find at http://www.myspace.com/62229249. You may also find me there to post any other topics about movies that we may share, because i have a true love for film.

For the life of me I can't figure out why anyone would make a movie like this. The plot is tired, the acting is strained, the language is consistently foul and at times the over use of the "F" word seemed like a lack of dialog was prevalent so 'let's throw in another couple of "F's" for good measure, that's what the American public wants to hear'. Gossett was particularly foul and seemed to enjoy his part. Forget this c__p, rent 'Shrek" and have a good laugh.

Okay, I saw this movie as a child and really loved it. My parents never purchased the movie for me, but I think I'll go about and buy it now. I'm a sucker for pre-2000 animated films. Anyway, onto the actual review.<br /><br />WHAT I LIKED: There was an actual portrayal of heaven and hell, one of the few I've seen in animated films. Character development existed! It's easy to classify characters in this movie (i.e.: Charlie is the selfish mutt, Itchy is cynical but believes Charlie, Carface is obviously the relentless villain, etc.). I also loved King Gator's song. I've always loved loud, annoying, flamboyant guys. This song may have been random, but it was so fun. Finally, the detail of the animation was beautiful. You could tell Charlie was all gruff and stuff and the backgrounds were beautiful.<br /><br />WHAT I DID NOT LIKE: The actual portrayal of heaven: The way Charlie reacted to it, "no surprises whatsoever", made it actually seem very boring. He denied a place in heaven and STILL got to return to it in the end. I remember a few lines of certain songs such as "... you can't keep a good dog down", "... let's make music forever", and "... welcome to being dead" but I can't remember the majority of any of them. The songs weren't that catchy, to be honest. Whippet Angel: She's annoying and that NECK! AUGH!<br /><br />WHAT PARENTS MAY NOT LIKE: A few very scary (depending on the viewer) images of Hell are shown during the movie. Carface is quite threatening. Beer is also implied, but not actually DUBBED beer. Gambling is a key element in the movie. The good guy dies.<br /><br />OVERALL: I LOVE this movie, even if it is a bit forgettable at times. The scarier children's animations are always my favorite ones. This was created back in a time when producers and writers weren't afraid to give kids a little scare now and then. Nowadays, this probably would have been rated PG. Kids under the age of 8 (or easily disturbed kids) should not watch this. Other than that, I give it 9/10. :)<br /><br />Happy Viewing!

I rented the film (I don't think it got a theatrical release here) out expecting the worse. The previews made the film look awful. I was in fact very surprised, it was well worth watching; it was loosely scripted, almost like an ensemble piece of film. It had some very funny moments in it and although flawed is an effective satire on the show and the people on the show without being too scathing. It is flawed, mainly by the awful soundtrack of bludgeoning 'comedy' effects but on the whole it comes across as honest and generally true to form of the show in an altmanesque or Larry Sanders way.<br /><br />At the moment it is the fashion to be critical of Jerry Springer, he is also an easy target. Springer could have made Citizen Kane and it would be proclaimed 'the worst film ever made'. I recommend this film for anybody interested in the show. A flawed but innovative and interesting piece of film.

Honest to God, the Outline pretty much says it all. The planet Andromina (not to be confused with Aunt Jemima) is represented by a cheap L.A. stripclub. There's no strippers, so the most recent male visitors go off to recruit strippers.<br /><br />The men get mistaken for kings or arrested for spying on women (although despite the fact its a planet of women we only get two women who participate in any girl-girl sex scenes), and eventually, as always happen in science fiction cliche movies everywhere, the women become convinced that men are good for something. Well, not the men who made this movie, at any rate!<br /><br />But boy, do we get to see a lot of that something, in prodigious amounts of softcore sex and nudity. This one has less plot then usual for such flicks, so change the channel if you don't like this kind of movie, and grit your teeth if you're into this kind of thing.

I rented this movie the other night because neither my girlfriend or myself had ever seen it, even though we had heard from a mutual friend how "great it was".<br /><br />Now, I am pretty conservative in my views, but I knew going in it would be pretty liberal given who directed it. I figured before the movie started Michael Douglas would play a compassionate popular liberal beloved by the masses, and there would be a stodgy conservative opponent as his antagonist. But I thought thats where the political statement would begin and end.<br /><br />OK, the plot was solid: Single president falls for a lobbyist. OK, this has potential I thought to be pretty entertaining, since the plot was unique. But then the movie turned into a liberal infomercial. The movie became more about gun control and environmental issues than it did about the relationship between the President and Sydney(Annette Bening).<br /><br />There were several ridiculous premises in this movie: 1) The character Sydney playing this six figure lobbyist who is a "closer". Could she have been more flighty? She was constantly disorganized and seemed in awe of everything. Hardly a "closer". I am an sales, and she could not "close" selling a glass of water to a man dying of thirst.<br /><br />2) Secondly, is there anything more ridiculous than Richard Dreyfuss playing a right wing fanatic? This is the most liberal man in Hollywood and her is playing some right wing ideologue. Give me a break. I liked how he took his conservative character and made him as sinister as possible.<br /><br />3) The speech at the end was simply ludicrous. The line about "I am a proud card carrying member of the ACLU" was a joke. First, no president would ever admit something like that, being an active member of an ultra fringe group. Second, why even bring something like that up. You just alienated off over half the movie going audience who is moderate or conservative.<br /><br />I thought the plot was great and unique. I thought Michael Douglas was a good choice as president. But the movie went from being a "movie" to a left wing political statement, which is why the movie failed.<br /><br />Its a shame to see a great plot ruined by Hollywood having to force their political views on the audience

I thought this movie was perfect for little girls. It was about a magical place where Genevieve and all her sisters could do what they wanted to do the most anytime they'd like. Most little girls would like this story, even though there is the thought of death in it. Although no one dies, the king almost does, but little girls would not understand it, so it adds up to make a perfect story. All the events add up, creating a great plot that can have a meaning if you dig deep enough. This story is perfect for little girls, and since it is a barbie movie, the kids can have more fun with it, especially if they have barbies of their own. Anyone can have fun with it, though, because it is so cute and understandable. Overall, I think this movie is a good movie for everyone, especially little girls, and will give anyone a smile at least once during it.

Much of the commentary on this board revolves around debating the validity of some comparison to R DOGS made on the DVD cover. Forget about all of that... This film-- er-- home movie is utterly horrendous. How can anyone with a shred of credibility claim this as being 10/10??? There is no plot, none. I couldn't believe that I spent money to rent this (more on that later) and that I had fooled myself into believing that this (based on box cover art and some sort of film fest award blurb) had potential. The only thing I do really remember was that, unbelievably, one of the annoying main characters was supposedly offed with a bullet to the head... and he ends up surviving the wound and making it to the final credits alive. Wow. And looky dere, Killers has a sequel. Double wow.<br /><br />True story -- I actually was in so much denial that I had wasted my money and life force on this rental that I kept the videotape for what must've been six months. I kept telling myself that it never actually happened. The video on top of the TV was an illusion - a mental symbol of my self-loathing. After someone pointed out that is was indeed real and that I needed to get a grip, I decided that I couldn't just leave it there. I thought, "How many others have I denied the suffering of sitting through the viewing of this masterpiece by hoarding Killers all to myself?" I had to do the right thing and return it back to the hell from which it came. <br /><br />So, as I imagine most of the populous of IMDb would do in a similar situation, I mustered up some major courage and drove to the video store... at 2AM. After making sure that no one was around, I got out of my car (still running of course), slipped the movie into the drop box slot, and booked the hell out of there never to return.<br /><br />I guess I expected that some goons from Hollywood Video corporate would come looking for me (the bill must've racked up to something like $1,238.67 by that time) so I moved away from the area. However, coincidently, much like the Killers storyline, nothing ever happened.

The number of goofs in this episode was higher than the first 9. They don't follow their own rules about spirits where destruction of the body makes the spirit dissolve. This one dropped a second body. That body, and Dean, drop about 20 feet from Sam but then they are right with Sam. Flashlights go out in an unlighted asylum, at night, and we can still see everything. It's night but light is streaming through the windows. A ghost that died in 1960's is making cell phones calls? Come on! There is no way Sam could get a psychiatrist to see him in the same day he makes an appointment and the doctor talks to Sam like it wasn't his first visit. Sam and Dean knew there were other bodies in the asylum and innocent spirits still lurking and didn't do anything to help them. That doesn't seem like a thing the Winchester boys would do. Oh and after crawling around on a dirt filled mattress and all around a nasty asylum the girls' makeup and hair is perfect and not a smudge on her white shirt. <br /><br />While the implementation of this episode had problems the premise was good and a few times I was not creeped out but nervous as Dean sat reading Elicots' journal. I just knew that an object so intensely personal to the ghost would draw it to the person violating it's sanctity. Elicot didn't appear. Maybe that is a fault for such an important object or place (like Elicot's office) should draw the spirit when a living being touches or enters. When they separate I want to scream... 'that's how you die! Always stay together and watch each others backs!' but they don't listen to me :o The Elicot spirit and his special ability was a very nice touch. It's prime-time show but I do wish the horror of Elicot strapping one of his victims down and using anticipation of torture to creep us out further.<br /><br />Especially because of the lighting goofs I gave this a 4. Sudden darkness or the flickering of the whole scene's lighting as the flashlight flickers is all that more terrifying. The lighter coming or the flashlight reviving and instantly a spirit is in their face is shocking. I understand the directors wants us to see his scene but then make a mention or obvious connection by Elicot touching an electric socket and the lights coming on. Have the characters respond to the fact an asylum with no power suddenly has lights in the one room. Blue white lights flickering as electric arcs just like Elicot's finger power. <br /><br />Seriously, MCG could have done better.

Niagara, Niagara is a stunning and heartbreaking story about the two outsiders Seth and Marcy. Robin Tunney gives a fantastic performance as Marcy suffering from Tourette's Sydrome, getting sicker and sicker as the movie progresses. This movie is not very optimistic and it's very hard emotional, but at the same time very romantic. It's hard to explain, but see it and find out for yourself. It's definitely worth it.

Well... easily my favourite TV series ever. Call me a walking mail cliché but include violence, mafia, sex, gambling, drugs etc. on a show and you're already winning points on in my book. Combine all that with acting that superceeds anything you've ever seen on the small screen, add directing that fits cinema of the vintage type and most of all writing that blows the mind (and a few brains a long the way) and you got yourself a show thats gonna be pretty tough to compete with.<br /><br />Above all stand two actors, James Gandolfini as Tony Soprano, and Edie Falco as His wife Carmela... as for Gandolfini, he fits his roll in a way that words cannot express, if you haven't seen him as tony yet see it now!<br /><br />I can go on and on and on about every character in the show, the psychological brilliance, the gripping scenes etc. but you wouldn't be able to stop me so all I can say is that this is about the only show along with Seinfeld, that I am able to watch over and over again from start to finish and end up enjoying it even more.

I couldn't bear to sit through he entire movie. Do families like this really exist somewhere? There have been many comments describing this family as akin to LLBean models and such, and I think that that is a great description of how they behaved.<br /><br />More absurdly unbelievable writing/acting occurs as we meet a character referred to in High School as "pigface" who, of course, has grown into a drop-dead gorgeous 20-year Harvard-educated plastic surgeon (but only to do good in the world-not for the money,) and she beds Steve Carrel on the first date. That's when I quit watching...<br /><br />If you can completely suspend your disbelief for two hours, then perhaps you'll enjoy this sentimental, self-indulgent waste of time.

For a movie like this, there's always something to follow by in years to come. Clive Barker, the man who brought "Hellraiser", makes a horror movie that is part-Goth, part-Mythology, and all horror in-between. "Nightbreed" are a bunch of mutants who only come out at night, and roam the place called Midian. Now a man name Boone(Craig Sheffer) claims to suffer hallucinations he goes to this shrink Dr. Decker(David Croneberg) who "helps" Boone with his problems. Unaware of this situation, Decker claims to be a purist which he's only a hate-monger in disguise. Boone however, goes into Midian and make the claim that he's one of the mutants there. But a mutant named Peloquin(Oliver Parker) sees Boone as meat! His bite however, spares Boone so after he is killed by a gauntlet of fire arms, he's one of them now. After being mislead by Decker, Boone does everything in his power to protect Lori(Anne Bobby) from him. Lori saves a mutant from the sun, and in return helps the others as well. I liked the lady mutants one who gives a smoky "kiss of death" and the Porcupine Woman who dreamed Boone show off her power that is so seductive and deadly at the same time. I've enjoyed this horror movie all the way, and the rule of it is, never trust a shrink! Rating 3.5 out of 5 stars!

Delirious, near plot-less mood piece and if it's more LSD inspired than the Devil then we must remember when it was made! After a startling SM opening (which even itself is not what it seems) we move to soft focus and dream or imaginings or remembering…. Lots of literary and cinematic references and indeed this is the Franco film that Lang himself praised. Beautiful and mesmerising the film unfolds at a leisurely pace but has a richness within each fold. A rare movie to languish within. Old Jess could make 'em when he tried. Fine central performances too including the indomitable Jack Taylor and Howard Vernon. I haven't even mentioned the Lisbon locations - ah!

I was watching the sci-fi channel when this steaming pile of crap came on. While not as bad as Wynorski's "Curse of the Komodo", this still sucks...BAD. Wynorski uses the same island as in "Curse of the Komodo", as well as the same actors and house. The effects are top notch (suprising) but thats about it........I don't know what else to say about this movie.......oh yeah! As in "Curse of the Komodo", the government gets involved and decides to bomb the island! Also....when i saw this part i laughed hysterically...A KOMANBRA!!! (part man, komodo AND cobra!). Overall this movie is utter crap even on bad movie standards. Just remember if Jim Wynorski had anything to do with a movie....steer clear....to avoid from falling asleep keep repeating "It's almost over..it's almost over...". 0 out of 5.

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

The premise of Bottom crossed with Fawlty Towers sounds great! However, Ade Edmonson & Rik Mayall have managed to create a film that raises barely a titter. Ten years ago, Rik Mayall's mad stare and Ade's idiocy were funny, now they are just annoying.<br /><br />The film had promise - though the most horrendous hotel in Britain is not a new idea - but failed to deliver. The saving graces were competent performances from Simon (Spaced, Big Train) Pegg and Helene Mathieu, and the film is only 90 minutes long. Sorry, guys, but you really have hit the Bottom

Quite one of the worst films I have ever seen. Terrible acting, laughable 'action' (it's clear that the cars are travelling slowly), atrocious script, hideously unsatisfying ending and incompetent direction make a hash of a movie. We know Judge Reinhold is a fine actor, but he should be ashamed of this detritus. There is no great tension within the car and, when the characters stumble upon moments of hope, they laugh like inane banshees for some reason, even 'high five-ing' when they see the bridge lowered!<br /><br />Also, the chain of events that lead these people to share the same car strains credibility. Apparently based on true events, though? If that's the case, truth is evidently stranger than fiction! Unfortunate then, that it was portrayed in such an inept manner.

This may not be the worst movie to ever win best picture but its up there. Well on second thought this is probably the worst film to ever win best picture. Still though you would expect it to be a worth while film. That in fact though if questionable as well. The film contains almost no depth and is just "fun" after "fun" if you want to call it that. At first its very interesting but it seems as if everything is exaggerated on so many levels.<br /><br />The acting was not spectacular to watch but it was quite interesting seeing Charlton Heston in his first lead role. I found many of the characters like the tone of the movie annoying after awhile. Who I did like a lot was James Stewart as the philosophical clown. He to me saved the film in that he gave it a much needed extra layer. Sadly though after Stewart there was not much else.<br /><br />The directing of the much respected Cecil DeMille was non existent to me. I found the movie corny at times and his use of Betty Hutton was a mistake. The look of the movie was very good at times but it did not generate that magical feeling that classics need to have. The writing was actually pretty good considering how shallow much of the movie was.<br /><br />From movies like this did the term "Hollywood Trash" come up. There is no depth, no valid attempt at drawing emotions out of the audience and simply no artistic value to the film. Then of course the many holes in the plot throughout. This movie was consistently annoying and frustrating. I even had a sense through this film that much of what I was watching was not only and inaccurate depiction of circus life but instead the opposite of how it really is. Why this won best picture is beyond me but its not like the first or the last time the Oscars will and have made a mistake.

In the dusty little town of Furlough in Texas, an animal is slaughtering the cattle and the locals. When the teenager Tommy (Michael Carreo) is killed, their friends Anna Furlough (Erika Fay), her Mexican-American boyfriend Miguel Gonzalez (Gabriel Gutierrez), Jill Gillespie (Sara Erikson) and Rosie (Martine Hughes) finds that a Mexican werewolf Chupacabra is the killer and they plot a plan to kill the beast.<br /><br />"Mexican Werewolf in Texas" is an amateurish crap and among the worse movies I have ever seen, if not the worst. Nothing works in this movie: the screenplay is laughable, with some of the most terrible lines I have ever heard. The direction does not exist and the camera follows the "style" of "The Blair Witch Project". The amateurish acting seems to be a prank of high-school students or a high school play. The "special effects" are gruesome and extremely poor and the "werewolf" is the cheapest I have ever seen. Ed Wood movies are cult, but this "Mexican Werewolf in Texas" is pure garbage. In the end, Jill says that no man can resist her teats (actually the most beautiful thing in this flick). But I believe the correct quote should be "no man (or woman) can resist to watch this movie to the end". I was driven by my curiosity to see how bad a movie can be and I lost 88 minutes of my life, but I believe most of the viewers will stop seeing with less than 20 minutes running time. My vote is one (awful).<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Um Lobisomen Mexicano no Texas" ("A Mexican Werewolf in Texas")

This was on SciFi this past weekend, and I had to check it out. After all... it was science fiction, with vampires and Erika Eleniak. What could go wrong with this B-movie?<br /><br />A lot.<br /><br />To start with: It can't even be classified as a "B-movie," because that would put it in the same league as Roger Corman... and this movie doesn't even meet his expectations. The most money they spent was on the contact lenses for the vampires.<br /><br />Secondly: The casting was horrible. Yes, casting Udo Kier as the captain of the Demeter was a smart move... but the director clearly couldn't even get Kier to memorize his lines. Casting Eleniak, in a vampire movie, is also a smart move because it means a bunch of horny guys are going to buy/rent/record this flick to watch her get seduced by a vampire. But, the director, writer and producer screwed that one, too. Granted, they got some money out of the poor, unfortuate souls who enjoy watching vampire movies with hot women in them... but no one is going to remember this movie in another two or three years.<br /><br />Thirdly: Little things that just emphasize the laziness in this movie. For example, Van Helsing calls a cross a "crucifix," and, when Mina is staked in the coffin, the viewer can clearly see the fact that her "chest" is nothing more than pillows.<br /><br />Oh, and one other thing: Why did they go for the George Hamiltion-type Dracula instead of something that would look decently scary? Does George Hamilton have an overwhelming hold on our future? Why didn't everyone who saw Dracula just laugh at him for his get-up?<br /><br />A waste of time. Even with a TiVo remote in your hand.

A group of four young men, attending a prestigious private school, belong to an old covenant that was formed by their ancestors during the time of the witch hunts of the late 1600s. They each possess a power that ages them whenever they use it and they suspect that a new kid at the academy might be from a family that was thought to have perished long ago. This new guy wants everyone's power for himself.<br /><br />This not a horror movie as it tries to present itself as. Yes, there is magic and all that supernatural stuff, but this is really just an action movie. A very mediocre action movie. Focusing almost solely on being cool and slick and paying only minimal attention to the plot, which has plenty of sadly unused room for interesting twists. But none were put in and even before the movie is half over you'll know what is being played and by whom.<br /><br />There are a few good scenes here and there, most notably an exploding car that is magically reconstructed after colliding with a big rig, but that's about it. What's worse is that director Renny Harlin, who has some very entertaining if not smart movies to his credit, relies heavily on blasting metal music and overly sexy leads to carry that film and that makes it quite possibly the silliest "horror" movie since the disastrous "Alone in the Dark." It is not as bad as "Alone in the Dark" since the few slick scenes are actually slick and not ridiculously incompetent, but in the end, the highest this film can hope for is a nice and cozy home on late night cable. 3/10<br /><br />Rated PG-13: violent action

This is one of the worse cases of film drivel I have seen in a long while. It is so awful, that I am not sure where to begin, or even if it is worth it. The plot is the real problem, and I feel sorry for 'Sly' as he puts in a decent performance for his part. But that plot ... Oh dear oh dear. I particularly love the way near the end he manages to pop from the foot of a mountain to the top, whilst the helicopter is on the way. A climb of a day or two takes him all of five minutes! I could go on: but it isn't worth it. Apart from the grim opening (which even a five year old would be able to predict the outcome of) the rest is drivel. Sorry folks, but this is about as bad as film making gets.

As someone who used to spend hours driving around the backstreets of North London in an attempt to avoid the horrific congestion, this film immediately appealed. Throw in my interest in what London was like back in the late 70s and you have the basic premise for my version of TV heaven! On paper the film ticked all the right boxes, and having just watched "The Knowledge" the actual movie itself certainly lived up to, if not exceeded, my high expectations.<br /><br />Visually, I was surprised how different London looked back then (I lived in Islington in the 90s, long after gentrification had transformed the area). It truly came across as grimy, tatty and down-at-heel. London may still have bad housing estates, but the general feel of the place is much cleaner, brighter and pleasant nowadays (based on what this movie shows rather than my own memories).<br /><br />As for the story and the acting, well top marks obviously go to Nigel Hawthorne as The Vampire. Absolutely brilliant! He acts deliberately unpredictably, alternating between total straight-faced severity and surreal mindgames in order to unnerve the Knowledge Boys as he puts them through test after test.<br /><br />All in all this was an excellent, thoroughly enjoyable trip back into a very specific time and place that I find endlessly fascinating. But even if you're not especially interested in London circa 1979, you'll still enjoy following the witty dialogue and likable characters of "The Knowledge".

I watched Free Money last night & it was the longest 90+ minutes of my life. With such an intriguing cast, I really thought that I was in for a treat - especially since I'm a Brando fan. WRONG! What a waste of talent. It's almost embarrassing to watch at times (like the cattle prod scene), & there were so many missed opportunities for humorous setups (why didn't they show Charlie Sheen's character going back to tow Brando's truck?) Ugh. It tries to be a slapstick comedy, but I just wasn't buying into it. Skip this one. Only for die-hard Brando fans.<br /><br />I'm giving it 2 out of 10 because I still think the worse movie ever made was Skidoo.

Trick or Treat, Quickie Review This zany romp of a film revolves around the 80's culture of Heavy Metal and horror movies--two things which I love dearly. So, as you can imagine, this movie appealed to me pretty easily. Plus, for no apparent reason, Ozzy Osbourne plays a preacher.<br /><br />This film is about an unpopular high school youth who, like all us losers, ended up drenched in a world of "evil" Heavy Metal. His favorite Metaldude dies and, of course, is miraculously resurrected--by playing his latest unreleased album backwards. This allows the corpsified singer to go around killing people with demons and sh*t helping out.<br /><br />Okay, it's pretty cheesy at times, but you know what? It's got a surprising number of good qualities. Decent acting (including Gene Simmons as a radio DJ), pretty good special effects, very brief nudity, decent atmosphere... All in all, it's actually a decent horror film. But what really sucks is the music. Ironic, huh? Well, this "uber-evil" Metal guy is one of the most obnoxious, high-pitched, wailing, Motley Crue rejects on the planet--and the "Metal" is little more than putrid 80's Pop/Hair Metal. He hits all the cliché's here, from prancing around like a gay fairy, to looking mean, to screaming "Rock and Roll!!!" in a pitch high enough to make King Diamond retch. Aside from that atrocious musical representation, it's actually pretty good. 7/10<br /><br />www.ResidentHazard.com

The beginning voice over sounds like 'The Wind' could be quite an intriguing movie, but as the story unfolded I knew it was downhill from there. The major things about this movie that blew were the terribly bad acting jobs all the main characters did, (except for a few scenes involving the inner turmoil of Mic), there was a total lack of character development and absolutely no point to the plot - What were the writers thinking?<br /><br />Michael Mongillo won 2 'horror/sci fi' awards for 'The Wind'. HUH? What was so scary about this movie? NOTHING! Except for the resident evil 2 video shots, the rest was more of a 'made for t.v thriller' - it wouldn't even have to be edited. If you want a far better movie about 'murder among friends' rent "Shallow Grave" instead.<br /><br />'The Wind' */*****

As winter approaches, our state-owned broadcaster, the ABC, has decided for some reason to have a partial Jane Austen Festival on Sunday nights. This commenced with a twelve-year old movie length version of "Emma" last Sunday; more recent versions of three other novels, "Persuasion", "Northanger Abbey" and "Mansfield Park" are to come.<br /><br />The curious thing about this production by A&E Television Networks, with script by the ever-reliable Andrew Davies, is that it appeared almost simultaneously with two much bigger budget movie versions, one starring Gwyneth Paltrow, and "Clueless", a "modernized" version, starring Alicia Silverstone, which transported the plot to Beverly Hills. Perhaps as a result, even with Kate Beckinsale in the lead, this production sank without trace.<br /><br />As a general rule, much is lost when novels are shrunk to fit feature movie length. The adaptations one tends to both enjoy and remember are those which have adequate room to develop both story and characters. An outstanding example is "Brideshead Revisited" which had 13 50-minute episodes back in 1982. You only have to compare the very ordinary movie-length version of "Pride and Prejudice" in 2005 with the brilliant 1995 six-part TV mini-series. It's not that a novel should be filmed page by page, and some novels (often not very good ones) adapt wonderfully to film ("Atonement" is a recent example), but novels of the Jane Austen sort need some time and space to exert their full charm.<br /><br />Given the shortcomings of this type of adaptation, this production is OK. Kate Beckinsale gives Emma the right mix of self-assuredness and vulnerability and Mark Strong is a forthright Mr Knightly (he reminded me that Jane tended to recycle characters – Knightly is a more articulate version of the moody Mr Darcy of P&P). Samantha Morton was a rather limp Harriet but Prunella Scales got the blabbermouth Miss Bates perfectly – Sybil Fawlty on speed. Bernard Hepton as Emma's feeble father was also excellent. We saw the damp countryside, the mud and the poverty as well as the posh interiors, in case anyone thought this was a particularly idyllic age for everybody.<br /><br />Even though this was a condensed adaptation it was oddly slow in places – some of the conversations were rather stilted, even allowing for the formalities of the times. I'd have to look at the film again to be sure, but it might be due to the under-use of reaction shots.<br /><br />If you do like filmed period stuff this is a perfectly nice example, and compares well with the Paltrow version. Anyway, there is more to come!

hello everyone, all i have to say is that Human Traffic and all of its characters are so real its funny. I live in Australia (melbourne) and I'm finally out of the clubbing and staying out all weekend lifestyle. This movie explains everything that is currently going on in the world. So exactly that i cant stop watching it.... I used to be exactly like Moff, so my friends said and i hadn't even seen the movie.. I left the weekend partying behind about 3 months ago after 4 years of intense partying to change my life around.. I was at a DVD store when i saw Human Traffic and i remember my old friends going on an on about it, so i bought it to see what all the fuss was about.. I was so into it i watched it 4 times in a row because i couldn't believe that someone had made a movie that explains everything to a T. Anyways this movie is by far the best and funniest movie i have ever seen.. Its funny because its so truthful in everything that goes on in the movie.. AND Moff is a legend!!! Thats all i have to say.. :) Enjoy 11/10 blew my socks off at how real it was, its exactly whats going on in the world.. hr rm i jabber a lot<br /><br />take care everyone...

Writer/Director Bart Sibrel bases his work here around a can of film that he says was mistakenly sent to him by NASA. He says it shows the astronauts faking the television footage of their trip to the moon by employing camera tricks. The astronauts were in low Earth orbit all the time, and editors on the ground composed this raw footage into just a few seconds of finished film.<br /><br />Unfortunately Sibrel's research is so slipshod that he doesn't realize his "backstage" footage is really taken in large part from the 30-minute live telecast (also on that reel) that was seen by millions, not hidden away in NASA vaults as he implies. And we have to wonder why Sibrel puts his own conspiratorial narration over the astronauts' audio in the footage, because hearing the astronauts in their own words clearly spells out that the astronauts were just testing the camera, not faking footage.<br /><br />Finally, anyone can see the raw footage for themselves without having to buy Sibrel's hacked-up version of it. (He shows you more of the Zapruder film of JFK's assassination than of his "smoking gun".) Sibrel thinks he's the only one who's seen it. What's more revealing is the clips from that raw footage that Sibrel chose NOT to use, such as those clearly showing the appropriately distant Earth being eclipsed by the window frames and so forth, destroying his claim that mattes and transparencies were placed in the spacecraft windows to create the illusion of a faraway Earth.<br /><br />As with most films of this type, Sibrel relies on innuendo, inexpert assumption, misleading commentary, and selective quotation to manipulate the viewer into accepting a conclusion for which there is not a shred of actual evidence.

This police procedural is no worse than many others of its era and better than quite a few. Obviously it is following in the steps of "Dragnet" and "Naked City" but emerges as an enjoyable programmer. The best thing about it is the unadorned look it provides into a world now long gone...the lower class New York of the late 40's/early 50's. Here it is in all its seedy glory, from the old-school tattoo parlors to the cheap hotels to the greasy spoons. These old police films are like travelogues to a bygone era and very bittersweet to anybody who dislikes the sanitized, soulless cityscape of today.<br /><br />Also intriguing is the emphasis on the nuts-and-bolts scientific aspect of solving the crime...in this case, the murder of a tattooed woman found in an abandoned car. Our main heroes, Detectives Tobin and Corrigan, do the footwork, but without the tedious and painstaking efforts of the "lab boys", they'd get nowhere. Although the technology is not in the same league, the cops here use the dogged persistence of a C.S.I. investigator to track down their man.<br /><br />The way some reviewers have written about this movie, you think it would have been directed by Ed Wood and acted by extras from his movies. What bosh! I enjoyed John Miles as the gangly ex-Marine turned cop Tobin...he had a happy-go-lucky, easy-going approach to the role that's a welcome change from the usual stone-faced histrionics of most movie cops of the period. Patricia Barry is cute and delightful as his perky girlfriend who helps solve the crime. Walter Kinsella is stuffy and droll as the older detective Corrigan. I rather liked the chemistry of these two and it made for something a bit different than the sort of robotic "Dragnet" approach.<br /><br />The mystery itself is not too deep and the final chase and shoot-out certainly won't rank amongst the classics of crime cinema, but during it's brief running time, "The Tattooed Stranger" more than held my interest.

After "Beau travail", everybody was waiting for Claire Denis to make a follow-up masterpiece that never arrived. Now it has. Denis makes a quantum leap in this film, an orgy of gorgeous cinematography, elliptical editing and willfully obscure narrative events that feels strange and acts even stranger. There's a nominal plot (derived partly from the Jean-Luc Nancy book of the same name) about a mature man in need of a heart transplant and who seeks a Tahitian son he abandoned long ago; but mostly it's an exploration of the idea of intrusions personal and cultural. It takes a couple of viewings to fully comprehend, and has pacing problems close to the end, but it's still more advanced and gripping than anything else I've seen this year. Miss it at your peril.

It's not really about wine. No, Nossiter's real targets are those who would streamline and assimilate the peculiarities of local (wine) production for business purposes. To this end he has made an excellent, objective film. Spirited, bumptious, emotional and flawed independent wine producers are juxtaposed with media-finessed, anodynesprech Amercians and auld-Europeans: the art of wine-making against market-driven, laboratorised product manufacture. It's an open show that doesn't lead conclusion.<br /><br />Nossiter's film is occasionally infuriating to watch - cameras are neither concealed, nor steadicam, by any means. There are also plenty of captions as well as subtitles to wade through, often too short a time on screen.<br /><br />However it does outdo Michael Moore at the game Moore can't play anyway. The characters speak for - and therefore condemn - themselves. Well worth a viewing 7/10

I've been a huge fan of the Cky videos, Jackass, and Viva La Bam for a long time. They've had a great run and I expected my laughter to end, eventually. But, it hasn't yet. This movie kept my mouth open the entire time. I'm still laughing, randomly. I went to the theater with low expectations, thinking it wasn't going to be better than the first. Oh, how incredibly wrong I was.<br /><br />There were many great moments in the movie. If you're squeamish, don't like randomly placed raw humor, or if you disliked the first movie, you probably won't like this. But, with that said, I almost wet my pants from laughing so hard. It had all kinds of different pranks, masochistic humor, toilet humor, puking, laughing, some great falls and massive damage done to all of the cast. Ryan Dunn even branded Bam's rear end with an image that will be stuck there for a long time. I'm sure you can only imagine how raw this movie is.<br /><br />No pain, no gain? Right? This movie has already done well, causing theaters all over America to laugh so hard, they'll be wishing it could last longer. I know I did. This movie did not feel short, at all, especially with the credits continuing the footage. But, I still wish it could've gone on forever. Now, let's just wait and see when they release Jackass Number 3! Overall, an excellent film, if you can get past the male nudity and a few sickening images. Keep your kids out of this film. They don't need to see this, at least until they are older. Support the crew and BUY THIS when it comes out on DVD! I know I will.

This sequel is quite awful to be honest. I'm a fan of kung-fu movies and this is by far the worst I've seen. Bride with White Hair 1 was actually quite good and this is a huge disappointment. BWWH 1 was brilliant in some ways with an unique odd-ball evil bad guy.<br /><br />The couple from the first movie played a small role in this movie. Instead the movie revolves around a bunch of uninteresting characters trying to seek revenge on their fallen clans. But there's no antagonist in this movie so the revenge is mute.<br /><br />The worst part to this movie is the kung-fu or lack there of. They literally had a street style knife fight. The character at the end refused to fight because there was lack of choreography.

Alien was excellent. Many writers tried to copy it. They all did a bad job (or almost). But Dead Space is the worst Alien copy. Because of the bad actors, the bad special effects, the BAD scenario and other bad stuff (it would take about 3 pages to tell everything that is bad in this film. The movie wasn't very long and this is a very good thing (the only one). You cannot laugh because it is too serious...that is a bad thing because, in almost each B-series sci-fi film, you can laugh during the whole time. It can be terrific sometimes, but instead of watching this stupidity, just watch Alien or Event Horizon...these are much better!!! I give it 1 out of 5.

I've tried to watch this so-called comedy, but it's very hard to bear. This is a bad, narrow-minded, cliché-ridden movie. Definitively not funny, but very much boring and annoying, indeed. Bad script, bad acting. It's a complete waste of time - and there remains nothing more to say, I'm afraid.<br /><br />1 out of 10 points.

An art teacher comes across an antique wooden bed made from gingko trees and puts it in his apartment, but it has a terrible history and he becomes hunted by a ancient spirit who sustains his human form by ripping the hearts out of people.<br /><br />This beautifully crafted horror… well, actually it's more fantasy/romance than anything else does raise some chills and provide some stunning visuals, but the plot was hardly interesting enough and the formulaic script lacked any sort of life. Problem was that I spent most of the time trying to keep my finger away from the fast forward button. It sure would have sped up the film's slow pacing, but then again I wouldn't know about too much that was going on, which was reasonably hard to figure out or keep interest in the first place. The performances ranged from too melodramatic or just plain dull, and that's probably because these characters are unconvincing, stale and coma inducing. The actual back-story of the old bed and the spirits is incredibly boring and messily put together, with too much focus on a flimsy romance, being laughable when it shouldn't be and overall it's constructed in an ordinary manner that just lacks the oomph or conviction to carry the film. What compensates for the story's shortcomings are really arty images, which looked grand, but the use of some images had me somewhat dumbfounded to what they actually mean towards the film. What catches your eye is the faded colour scheme, but sometimes the actual screen would look real grainy, or snowy. Although, from that it shows the raw intensity of the production valves, but also add some nice polished effects that goes well with the soothing but sometimes edgy score. The camera work was pretty diverse (although it didn't add too much to the feature), but during some of the more upbeat scenes there were too many close ups or dark lighting which made it hard to understand what you are seeing. Also on show are some nice moments of blood and gore, but not overtly grand or distinguishable from most other films.<br /><br />Lethargically odd film, with luminous images that look like something out of a painting, but still it isn't particularly enticing. Watch out, it might put you in a deep trance!

The first time I saw this movie, it didn't seem to go anywhere. When I watched it a second time though, it made a lot more sense. Give it a chance, watch it more than once, there are a lot of key elements that shape the story that could be missed the first and even second time watching it. The Cohen brothers brilliantly weave actual happenings of the early 20th century into this story to make a believable setting and storyline. The combination of Clooney's leading role blends well with Turturro and Nelson's supporting acts. John Goodman's appearance in the movie is hilarious. The soundtrack is great as well. This movie has become a household favorite for my family. 10/10, for sure.

Although I'm not crazy about musicals, COVER GIRL is a delight for classic movie buffs and especially for fans of Rita Hayworth and Gene Kelly. The film may be dated by today's standards and the story and songs may be nothing special, but the musical numbers are magnificently staged and there's a terrific cast to go with the film. Plus, the film is a worthy introduction for fans of Rita Hayworth...she's simply breathtaking in glorious Technicolor.<br /><br />Despite Jerome Kern's collaboration with the film, his music here is nowhere near as special or memorable as his songs in SWING TIME (1936), yet the songs serve the film well. The dancing is nothing short of excellent, especially coming from Gene Kelly's solo number and my favorite musical number, "Alter-Ego Dance." The amusing Phil Silvers nearly steals the film as Kelly's partner. Otto Kruger, Eve Arden, and Edward Brophy give good performances in their dramatic supporting roles. And Rita plays a sweet, charming girl here; a role that's a far cry from her femme fatale babes in films like BLOOD AND SAND (1941).<br /><br />All in all, this is a delightful film that's worth watching even if you're not big on musicals. Yet the film's music could have been more memorable if only my favorite period songwriters, Irving Berlin or Cole Porter, wrote the songs for this film. However, it's the glorious Technicolor cinematography and the imaginative dancing that are the real treats of the film's production.<br /><br />While I was watching Rita Hayworth do her stuff, I don't think I've ever seen a more beautiful or graceful redhead dance on the screen since I saw Moira Shearer in Michael Powell's masterpiece, THE RED SHOES (1948). Just watch Rita in COVER GIRL and fall in love with her.

In a variant of Sholay , Ram Gopal Verma ventures into what can be called an unknown territory where the blockbuster takes a new shape. The Thakur goes south.Mohanlal as Narsimha the police inspector whose family has been killed seeks vengeance Madrasi style. The accent is totally South Indian in contrast to Thakur from the north. The severing of the hands of Thakur by Gabbar is also cut down to the fingers in Aag. So make up costs are cut down because there is no effort to hide the hands instead only a long shouldered Kurta covers up for the cut fingers. Moreso in the climax where the Thakur uses his legs and says"Tere Liye to mere paer hi kaafi hai" here Narsimha uses his finger stubs to fire a gun and kill the villain. Babban, the new avtar of gabbar is also different. He is not from Bihar or UP. He is Bambaiya. Gabbar's infamous laugh is also in two instalments this time and is more subdued. Babban asks for Diwali instead of Holi and romances Urmila the replacement of Helen in Mehbooba. he also dances and enjoys dancing with Abhisheh who plays Jalal Agha in Mehbooba.Babban is more intelligent this time. He tosses the apple and asks the question that made Isaac Newton discover laws of gravitation. Basanti is more verbose than the Auto driver Ghungroo. Nisha Kothari cannot play the auto driver and looks too artificial using words like 'entertain' and 'too much' with gay abandon. Viru was fun whereas Ajay Devgun is a misfit for the role. The God Speaks to Basanti incident and the shooting lessons and the Koi Haseena song and the water tank sequences are painful. The water tank turns into a well and the drunk Devgun is so bad in the sequence that the audience would have wanted him to commit suicide. Jai was composed and serious. Prashant Raj is better than the others because we do not expect anything from him. But he also bungles on the Mausi sequence. He is not as romantic as Jai with the mouth organ . Jaya's role played by Sushmita changes careers. A pure housewife turns into a doctor this time plunging into full time social service after her husband is killed. She too lacks the pain that Jaya displayed. Her flirtations with Jai are more open this time. Samba gets a bigger role this time as Tambe. He does not have to point guns and answer questions of Gabbar this time. He follows Babban wherever he goes and is a bodyguard with more visibility outside the den. Horses give way to Jeeps and auto. The Gabbar's hideout here keeps changing and Ramgarh becomes Kaliganj. All in all it is more of a spoof than anything else. RGV comes up with his own interpretation of the classic. But we remember the original so well even after three decades that our minds refuse to accept stylized versions and changed dialogues. So we call it a spoof. So Mr.RGV(Sholay ) and Farhan Akhtar (Don) and JPDutta(Umrao jaan) stop making remixes and start making originals.

Oh, what fun there is here! <br /><br />Amy Heckerling has a flair for directing comedy (Fast Times at Ridgemont High, Look Who's Talking) but here it looks like she told the actors to go out and have fun. Micheal Keaton breezes through the role of Johnny, easily his best screen performance. Joe Piscopo is great as the appropriately named Danny Vermin, what a shame directors didn't pick up on this. And I have even mentioned Richard Dimitri playing Moronie and the character's unique vocabulary. I don't think it's an accident that the bulk of the character's name is spelled MORON.<br /><br />Good lines are sprinkled throughout the movie, with Peter Boyle, Griffit Dunne.Maurren Stapleton, Merilu Henner given good lines. Even actors with minor roles like Dick Butkus and Alan Hale get in a good lines.<br /><br />recommend it to a friend.

I have witnessed some atrocities of cinema. In the past couple of years, it seems producers and directors are bent on making films that drive me closer and closer to insanity. Hannibal was not an exception. I wasn't expecting much, when I went in to see the movie. The book was ridiculous, and the saying, "The Book is always better than the movie" did not assure me at all that this movie would be anything but trash. But what I came to see was a movie that made all other bad movies seem better in comparison.<br /><br /> Usually, when I see a terrible movie, I find myself more amused than anything else. Sadly though, I could not even laugh at the sad excuse for a film that Hannibal is. The movie was filmed with promise, I guess. It had Anthony Hopkins, Julianne Moore, and Gary Oldman. And for directing, there was Ridley Scott. There have been movies with significantly less talent that have been tremendously better. There was so much I would have cut from this film that I doubt anything would have remained. It was pathetic. The storyline was so ludicrous that it seemed like a complete idiot had written it. What's worse is that the book was even crazier, and there were some scenes that were too extreme to be included, which is sad in the case of a movie where<br /><br />***SPOILER AHEAD*** <br /><br />Ray Liotta's brain was being cooked in pieces. That scene more than any other made me want to cry, because it tarnished its predecessor to such a monumental level. Silence of the Lambs was one of my favorite films of all time. But Hannibal was a two hour plus joke. This movie should only be watched, if people want to learn how not to write a good movie.

Go see this movie for the gorgeous imagery of Andy Goldsworthy's sculptures, and treat yourself to a thoroughly eye-opening and relaxing experience. The music perfectly complements the footage, but never draws attention towards itself. Some commentators called the interview snippets with the artist a weak spot, but consider this: why would you expand on this in a movie, if you can read Andy's musings at length in his books, or attend one of his excellent lectures? This medium is much more suitable to show the ephemeral nature of the artist's works, and is used expertly in this respect.

Thankfully as a student I have been able to watch "Diagnosis Murder" for a number of years now. It is basically about a doctor who solves murders with the help of his LAPD son, a young doctor and a pathologist. DM provided 8 seasons of exceptional entertainment. What made it different from the many other cop shows and worth watching many times over was its cast and quality of writing. The main cast gave good performances and Dick Van Dyke's entertainer roots shone through with the use of magic, dance and humor. The best aspects of DM was the fast pace, witty scripts and of course the toe tapping score. Sadly it has been unfairly compared to "Murder, She Wrote". DM is far superior boasting more difficult mysteries to solve and more variety. Now it is gone TV is a worse place. Gone are the days of feelgood, family friendly cop shows. Now there is just depressing 'gritty' ones.

Japanese animators have a unique freedom with animation, which is why they tend to be able to come out with movies like these, movies that ultimately end up on anime-fans hard-drives and college student's floors, but get completely ignored by pretty much anybody outside of its country of origin. Cat Soup is one of those films that, from Western eyes, is supposed to be experienced on drugs or deeply analyzed. Really, it's just a beautifully detailed surrealist journey.<br /><br />There's no real dialog, which makes it easy to pass on to other interested parties uninterested in things like subtitles. A cat and his half-dead (brain-dead?) sister travel through various landscapes of imagination and association. There's a general theme of water, or lack thereof (possibly because of the cat drowning at the beginning? Possibly because of the title?). There's an interesting sort of Genesis take. There's a pig that gets to eat itself. An elephant made of water. And it's gorgeous, compelling, exciting, and fun--provided you don't watch it around druggies who cannot experience anything visually unique without comparing it to an acid trip. Eventually the movie turns itself off, adding another compelling self-reflexive level to the proceedings.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB

I can accept the fact this was the NEXT karate kid so Ralph Macchio can be happily retired from the series, and while Hillary Swank is great for the role....the plot to the movie is just dreadful.<br /><br />Mr. Miyagi's old buddy from World War 2 dies, leaving his widow to take care of her rebellious grand-daughter when her parents die in an accident. The girl has no discipline yet is the hero because the local ROTC...which I'll explain in a minute, has it out to get her. You know the drill...Miyagi takes her under his wing and in the end they beat the bad guys and everyone lives happily ever after.<br /><br />Its hokey, its cheesy, its the 90's....but that's not even the long and the short of it. My first case of "huh?" is why is there a "military division" in high school? I thought that stuff went out in the 1960's, especially in a public school. As much as Michael Ironside kicks booty in his role as the main heel, since when is military involved in a high school? My next gripe is that during the prom scene, the militants bungee jump to scare the crap out of people....why? The thing I noticed throughout all 4 movies was at the very end the heels suddenly turn face after all the nonsense they put the main character through (Billy in part 1, Sato in part 2, Kreese in part 3). This movie is no different. After Ned and cronies basically sabotage the senior prom, blow up Eric's car and threaten Hillary Swank the whole movie.....Ironside tells them to beat her up and they're like "um...no" If you're gonna do pathetic face turns, at least make sure the characters haven't done anything too over the top such as blowing up a hot rod.<br /><br />As for the rest of the love plot between Eric and Hillary Swank....corny but nothing to melodramatic, which is a breath of fresh air from the garbage Ralph Macchio pulled in the first 3 movies.<br /><br />I will say for its own movie, after watching the first 3 movies, I can accept it being more or less a spin off...but I can't accept the whole military thing, way too uncommon for it to be taken seriously. Now if Ironside and crew was a wrestling/football team and he was the coach, THAT would have been more believable.<br /><br />Ironside and Morita deliver the goods, Swank is OK...the rest are the same as anything, the one highlight is when they blow up the hot rod, THAT was cool 4 out of 10

This is not a commentary on the actual movie, but on the RUSCICO DVD release for North America. I don't know if there have been different releases and updates, but the disks we rented had a 2000 copyright on them, if that means anything. Anyway, the sound mixing on these DVD's was absolutely horrible. The levels often yo-yo-ed up and down; when the scene cut to a battlefield panorama, the orchestral track would thunder so loudly that I didn't know which would blow out first -- my eardrums or my speakers. When it was time for dialog, the volume would usually drop to something barely audible. Occasionally, the orchestra and Foley-work would stay loud while the dialog was superimposed at a much lesser level. My wife and I found that the only way we could watch this movie at all from these DVD's was if one of us kept a hand on the remote to continuously modulate the volume. And, like another user has already commented, when we selected English audio the dialog kept switching back and forth between Russian and English; and occasionally when the characters spoke in French on the native track the dubbing was in Russian, so you're SOL if you understand neither. Ultimately, we gave up watching after the first disk. Before you fork out $50+ for this movie on DVD for your own library, I'd heartily recommend getting your hands on a rental copy to see whether you can really enjoy this epic flick when burdened by such bad sound, particularly if you've never read the book and really want to understand the storyline.

Ever sense i was a kid i have loved this movie. i have always been a fan of Joseph Mazzello. the kid had pure talent in both this movie and Jurassic Park. I have been looking for the DVD or VHS to purchase at a store near me i cant seem to find it i hope it goes on DVD! well anyways great movie. If anyone knows where i can find this please contact me at wrp24@adelphia.net . Also can anyone really explain what happened with bobby. was her real or was he fake and was he mikes imaginary friend and his escape? lol I'm clueless. my favorite part had to be definitely where they made the monster juice and spilled it all over the kitchen its funny but also a sad part as well because of what happens to bobby due to the mess.. i would've liked to see the boyfriends face because he played his part pretty good. i think the mother was a great actress i think her name is Lorraine Bracco or some sorta name like that.. well thats all please contact me<br /><br />wrp24

not really sure what to make of this movie. very weird, very artsy. not the kind of movie you watch because it has a compelling plot or characters. more like the kind of movie that you can't stop watching because of the horrifically fascinating things happening on screen. although, the first time my wife watched this she couldn't make it all the way through... too disturbing for her. runs a bit long, but nonetheless a worthwhile viewing for those interested in very dark movies.

This was on the Saturday before Halloween this year (today, at the time of this writing) and it has to be the best horror anthology out there. I am normally not a fan of horror movies - largely due to the volume of crap that's been recently released. However, the director of Campfire Tales has the Hitchcock-esquire gift of suspense - unlike other contemporary films, it doesn't take every opportunity to scare you silly, instead using foreshadowing and 'near-misses' - incidents that seem like the instant that the climax will occur in the instant before, but turn out not to be.<br /><br />I didn't catch 'The Hook' or the first main segment, but from what I have read here, they were the two you could afford to miss.<br /><br />'People Can Lick Too' was full of suspense - this short keeps you on the edge of your seat, waiting for something to happen to the little girl as she wanders about her yard and house looking for her soccer ball and later her dog. She encounters so many near-misses that the suspense reaches heart-stopping proportions before the climax of the short, when the girl gives up and goes to bed, thinking her dog is underneath it. She reaches her hand down to let him lick it, and she feels the touch of a tongue on her hand...before noticing that on her mirror, written in blood, is 'People can lick too'. I'll leave the last few seconds for you to find out, my reader, for at this point the short could have taken any number of turns.<br /><br />'The Locket', however, was the unarguable masterpiece of this film. It begins with a man on a motorcycle, simply driving...towards what he does not know, but he can feel himself getting closer. As he's driving along, a storm breaks out, and he's forced to find shelter in the house of a mute girl. The two quickly cozy up to each other, but before they can do anything besides kiss, the girl reveals through writing that ghosts inhabit her house. They quickly begin packing up to leave, but they are caught in the middle of a reenactment of a scene decades past - a father, coming home to his daughter and her boyfriend preparing to elope, murders the both of them and then commits suicide. I'll have to leave you to discover the ending here as well - I couldn't hope to do the story justice in any case, and what I've said so far is just a brief summary of the story - I couldn't hope to convey the nuances and sensory details that add to it.<br /><br />'The Campfire', being the connecting thread between all of the stories, is a fairly interesting rehash of the car accident theme, and the girls are very much attractive - in fact, most of the girls in this film are good-looking. Anyway, despite the fact that it's chopped up, the story is given justice, and the ending is difficult to predict if you're preoccupied with the other stories. However, if you pay enough attention to the segments of The Campfire spread through the film, it's certainly possible to predict the ending, especially if you've seen movies based on the same premise. (MST3k fans, remember Soultaker? Same premise, but without the god awful writing of Vivian Schilling, and the bulk of the movie. If you've seen the first 30 minutes of that you should be able to predict the ending.) All in all, the best horror movie I've seen in a LONG time, and the only horror anthology worthy of a buy.

As a history of Custer, this insn't even close (Custer dies to help the indians? I am sure the other members of the 7th Cav weren't consulted in THAT decision.) But as a western, this is fun. Flynn looks, and acts, the part of the dashing cavalier. And the "Garry Owen" is always nice to hear!

I thoroughly enjoyed this true to form take on the Dick Tracy persona. This is a well done product that used modern technology to craft a imagery filled comic era story. If you are a fan of or recently watched some of the old Dick Tracy b&w movies then you're sure to get a kick out of this rendition. The pastel colors and larger than life characters rendered in a painstakingly authentic take on an era gone by is entertainment as it's meant to be. I personally find Madonna's musical element to be a major part of this film-the CD featuring her music from this movie is one I've listened to often over the years, it's just so well done and performed musically and tuned to that era. In my mind, Madonna's finest moment both on-screen but especially musically. This is sure to bring out the "kid" in you.

my name is Heather and i am the girl whose story this movie was based on. I want to thank all of you who saw this movie and enjoyed it. as crude and harsh as some of the things that were depicted in this movie were, it didn't really even come close to describing how bad things actually were. not to mention the affect everything had on my mother and little sister. thanks once again for the great comments that everyone had,i truly appreciate them<br /><br />Hi everyone!<br /><br />This is Heather's mom. It's hard to believe that so many years have gone by since this movie was made. Harder even to believe that people were still watching it a year ago. For any of you out there who have gone thru the same or similar kind of situation, please know that there are people out here in cyberspace that do understand completely how you feel. Our thoughts and prayers are with each and every one of you.

This movie is hilarious. The laughs never stop. Every scene is packed to the limit with hilarious comedy. Chris Farley is a comic genius, and Spade plays his character to a tee. Farley was one of the best slap stick comics ever, and in this movie(as with all his movies) we see how much time and energy he devoted to portraying his character the way he saw fit. "Tommy Boy" is an excellent example of a comedy, it always makes me laugh, no matter how many times I have seen it before.

I've watched this movie a number of times, and found it to be very good. This movie is also known as "Castle Of Terror", "Coffin Of Terror", and "Dance Macabre". Barbara Steele, is her usual beautiful/creepy self. George Riviere, the male lead, does a good job with his role. The whole movie is dripping with atmosphere, and there is a good deal of tension throughout. The camera angles are good and the acting, for the most part, isn't bad. This film is quite suitable for a rainy day or evening. I have the DVD uncut version, which is far superior to the edited TV version. Grab some popcorn, turn out the lights, settle back and enjoy. John R. Tracy

The acronymic "F.P.1" stands for "Floating Platform #1". The film portends the building of an "F.P.1" in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, to be used as an "air station" for transatlantic plane flights. Based a contemporary Curt Siodmark novel; it was filmed in German as "F.P.1 antwortet nicht" (1932), in French as "I.F.1 ne répond plus" (1933), and in English as "F.P.1" (1933). Soon, technology made non-stop oceanic travel much more preferable.<br /><br />Stars Conrad Veidt (as Ellissen), Jill Esmond (as Droste), and Leslie Fenton (as Claire) find love and sabotage on and off the Atlantic platform. Karl Hartl directed. Mr. Veidt is most fun to watch; but, he is not convincing in the "love triangle" with Ms. Esmond and Mr. Fenton. The younger co-stars were the spouses of Laurence Olivier and Ann Dvorak, respectively. Both the concept and film have not aged well. <br /><br />**** F.P.1 (4/3/33) Karl Hartl ~ Conrad Veidt, Jill Esmond, Leslie Fenton

I got encouraged to watch this film because I've heard good word of it: it was supposed to be this thrilling true crime milestone, disturbing, shocking... all that jazz. Well, I am disturbed because I spent money on it, and I am shocked that something so God-awful actually got released. That's about it.<br /><br />This is a supposed "new look" at Charles Manson's family of insane loser junkies and their murders. But if this is a "new look" then it's probably "new" as in "fresh and totally inept": just watching it gave me a headache and I had to give up trying to make any sense of it or even understand just what the director intended it to be.<br /><br />I suppose I should say something about the plot but fact is, it was so stupid and incoherent that I barely remember if there even WAS a plot at all. There was something about a "Manson tape" delivered to a radio DJ (or a TV producer?), then an hour of pointless random footage of "the family" in '69, then the Polanski murders (looking like a bad school play) and finally some idiotic part about a bunch of skinheads getting drunk and beating the hell out of one another in an alley (I kid you not), and then it ended (thank God) (Don't ask me to make any sense of that, I'm just recalling what I saw!) The performances were terrible, too. And how difficult is it to make a convincing "Manson"? Get a short skinny scrawny bloke, put a dirty wig and a shaggy beard on him. There's your Manson. But this "Manson" doesn't even look right. He just looks like, uh, a bloke in a cheap wig and a glued on Santa beard painted black.<br /><br />Or maybe that's what this film is actually about: Manson's family didn't make any sense, so this film doesn't make any sense, either. It's symbolic! (Yeah, right) I'm still so angry at spending money on this I stopped my normal lurking on this site and registered just to vote 1 for this film and post this warning that will hopefully prevent others from spending their money on this garbage. Stay away from it, it's not even worth renting.<br /><br />PS. The recent US TV production "Helter Skelter" got bad reviews here but I saw it last month (I saw the 1976 original too) and let me tell you, compared to "Manson Family", that new Helter Skelter is BRILLIANT and FLAWLESS. And I was disappointed in it! That's how bad "Manson Family" is: it makes a flawed and mostly disappointing TV movie look perfect.

Beats me how people can describe this adolescent exercise as film noir. True there's a gun & a bottle & a dame & the lead is a private eye, but that ain't what makes the genre, folks. This thing plays like reheated TV cop show stuff - lots of bloody beating & lousy continuity - with a dash of Chinatown memories thrown in. Pretty hard to watch beyond the first 10 minutes. You want contemporary feel, watch anything by John Dahl.

Let me clarify that. This is not a "good movie", but I am so glad it is out there, I am so glad I saw it, and for the role that it plays in my DVD collection, it is sublime. It is the ultimate PG-13 romp, it is college as we imagine it will be when we're freshmen in high school, it requires so much suspension of disbelief that it may as well be taking place on Mars. It is so wholesome that even when it tries to be dirty it wouldn't make your grandmother uncomfortable. Watching it requires so little sophistication, (in fact, thinking too hard about what's happening will get in the way of your appreciation of this work), it makes me feel like I'm 12 again. And that kind of experience is worth more than $9.99.

I absolutely hate the idea of made for television films . For me TVMs usually involve Jane Seymour or Jaclyn Smith as the mother of a sick child who is dying of a difficult to treat disease all done in such a sugary manner that the audience doesn`t need tissues it needs insulin . So when DEADLY VOYAGE a made for TV film by the BBC and HBO based on a true story I vaguely remembered from a couple of years previously turned up on the TV schedules I sat down waiting to be bored senseless . I was surprised.<br /><br />No strike that last sentence , I wasn`t surprised I was shocked . Here is a TVM that grips you tighter than a great white shark , in fact DEADLY VOYAGE doesn`t deserve to be relegated to the TV schedules it should have been made and distributed by a top Hollywood film company due its absolutely terrifying premise and what`s more it`s - unlike PAPILLON and SLEEPERS - completely true <br /><br />For those who don`t know the story !!!!! POSSIBLE SPOILERS AS TO PLOT !!!!! sometime in the early 90s a bunch of Africans stowed away on an Ukrainian freight ship bound for France in order to work there. Of course it was an attempt at illegal immigration but the crew of the freighter had already been fined for allowing illegal immigrants onto their ship from a previous journey and not wanting to get into anymore trouble with maritime and immigration authorities the crew murder the Africans after discovering them hiding in the hold. All except one African , Kingsley Ofusu , who manages to escape from the firing squad but who must try and survive aboard the ship , but the problem is the crew are hunting him and France is still several days voyage away .<br /><br />Just typing the above paragraph reminds of how good DEADLY VOYAGE is . What a remarkable story , and once again it is - unlike many stories that claim to be - totally true . It`s very well written , directed and acted , especially by Sean Pertwee ( Why isn`t that guy a big name star ? ) , and most of all it`s a tense claustrophobic disturbing thriller that I can still remember vividly six years after seeing it for the one and only time . I look forward to seeing again .<br /><br />But you`ve got to ask yourself how can a TVM be better than most of the Hollywood action blockbusters that came out round about the same time ? Oh hold on , I`ve just had a disturbing thought about Jerry Bruickhiemer doing a remake with Tony Scott directing and with Denzil Washington playing Kingsley , Brad Pitt playing Pertwee`s role , massive artistic licence taken with events etc. Let`s keep DEADLY VOYAGE a superlative TVM rather than a poor blockbuster

"The Gig" is a tight, funny and poignant little movie about a group of friends that have gathered together on a regular basis to play Dixieland for fun. The group unexpectedly lands a real paying job, in musician's parlance; a "gig".<br /><br />They travel to upstate NY for a two week gig at a summer resort minus one member, who bows out due to contracting cancer. At the last minute, they hire a professional to take his place. Things get sticky as an over-the-hill Frankie Valli type attempts a comeback at the resort and tries to utilize the group as his band.<br /><br />The attitude the professional bass player gave the guys rang true. By signing up to play the two-week gig, they were taking bread out of the mouths of someone who needed the job to feed his or her family. While Pop, Rock, Rap, Country and Western, and R&B stars make money off of albums. Jazz musicians have to travel abroad to make a living. Almost nobody gets rich. The guys living their dream also cost others a needed income.<br /><br />I believe that almost everyone who can play a musical instrument with some proficiency dreams about playing a paying "gig" one time or another, Woody Allen and Kevin Bacon are two popular examples of this amateur-to-professional crossover. I especially recommend this movie to anyone who has ever played music professionally. My mom, who was a musician, LOVED it.

Yes, it's another great magical Muppet's movie and I adore them all; the characters, the movies, the TV show episodes (it's the best comedy or musical TV show ever) and all the artists behind it. But here they did such a rare fatal mistake and I'm surely talking about the weird ending !! <br /><br />I think it's very dangerous to involve that much, in American drama, and end a love affair by marriage !! We, as all the poor viewers, feel so free or maybe happy for the absence of its annoyance, peevishness and misery ! So we all enjoy these stories which gather 2 cute heroes as couple in love without the legitimate bond like Mickey Mouse and Minnie, Superman and Lois Lane, Dick Tracy and Tess, etc. So with all of the previous couples and their likes I bet that you feel safe, serenity and peace. Therefore when you look at what the makers of this movie had already done you'll be as mad as me !<br /><br />They made the weak miserable creature (Kermit) marry his daily nightmare, the most vexatious female ever (Miss Piggy) ! This is a historical change by the measures of the American entertainment's industry ! And it was pretty normal to have a negative impact upon the audience whom just refused to bless or believe or being satisfied with that sudden marriage (even the pathetic frog didn't have the time or the proper opportunity to think or to decide anything !). Therefore no wonder at all when you know that this movie is the most failure one in their cinematic serious, grossing only 25 millions vis-à-vis 65 millions earned by the first one (The Muppet Movie – 1979) five years earlier !!<br /><br />Simply in this movie they took Manhattan, and my rest too !

This movie features some of the best ensemble work I've seen in film or on stage. The actors play off each other with a skill and vivacity that in no way can be achieved through editing.<br /><br />"Love Jones" a good story, period. But it is also an excellent portrayal of the urban, middle-income, twenty-something African-American set that is not often seen.

I have to say that Grand Canyon is one of the most affecting films I've ever seen. I've watched it several times now and I still feel as I did the first time; that this film, by itself, could make up the entire curriculum of a post-graduate course in film direction. <br /><br />A long time ago film trailers used to promise, "It'll make you laugh, it'll make you cry." That's a very trite and shorthand method of describing what Grand Canyon does. It takes you to the best places in human experience and the next moment takes you to the gates of hell. <br /><br />Much of the film is paced to cycle back and forth between people being close to happiness and the same people being close to horror. It's always a short step, too. Just to manage that swing with grace and without making it look false or exaggerated is directorial genius.<br /><br />Spoiler (of sorts) coming up. After getting the audience used to rocking back and forth through the emotional spectrum, the film throws a curve with a sequence that doesn't go from good to bad and back but instead escalates from an ordinary marital spat, through an accidental self-inflicted knife wound that may or may not require stitches, to an earthquake that has the characters run from the house. In the moment of their relief, argument forgotten, cut finger forgotten, the earthquake survived, a neighbor woman calls out that her elderly husband has collapsed. The couple rushes to his aid. I cried when I saw this sequence. I cried every time I saw it. I'm crying now. It isn't sadness that does this to me. It's not a particularly sad sequence. What tears me up is that this few minutes of film was PERFECT. That's PERFECT! Astounding. (end of spoiler)<br /><br />There's so much to say about Grand Canyon. It portrays relatively ordinary people experiencing epiphanies and it lets the viewer experience them vicariously. They aren't showy or overblown and there's no long pause to examine the moment carefully. The film moves on at the pace of life. Even when the characters do try to make sense of what has happened, they are uncertain of what to derive from their experience. <br /><br />Grand Canyon is a very human film.

This movie was awful. It centered too much around Eddie, Clark Griswald's brother-in-law. Eddie works much better when changing good quips such as in "Christmas Vacation" and "Vacation".<br /><br />I really don't understand how a movie like this would be given the thumbs up. Now, don't get me wrong, I like Randy Quaid, but just felt this movie was totally wrong for him and for the character in general. This movie leaves much to be desired and really needed some bigger name actors.

I saw this movie yesterday and can't stop thinking about it. I moved to Norway four months ago, and have tried ever since to find the origin of the strange emptiness i felt. When I saw this film I was striken with the brilliant snapshot of this society. Yes, this is all true!!! I too found a great job with a great pay, and I live with my norwegian boyfriend in a nice apartment downtown. But, so far everyone I have met have left me with that tasteless, empty feeling I had never had before - this is what this movie is about. Dinner parties with nothing to say to each other but emotionless comments, long silences, no stress, a creepy calm, and frozen smiles of niceness. This Scandinavian nightmare is perfectly rendered in Den Brysomme mannen. See this movie!!!

This is a typical Steele novel production in that two people who have undergone some sort of tragedy manage to get together despite the odds. I wouldn't call this a spoiler because anyone who has read a Steele novel knows how they ALL end. If you don't want to know much about the plot, don't keep reading.<br /><br />Gilbert's character, Ophelia, is a woman of French decent who has lost her husband and son in an accident. Gilbert needs to stop doing films where she is required to have an accent because she, otherwise a good actress, cannot realistically pull off any kind of accent. Brad Johnson, also an excellent actor, is Matt, who is recovering from a rather nasty divorce. He is gentle, convincing and compelling in this role.<br /><br />The two meet on the beach through her daughter, Pip, and initially, Ophelia accuses Matt of being a child molester just because he talked art with the kid. All of them become friends after this episode and then the couple falls in love.<br /><br />The chemistry between the two leads is not great, even though the talent of these two people is not, in my opinion, a question. They did the best they could with a predictable plot and a script that borders on stereotypical. Two people meet, tragedy, bigger tragedy, a secret is revealed, another tragedy, and then they get together. I wish there was more to it than that, but there it is in a nutshell.<br /><br />I wanted mindless entertainment, and I got it with this. In regard to the genre of romantic films, this one fails to be memorable. "A Secret Affair" with Janine Turner is far superior (not a Steele book), as are some of Steele's earlier books turned into film.

I survived the first hour of this and came back for the last ten minutes, just to say I saw the end. If you want *real* mythology, flawlessly executed, look for Armand Assante's "The Odyssey." Great storytelling doesn't need to be tweaked - the stories are fantastic on their own. I only hope Sean Astin needed the money. And Sophocles and Ovid must be whirling in their graves - wherever those may be.<br /><br />At least with Sorbo's version, the tongue was poked relentlessly in cheek - we knew it was mostly balderdash, but perhaps enough interest was generated in the backstory to send someone to the library.I'm surprised Halmi could turn out something so amusing (the TV series), and follow it with something so devoid of quality.

When you look at the cover and read stuff about it an entirely different type of movie comes to mind than what you get here. Then again maybe I read the summary for the other movie called "Mausolem" instead as there were two movies of this title released about the same time with both featuring plots that had key elements in common. However, reading stuff about that movie here I know I saw this one and not that one and that movie is even less what one would imagine a movie with that title would be about. I will be honest, I expect more of a zombie type picture and you get that in this movie to some degree. However, there is more stuff involving the occult and strange powers as the opening scene of the people being taken away by the coroner at the beginning of the film will attest to. The movie also has the old theme of kids going somewhere they do not belong to have some crazy party, in this case it is in fact a mausoleum. The other movie I do not think really has that key feature playing that prominent role in the movie and I see the score for this one is higher too, still it was just not the movie I was expecting.

I agree with one commentator who says that it's really impossible to review Glen or Glenda? objectively. If one does so, the film on its merits would have to be rated as fairly terrible given the hilarious, convoluted dialog, the generally mediocre to poor acting by the cast as well as the zero production values. Yet, such an assessment does not capture the absolutely riveting experience of watching this film as it unfolds. It isn't the fact that the subject of the film is transvestitism and that it was a controversial lifestyle choice in the 1950s. It's not even the plea for tolerance of people who embrace alternate life choices that fascinates except as an historic relic.<br /><br />No, what makes Glen or Glenda? still a fascinating film after 50 years is that Ed Wood laid his psyche bare in a way that so-called auteur directors like Hitchcock or Godard, despite their vastly superior talents, never did. In Glen or Glenda, Wood isn't afraid to reveal his own deeply conflicted feelings about being a transvestite despite the plea for tolerance for it through out the film. Indeed, the conclusion of the film suggest that Ed Wood's Glen character will be able to "kill" his Glenda female counterpart by transferring the feelings of love and affection Glen has for his feminine counterpart to his future wife, Barbara. The psychiatrist even reassures Glen and Barbara that as Glen makes that psychic transference, Glenda will disappear. So, while Wood could plead for tolerance of transvestites in general, he wasn't so sure of desiring it for himself.<br /><br />Moreover, Wood wasn't afraid of throwing everything else that crossed his mind on the screen. He did it with whatever stock footage he could get his hands on. If it didn't cohere, so what? What the viewer saw in Glen or Glenda especially was Ed Wood's imaginative world in all of its fundamental strangeness.<br /><br />The only comment I wish to add to my comment above is that my two-star rating is based solely on the objective evaluation criteria cited in the first paragraph. The oddly memeric effect the film has despite its technically atrocious qualities I don't think can be rated.

I watched this series on TV in 1990 and absolutely loved it (I was nine years old). I bought the first DVD box about six month ago and got the second a couple of days ago (thanks to my dear husband). Gosh...It was hard to get any sleep with all the thoughts in my head...what was gonna happen to Madeline and George etc. Slave issues and civil war has always fascinated me (a 25 year old Finn).I advise to read Slaves in the family by Edward Ball for those who want to take a peek in the past and try to understand what really happened.<br /><br />I'm not sure if I want to see Heaven and Hell after so many people have told here that it wasn't really that good.

Low budget horror about an evil force. Hard to believe in this day and age, but way back when this stuff actually used to get theatrical release! These days this sort of thing would either go direct-to-video or straight to cable. Shouldn't be too hard to avoid this one; who's ever heard of it?

In my opinion, this is a good example of the movie that could have been much better if it had been short 10 years earlier. I doubt it would benefit from modern technologies, but it would have looked much better if it was at least 90 minutes instead of 70.<br /><br />The artists and animated did a great job. In my opinion, this movie can boast the best background art and one of the best character design. Animation are extremely smooth and realistic. For the duration of the movie you believe in the world you see, so everyone did a great job. It can also boast one of the sexiest female animated characters, if not the sexiest, that beets typical anime girls with ease.<br /><br />Unfortunately, there are a couple of bad thins about this movie that will make it not so appealing at the moment. First, the plot and execution is comparable to contemporary adventure movies, and is really old-fashioned by modern standards. Second, due to the duration time it would benefit a lot from extra 20 minutes of dialogs. Finally, the setting is not so popular at the moment.<br /><br />Conclusion: a great alternative to another short story about Conan the Barbarian, but not to a novel.

Having grown up in New Jersey and having spent many a day and night on the gritty streets of New York in the 1970's, watching a film like "The Seven-Ups", or its kindred spirit, "The French Connection", always evokes fond memories of a time and place which, for some, might have been NYC's darkest hour, but which for me, in my early twenties, was always one fun-filled adventure after another. I truly miss those times. As one reviewer remarked, "This film very aptly captures the stark, cold, matter-of-fact feel of the NYC winter season, while keenly exposing the underbelly of the region's infamous underworld of crime and policing. A great snapshot of a place and a time and a culture.". A spot-on characterization of both the film and the city. The stellar attributes of this film -- the plot, the cast, the characters, and of course, the car chase -- are amply described in many of the reviews here, so I won't go into that except to say that one of my favorite moments occurs during the car chase, when the camera focuses on Richard Lynch riding shotgun to the maniacal Bill Hickman. The look of horror on Richard Lynch's face, along with the defensive gestures, are so out-of-character for an actor much better known as a source of terror rather than an object of it, that it is actually comical to watch. I get a chuckle out of it every time.

I know I'm in the minority, but...<br /><br />Uwe Boll is about as talented as a frog. Not even a toad; just a frog. He's reminiscent of about a hundred other no-talent hacks who churn out one useless crap-fest after another. <br /><br />This movie? Is a crap-fest. Slater's talent is only minimally utilized leading one to believe he's got other things (like his failed relationship) on his mind. Reid performs as if she has either forgotten her acting lessons, been severely hit on the head and MADE to forget her acting lessons, or has one of the worst directors in the history of film. I'm voting on the third choice, myself, although the other two are always possible. <br /><br />Uwe Boll has never done a single thing from which I've derived even the slightest pleasure. Frankly, I'm satisfied that he made this stinker. I was concerned with Bloodrayne competing with "Underworld: Evolution" for ticket sales. Now, I'm confident that Len Wiseman has nothing, and I mean NOTHING, to worry about.<br /><br />This rates a 1.0/10 rating for this messy, convoluted crap-fest, from...<br /><br />the Fiend :.

This movie is spoofed in an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. I think MST3K was at its best when they ripped this movie.<br /><br />Terrible acting, bad makeup, poor effects, chick in skimpy (1960's)underwear. I give it a 2.<br /><br />The villain is hard to understand due to the makeup. The assistant says things like 'not you' that sound like NACHOO!! (think sneezing). It's just poor oration. The long eyebrows are hilarious on one of the characters. <br /><br />I still don't know what 'The Projected Man' means in terms of the plot. I missed some of the beginning though. <br /><br />What is up with this 10 line minimum on posting??

It does seem like this film is polarizing us. You either love it or hate it. I loved it.<br /><br />I agree with the comment(s) that said, you just gotta "feel" this one.<br /><br />Also, early in the film, Tom Cruise shows his girlfriend a painting done by Monet--an impressionist painter. Monet's style is to paint in little dabs so up close the painting looks like a mess, but from a distance, you can tell what the subject is. Cruise mentions that the painting has a "vanilla sky". I believe this is a hint to the moviegoer. This movie is like that impressionist painting. It's impressionist filmmaking! And it's no coincidence that the title of the movie refers to that painting.<br /><br />This is not your typical linear plot. It requires more thought. There is symbolism and there are scenes that jump around and no, you're not always going to be sure what's going on. But at the end, all is explained.<br /><br />You will need to concentrate on this movie but I think people are making the mistake of concentrating way too hard on it. After it ends is when you should think about it. If you try to figure it out as it's unfolding, you will overwhelm yourself. Just let it happen..."go" with it...keep an open mind. Remember what you see and save the analysis for later.<br /><br />I found all the performances top notch and thought it to be tremendously unique, wildly creative, and spellbinding.<br /><br />But I will not critize the intelligence of those of you who didn't enjoy it. It appeals to a certain taste. If you like existential, psychedelic, philosophical, thought-provoking, challenging, spiritual movies, then see it. If you prefer something a little lighter, then skip it.<br /><br />But if you DO like what I described, then you will surely enjoy it.