Datasets:

mushroomsolutions

/

imdb_sentiment_3000_Test

like 0

Truly I Love Lucy as well...comedic genius yes.....MAME...NEVER...she was as ridiculous as Mame...as was the film adaptation of Divine Secrets of the Ya Ya sisterhood. Both just completely missed the point. Roslind Russell was, is and always will be the first and only Mame. Perhaps as a young starlet, Ball could have pulled off a role like this, where her inherent beauty and youth could have carried her through...but this seemed a desperate attempt from an aged star to show that she was still viable in the field. The reason there are sooo many more supporters of Russell's version (aside from the fact that you cant improve upon the original) is that Russell had presence, she absorbs every scene, whereas Lucille Ball might as well be a pattern on the wallpaper in Mame for all the attention she commands in the role.

It could be easy to complain about the quality of this movie (you don't have to throw cartloads of money at a movie to make it good, nor will it guarantee that it is worth watching) but I think that is totally missing the point. If your expecting fast cars, T&A or a movie that will spell itself out for you then don't watch this, you'll be disappointed and dumbfounded.<br /><br />This movie was thoroughly enjoyable, kept us on the edge of our seats and made us really think. The writer obviously put a lot of thought and research behind this movie and it shows through the end, just remember to keep an open mind.<br /><br />Note: the school scenes were all filmed at McMaster University and most of the rest was done in Toronto.

It is so bad, I can not tear myself away. I keep asking myself, "Why?" "Why?" with every scene.<br /><br />There is no continuity, but then again if you want to make a very overtly homosexual movie with a fetishistic attitude towards all things Big, Big boats, Big Boys, Big planes, then you don't have to worry about things like plot or character. I am baffled, and very concerned that the CAG looks so much like Richard Pryor. It seems wrong to put a Pryor look alike in such a terrible movie. But I can't tear myself away. This movie is the first movie I've ever reviewed. That is how phenomenally bad and bizarre it is. It motivated me to join this site. I have counted 50 main characters. Perhaps if I was stoned I could follow this, but as it is, I feel like I'm in some kind of never ending bad dream, where it is always 1988, and we were the greatest cocktry on earth.

As Ben Elton once observed, nothing goes quicker out of style than comedy. Steve Martin's latest offering - 'The Pink Panther 2' - recently opened to bad reviews and dismal box-office grosses, while Mike Myers' 'The Love Guru' seems to have won few admirers.<br /><br />In 1970, it was Jerry Lewis' turn to feel the pain of rejection ( ironically, his character in this film experiences a funny turn whenever anyone uses that word in his presence ) when 'Which Way To The Front?' effectively drove him off the big screen for almost a decade.<br /><br />In this World War Two comedy, he plays 'Brendan Byers 111', the richest man in the world, who wants to join the army to do his patriotic duty ( and also because he is bored with being successful ) but is rejected as he is medically unfit. He then decides to start his own privately funded army, recruiting other 4-F's.<br /><br />Decked out with ludicrous uniforms that look like those worn by 'International Rescue' in 'Thunderbirds', they go into training. Some good visual gags here. When they fire rocket launchers, they look pleased with themselves, until they learn they have just destroyed a Texaco oil station! Wishing to learn German, Brendan plays a long-playing record called 'Songs To Mein Kampf By'. When this army sits down to eat, instead of being in a draughty mess hall, they are in an opulent room decked out with a chandelier.<br /><br />John Wood is very funny as 'Finkel', Byers' ever-so English butler. His best scene is when he blackmails a Mafia-type gangster into teaching Byers' brigade to kill.<br /><br />The script was not by Jerry himself, but by Gerald Gardiner and Dee Caruso, author of a number of episodes of 'The Monkees'. 'Front' often has the look and feel of a television sitcom, indeed at times you almost expect to hear a laugh-track.<br /><br />Where it goes badly wrong is in the last thirty minutes when Byers replaces a top Nazi commander and, after ordering the Germans to withdraw from the front, gets involved in the plot to kill Hitler ( and Tom Cruise is nowhere in sight! ). As the commander, Jerry delivers a performance of such mind-numbing ineptitude as to defy description. He gives Brian Blessed a run for his money in the 'loudest man alive' stakes. It comes as a relief when the end credits appear.<br /><br />Perhaps the timing was just wrong - bringing out a war comedy when the Vietnam conflict was raging was not a good idea. Or the public simply had had enough of Jerry ( that beard probably did not help! ). What he needed here was a good producer, someone to take him in hand and say: "That gag stinks. Throw it out!". 'Don't Raise The Bridge, Lower The River' is a masterpiece by comparison with this picture.<br /><br />As the '70's got underway, the new comedy icons would be Woody Allen, Mel Brooks, and Monty Python - fresher, more biting and in Allen's case, more human styles of comedy replaced Jerry's brand of slapstick. It would not be until 1982 that he would make anything like a successful comeback - as the conceited talk-show host 'Jerry Langford' in Martin Scorcese's brilliant 'The King Of Comedy'.

This movie was advertised on radio, television, magazines, etc. Almost every hour or every issue. So when we went to the Kinnepolis multiplex our expectations were very high. But oh boy, how sad this movie is! It is a movie in Hollywood style about a movie in a movie. Shades shows so clear we aren't ready to produce 'big Hollywood movies'. I am not a movie critic, but I think a good movie starts with a good script. And the script is a nightmare. Like my subject line says, it is nothing, and then looped. You could just stare to the television as well, without really seeing anything. That was the feeling we've got when we saw Shades. Shades is a BAD PRODUCTION!!!

Probable reasons why so many people on this site have enjoyed this:<br /><br />1. They might not have read the book. 2. They might enjoy gore and violence in a film. 3. They might be very young and therefore not understand the violence. 4. People might not understand how somehow more scary and more violent it is compared to the original book. 5. There are sure to be many other reasons not covered here.<br /><br />The only thing I liked about this film is the song "'Bright Eyes".<br /><br />If perchance, you happen to be one of those people who has read the book, enjoys calm and peaceful films without violence and are quite old and understand scariness and violence, you are sure not to like this. Otherwise you will almost definitely enjoy this.<br /><br />Like in the book, a rabbit called Fiver in an unsuspecting warren warns of terrible danger to come. Only a few rabbits - including his brother Hazel - believe him and they set out on a dangerous journey to find a new place to live...

Most of this political thriller presented as a mostly run of the mill movie with a somewhat better development of many of the major characters, that was much appreciated, until the BIG twist and powerful climax that recalled twists experienced in "Silence of the Lambs," or "The Sixth Sense." Reese Witherspoon as the distraught wife of the missing Egyptian husband and Yigal Naor as the strong-armed interrogator offer strong performances. Jake Gyllenhaal unfortunately is handed a more two-dimensional character and has to struggled with a stereotypical presentation of the emotionally torn CIA analyst that has been presented many times before in other movies. Early on there is the nice scene with an explosion that resembles a scene at the end of "Saving Private Ryan," the silent scene that was used so effectively in reflecting one consequence of violence. The script also provides a little more glimpse into the mind-set of the "enemy" but still doesn't allow the audience really much understanding, again permitting the audience to wallow in stereotypical characterization. The cinematography and photography also is somewhat of a letdown because unlike "Jarhead," or "Blackhawk Down," the crisp, raw visceral presentation is missing not allowing the audience to really be there in the movie, there is some distance that keeps the audience from realizing the intensity of the emotions occurring on the screen. However, overall, the movie redeems itself by the end, offering the audience a measured look into the complexity of the United States' use of rendition and the possible complications and consequences that may occur through its use. Eight out of Ten Stars.

This was a truly insipid film. The performances are third rate, and the dialogue is so stilted that at times it seemed to have just rolled over and died. My reason for renting this was simple: Find a movie with scriptwriting. I needed a visual aid for my presentation, so I figured why not use a clip? Boy was I wrong. After searching my local video store, I came upon this, where it was suspiciously titled "Starstruck". I thought, "What the hey", and decided to give it a try. Well, I was very unhappy with my results. There was maybe one scene I could use, and meanwhile, I was practically falling asleep because of the sheer banality of the flick. So.....I took this back and picked up Ed Wood. There's a movie I can use as an example. Then again, anything would be presentable compared to the drivel that is "Starfucker".

This is quite possibly the worst sequel ever made. The script is unfunny and the acting stinks. The exact opposite of the original.

DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE IF YOU LOVED THE CLASSICS SUCH AS TOM WOPAT, JOHN SCHNEIDER, CATHERINE BACH, SORRELL BOOKE, JAMES BEST, DENVER PYLE, SONNY SHROYER, AND BEN JONES! THIS MOVIE WILL DISSAPPOINT YOU BADLY! First of all, this movie starts out with Bo and Luke running moonshine for Jesse. Bo and Luke would not do that ever on the real series! This movie portrays unimaginable characters doing things that never would have happened in the series. In the series, Uncle Jesse was honest, and law-abiding. In this movie, he is a criminal who is making moonshine and smoking weed with the governor of Georgia. Plus, if this was an extension adding on to the Dukes of Hazzard Reunion! and the Dukes of Hazzard in Hollywood, I have one question: HOW COULD UNCLE JESSE BE MAKING MOONSHINE WHEN HE DIED BEFORE THE DUKES OF HAZZARD IN Hollywood MOVIE? AND HOW IS BOSS HOGG ALIVE WHEN HE DIED BEFORE THE REUNION MOVIE IN 1997! MOVIE AND ROSCO RAN HAZZARD? IT SEEMS MAGICAL THAT THESE CHARACTERS CAME BACK TO LIFE, WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN DEAD FOR 11 AND 8 YEARS? If Hollywood really wanted to make a good movie, they should have brought back James Best, John Schneider, Tom Wopat, Ben Jones, and Catherine Bach like they did in 1997 and 2000 and made a family friendly movie with the living original characters that made the show what it was and still is compared to this disgusting, disgraced movie! If you want to see good Dukes movies, either buy the original series, or go out to walmart.com and buy the DVD set of 2 that includes the Reunion, and Dukes of Hazzard in Hollywood movies! They both star the original cast, and are family friendly! Don't waste your time on a movie that isn't worth the CD it's written on!

I loved this film when I was little. Today at 17 it is one of my all time favorite animated films. Beautiful animation and appealing characters are just two of the things to like about this film. Although many people might not enjoy some of the songs, most of them are well-done and go along with the story. It focuses on Charlie, a roguish handsome German Shepard who may seem unlikable to some at first... but eventually will win you over.<br /><br />Not a kiddie film by any means. Often very dark and frightening at times. A treat for Don Bluth fans and animation buffs. But do keep a tissue in handy. ADGTH never fails to make me cry and will do the same for those who are movie sensitive. Arguably one of the greatest non-Disney animated films of all time. Along with Watership Down and My Neighbor Totoro.<br /><br />BOTTOM LINE: A heavenly masterpiece.

I have never been a great fan of Oliver Stone, often because I have found his films to be forced, preachy and generally flawed. The two Stone films I truly like are JFK and Talk Radio, yet Talk Radio takes the cake for being Stone's finest achievement. Stone is a director whereby you are either a fan or you are not, it is safe to say that before watching Talk Radio I was not fond of the guy and considered one of the most overrated directors in the film industry, though after watching Talk Radio some of my perceptions have changed. Talk Radio is an unsettling and amusing attack on what is now known as "reality TV".<br /><br />Talk Radio follows a self-indulgent, dysfunctional, determined, hysterical, outrageous and perplexing radio host, named Barry Champlain who hosts a controversial late-night radio show in Dallas. Quickly becoming well known for his bold and quirky air-presence he becomes a late night sensation, whereby depraved junkies, delinquents, racists, sociopaths, sickos, perverts and morons call in to be ridiculed on air. The film shows the rise and fall of the man's career, carefully making an accurate portrayal on freedom of speech. Originally adapted from a stage-play, the film attaches itself to the theatre theme that it was originally built around, wonderfully conveying the film's fierce nature.<br /><br />With the ferocious energy and non-stereotypical air, Talk Radio brings all the hilarity behind "crass media". It remains even more poignant today than it was in the late '80s. The film goes into depth studying the likes of arrogance, self-obsession, offensive behaviour, controversy, hypocrisy and ignorance. The film shows through a controlled manner how it is good to have a personal opinion and freedom of speech, yet it is something that should be used wisely rather than shamefully blunt. Stone tries to show how freedom of speech is a crucial importance in life, but is something that we should be wary and cautious about. The film asks the question of "is our main protagonist just the same as the sad people who call up the show?" <br /><br />Stone fabulously creates the film's key set-piece (the radio station) with an ambition and cold atmosphere. He then succeeds in capturing the isolation, fear, ambiguity and the dangerous emotions that are built up at the radio station. Eric Bogosian is perfectly cast as the isolated, self-absorbed and complex genius, Barry Champlain. He fits the role perfectly letting off his lines with such enthusiasm, urgency, perplexity, brusqueness and ultimately the bold hilarity of his offensive nature. The performance brims with spark, which was evidently robbed of an Oscar nomination. His voice suits the character, being that a primary element of a radio host and his power of acting along with tragedy and comedy works brilliantly.<br /><br />There is a strong use of editing in Stone's films and Talk Radio boasts some of his cleanest, most rhythmic editing. He uses beautifully controlled camera techniques, which differ from being calm to suddenly becoming turbulent. There is a vibrant energy behind the film, with its raw and wonderfully delightful script working as a centre-piece for the greatness of the film. The striking and virtuous cinematography stands out in the moments inside and outside the studio, most impressively capturing the city at night. Not forgetting the hauntingly heartbreaking and yet darkly funny climatic "spiral to decline" is ultimately remarkable cinema.<br /><br />Talk Radio is an essential modern masterpiece, I am certain you will be surprised by just how great it really is. I highly recommend Talk Radio for anyone interested in media or film. Talk Radio is a fine example of top-notch, intellectual and insightful entertainment, which still packs a well-earned wakeup call. Finally, if it was not for Eric Bogosian the film would not be the fun, delightful and enduring masterpiece it is today.

Why all the negative reviews??? You didn't expect a movie like this to be a masterpiece did you??? What we have is a movie that tried to entertain us and it worked for me. Not an oscar contender, just entertainment. You can really see how the movie has aged, especially with everything the internet has to offer nowadays. I still remember when this was first released and the net was still so new. Crazy and scary thoughts when I saw this for the first time; I was 15 and seriously thought anyone could get a hold of your information on a computer and destroy you. But, who's to say it can't happen??? I'm not the type of person to nitpick a movie to death, analyzing it until I'm blue in the face. That's not my style. Average acting, suspensful and once again, very entertaining. Sandra Bullock as Angela Bennett is so cute. This is my favorite movie with her in it because she's like the computer genius, which I find very attractive. Of all the movies that were released in 1995, this would have to be my favorite, although, I didn't see it until 1996. My rating, 9/10 because it did slow down a little.

Frankie Dio (Lee VanCleef) is a high-ranking mobster who turns himself in to the police or illegal gambling (for reasons that seem unclear to me). Tony (Tony Lo Bianco) is a low-level thug who frequents a pool hall and spends his free time envying Frankie. By being in the right place at the right time, Tony gets arrested with Frankie and is sent to jail... where they form a bond that may not quite be friendship, but it will do for now.<br /><br />This film came to me under the title of "Frank and Tony", which is disappointing because I see an alternate name is "Mean Frank and Crazy Tony", which would have helped sell the film more effectively. I presume that's an homage to "Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry" but what do I know? I watched it shortly after another Italian crime film, "Violent Professionals", and I must say the two complement each other very well.<br /><br />Italians have always lagged behind Americans in their budgets and production values, which is a real shame with this film. It is considered a "grindhouse" film, which unfairly demotes it to a b-movie (or worse). With a cleaner sound and picture, this could have been a Hollywood hit, I suspect. I found the story very interesting, the characters (and actors) better than average and unlike "Violent Professionals" the plot is fairly clear -- not too many secondary characters.<br /><br />If you like Mafia movies or crime films you should give this one a try. A film about the mob that's actually from Italy (how much more authentic do you want?) is as much as you can ask. Sure, it's not "The Godfather", but it's not supposed to be. This isn't a drama, it's a light comedy, heavy action buddy film... like "Die Hard With a Vengeance" from the point of view of the bad guys. Well, okay, not really.<br /><br />If nothing else, this film made me want to check out other films from the director and the principle cast. Films besides "Escape From New York" (where VanCleef plays "Hauk") and the usual cult movies. What's more fun than discovering a lost classic?

I commented on this when it first debuted and gave it a "thumbs in the middle" review, remarking that I'd give it the benefit of the doubt beyond just the first episode. I've seen a total of six episodes now up to this point in June 2006. And as a lifelong Batman fanatic, I can say without hesitation: this show is utter crap.<br /><br />Everything's wrong with it. Everything. Getting past just the lousy animation and design, the stories are ridiculously convoluted and with no character development or apparent interest by the writers of this dreck to give any substance to any stories.<br /><br />And for God's sake...is it just me, or is the Joker in EVERY EPISODE?? Is Gotham that much of a revolving-door justice system? Or, again, is it just a complete lack of interest in the writers to put any effort into other villains (see "no character development", above).<br /><br />And to make matters worse, every single Joker tale is the same 3-part formula.<br /><br />1) Joker gasses people.<br /><br />2) Joker sets out to gas the whole city.<br /><br />3) Batman saves the day.<br /><br />Pfeh.<br /><br />There was one episode I saw that wasn't a Joker story. The title escapes me, but the villain was that nefarious Cluemaster...the "Think Thank Thunk" episode with the quiz show. That was the single-worst Batman story I've ever seen, heard or read. Yes, worse than "I've Got Batman in My Basement." <br /><br />I can't really say what I feel this show is because it's probably against the ToS, but it starts with "B" and rhymes with "fastardization". Thank goodness for the existence of the Timm/Dini/etc. era of Bat-entertainment, back from the Fox and Kids WB days. Stuff that good, and I should have known this, just couldn't possibly have lasted forever, unfortunately.

Good Folks, I stumbled on this film on evening while I was grading papers. My academic specialty is Anglo-Saxon literature, and I can say that no one has ever done the genre the honor it deserves. The Icelandic "Beowulf and Grendel" is the least offensive I have seen, and I did pay $3.00 for my copy. This Sci-Fi version ranks with the Christopher Lambert version. Yuck.<br /><br />What didn't I like? CGI for one. Amazingly bad. More importantly is the faithfulness to the storyline, not to mention the stilted acting. I am used to both with all the versions I have seen.<br /><br />Delighted Regardless, Peter

Beforehand Notification: I'm sure someone is going to accuse me of playing the race card here, but when I saw the preview for this movie, I was thinking "Finally!" I have yet to see one movie about popular African-influenced dance (be it popular hip hop moves, breaking, or stepping) where the main character was a Black woman. I've seen an excessive amount of movies where a non-Black woman who knew nothing about hip hop comes fresh to the hood and does a mediocre job of it (Breakin, Breakin 2, Save the Last Dance, Step Up), but the Black women in the film are almost nonexistent. That always bothered me considering so much of hip hop, African-influenced dance, and breaking was with Blacks and Latinos in massive amounts in these particular sets and it wasn't always men who performed it, so I felt this movie has been a long time coming. However, the race does not make the film, so I also wanted it to carry a believable plot; the dancing be entertaining; and interesting to watch.<br /><br />Pros: I really enjoyed this film bringing Jamaican culture. I can't recall ever seeing a popular, mainstream film where all the main characters were Jamaican; had believable accents; and weren't stereotypical with the beanies. The steppers, family, friends, and even the "thugs" were all really intelligent, realistic people who were trying to love, live, and survive in the neighborhood they lived in by doing something positive. Even when the audience was made aware that the main character's sister chose an alternate lifestyle, it still didn't make the plot stereotypical. I was satisfied with the way it was portrayed. I LOVED the stepping; the romantic flirty relationship going on between two steppers; the trials that the main character's parents were going through; and how she dealt with coming back to her old neighborhood and dealing with Crabs in a Barrel. I respected that she was so intelligent and active at the same time, and so many other sistas in the film were handling themselves in the step world. They were all just as excellent as the fellas. I don't see that in too many movies nowadays, at least not those that would be considered Black films.<br /><br />Cons: I'm not quite sure why the directors or whoever put the movie together did this, but I question whether they've been to real step shows. Whenever the steppers got ready to perform, some hip hop song would play in place of the steppers' hand/feet beats. At a real step show, there is zero need for music, other than to maybe entertain the crowds in between groups. And then when hip hop songs were played, sometimes the beat to the song was off to the beat of the steppers' hands and feet. It was awkward. I was more impressed with the stepping in this movie versus "Stomp the Yard" (another great stepping movie) because the women got to represent as fierce as the guys (in "Stomp the Yard," Meagan Good got all of a few seconds of some prissy twirl and hair flip and the (Deltas?) let out a chant and a few steps and were cut immediately). Even when there were very small scenes, the ladies tore it up, especially in the auto shop, and it was without all that music to drown out their physical music. I know soundtracks have to be sold, but the movie folks could've played the music in other parts of the film.<br /><br />I'm not a Keyshia Cole fan, so every time I saw her, all I kept thinking was "Is it written in the script for her to constantly put her hand on her hip when she talks?" She looked uncomfortable on screen to me. I thought they should've used a host like Free or Rocsi instead. Deray Davis was funny as usual though. Also, I groaned when I found out that the movie was supposed to be in the ghetto, like stepping couldn't possibly happen anywhere else. Hollywood, as usual. However, only a couple of people were portrayed as excessively ignorant due to their neighborhood and losers, which mainstream movies tend to do.<br /><br />I would've given this movie five stars, but the music playing killed it for me. I definitely plan to buy it when it comes out and hopefully the bonus scenes will include the actual step shows without all the songs.

I have to say, when "Pushing Daisies" came out I was immediately won out by the fairy-tale like setting of such grimness. The narrator made a cake out of the whole ordeal by making death seem as routine as, well, Ned (Lee Pace) baking pies. And that bringing them back to life was just as routine.<br /><br />The trio of Ned, Emerson Cod (Chi McBride) and Charlotte "Chuck" Charles (Anna Friel), plus sometimes-sidekick Olive Snook (Kristin Chenoweth, who made the musical Wicked such a delight) made for some fantastic dialogue and silliness. It definitely deserves the title of a (romantic) comedy/drama.<br /><br />Ned and Chuck made for a shy and not-quite-ready-for-love couple who are still exploring their feelings even though they cannot touch - an obstacle that seems to be truly no obstacle with aids such as gloves, cellophane, and quirky schedules around the apartment. But despite the awkwardness presented as they work their feelings around a strange secret which only a few know, they still manage to show their on screen chemistry in touching scenes like when Ned gives Chuck the beehives. The presence of Olive, though, makes for some break-out-in-song moments in the pie shop and unforeseen complications for the couple.<br /><br />Second season sharply declined, putting a damper on a show that had real potential. On some of the episodes, the plot line was rushed and awkward, making you ask "what just happened?" in both the overall dead-person-of-the-week plot and in the overriding plot line. The addition of Chuck's father plus two half-brothers for Ned didn't help, and at least one of the plot lines felt almost recycled (didn't the episode "Comfort Food" feel like the episode "Bitter Sweets" in the fact that the dead-person-of-the-week died in food?). A few touching moments (the beehives) happened to help advance the relationship between Chuck and Ned, but every time they got close, the writers decided to throw in another monkey wrench rather than let the relation develop (Oliver comes back from the monastery, Chuck's dead father comes back to life and doesn't go back, you get the picture).<br /><br />Shame it didn't work out, but the concept was good and seemed surreal in a good way, just enough Pleasantvillesque color/happy-smiley going on and implausible scenarios to remind you that it's not "Dead Like Me." Then again, it's in "Pushing Daisies time," according to Creator Bryan Fuller, so it makes it plausible again.<br /><br />It should have lasted longer, but it's merely wistful thinking at this point. Kudos to whatever new show attempts to replace this short-lived gem.

I wanted to read the other comments before leaving my review and the majority definately rules: This movie is aweful! From the acting to the non-realistic animation to the countless errors. I was actually hoping that the flaps would have been extended by a stretch of the imagination (can't extend flaps without engines). The landing gear cannot be lowered unless you have electricity. That tiny little fan that was going was not sufficient by any stretch to lower the landing gear. The one thing I thought was quite peculiar is when they landed, the back wheels touched down and then the nose one broke off, thus suspending the plane with both back tires in the air. How did the captain apply left and right brakes to tires that weren't touching the ground? Did they forget the spoilers? Word to the director: Find out *all* you can about planes before attempting a "plane" movie. Sorry for the technical rant, but I give this movie 1/10.

"Hatred of a Minute" is arguably one of the better films to come out of Michigan in recent years. Not to say that it's a brilliant film by any means, but it's definitely worth a watch.<br /><br /> "Hatred" chronicles the sordid adventures of Eric Seaver (played by director Kallio), a formerly abused child now grown up, and starting to listen to his evil side.<br /><br /> "Hatred" is very nice visually. The shots are creative, and the lighting is approporiately moody and interesting to look at. This film actually has an element of production value to it, unlike other recent Michigan releases like "Dark Tomorrow" and "Biker Zombies." Subtle dolly shots and stylized shot composition show good use of this film's $350,000 budget.<br /><br /> However, "Hatred" stumbles in the same places that so many other local films do, and that's in the story and character department. Essentially, things just kind-of happen. Eric Seaver doesn't evolve at all. Basically, he's always been crazy, it's just that people are starting to notice. The film just wanders along its merry way with very little development. Also, the ending is very abrupt.<br /><br /> However- since this is a horror film, since when do we care about plot? We just want to see people die, and "Hatred" certainly delivers. As the body count mounted, people in the theater started cheering "Kill her! Kill em' all!" When people scream back at the screen, it's always fun.<br /><br /> That's the place where "Hatred" succeeds. It's fun. And in the end, that's all that really matters.

A really terrible movie, really low-budget, with terrible acting, a convoluted and inane plot, a modest reworking of the vampire tales mixed with modern science.<br /><br />The result is a total mess, without meaning for most parts, with very limited and cheap effects. It is not even fun, like several of the low budget independent movies of this kind<br /><br />A waste of time

I'm glad I never watched this show when it came out.<br /><br />I just wondered why it lasted 4 years. It reminds me of the terrible 80's with fake people, fake clothes, and fake music. How did I ever survive growing up in this era? <br /><br />The acting in the majority of episodes I have watched are forced. This makes for very boring shows. The plot lines are not very interesting as the old Twilight Zone shows. The old show inspired the imagination and made one look forward to the next show. <br /><br />Stick with the old Twilight Zone shows and spare yourself the pain of watching garbage.

Who ever came up with story is one sick person. I rented it for our slumber party sleepover and all six of us got freaked out cause we're all in an acting class together, and we know a couple of the actors from class. Besides everybody screaming the whole freaky night, I had freaky nightmares. I kept thinking oh my God, if I get up to go to the bathroom to pee I'm going to be stabbed in the middle of wiping or something. I couldn't even go to the bathroom because we watched this gruesome horror movie. I also thought why are all the girls topless in this movie but we don't any of the boys units? You should make a horror film where the killer is a girl and chopping off units. I would watch that over and over. Call it hard or soft or something stupid like that. I'm only giving this movie a 9 because you FREAKED ME OUT FREAKS.

Something very strange happens when you talk about Global Warming: science goes out the window and "belief" and "consensus" becomes the topic of discussion.<br /><br />It's because of that fact that I give a failing mark to Al Gore's documentary.<br /><br />Instead of promoting intelligent discussion, he kept the debate at the level of "belief" and "consensus".<br /><br />Of course, when you're trying to sell the world into spending trillions of dollars to "stop Global Warming" you may thing it's a problem to tell the scientific truth: we don't know how much of the current warming was caused by humans. Maybe none of it, maybe some of it, or maybe it has over-ceded the next Ice Age and we got really lucky not to have boiled the planet.<br /><br />But the fact remains that we don't know.<br /><br />so we're asked to "believe" in the "consensus". Never mind that any scientist that strays from the "consensus" is ostracized. Never mind that scientific inquiry is about straying from the consensus. Einstein didn't "believe" in the consensus, neither did Copernicus or Galileo.<br /><br />So why so much scorn placed on those very researchers who would advance the field by asking the tough questions? If Global Warming is so incontrovertible, surely a few people testing that theory can't be so threatening.<br /><br />What is going on here? That's the movie I was hoping Al Gore would have made. Istead, he chose to shore up his support with the true "believers" of the "consensus".<br /><br />Sad, really.

The first time I saw this film I was a kid. I was ten years old when it was released but since my family never went to movie theaters I saw it on Network TV. I remember watching it alone…and crying afterward. It was only the second film to illicit that response (Rocky was the first) and there haven't been many since. I can't say why exactly; Larry "Rain" Murphy didn't deserve to win any more that Rocky Balboa or anyone else. I know I admired Murphy, not so much for what he did, but for the way he did his time. Stoic. He didn't need a stopwatch or freedom to find dignity. He ran because he could. He needed no other reason. I have a rule today, that when I see this film late at night on cable television (the only time most will come across it) I must watch, no matter what I have to do the next morning. Fortunately it doesn't play often like Shawshank Redemption or other favorites, so I still get plenty of sleep and I never tire of the story of one man's unrepentant imprisonment and personal victory.

A professional production with quality actors that simply never touched the heart or the funny bone no matter how hard it tried. The quality cast, stark setting and excellent cinemetography made you hope for Fargo or High Plains Drifter but sorry, the soup had no seasoning...or meat for that matter. A 3 (of 10) for effort.

Before I watched this film I read a review here stating that this film could possibly be one of the best films ever!? ha ha Scene by scene the tension grows alright... from the annoying characters in this movie. From the little girl talking gibberish and trying to drown the little boy, to the killer just running about without any notice (and who was the guy at the beach talking to the little boy!?)..things just seem to happen and then go unanswered in this film. As I watched it seemed like the film was going in one direction, then just doesn't go anywhere, but into a new direction...and on and on...<br /><br />The acting is great, but the writing is horrible. Each character, in each scene, says or does something so unbelievable, unrealistic and the reactions of the fellow cast/extras are simply strange. There are no resolutions to the problems developed throughout the film, making it confusing and ultimately a big waste of time.

If you need that instant buzz that only late 60s/early 70s Euro sex movies can give off, then look no further for you have just stumbled across the mother lode ! Subsequent TV director Schivazappa's exercise in psychedelic porn (of the soft core variety) may not generally be considered as a classic of its kind but it knocks many better known titles from the likes of Tinto Brass, Jess Franco and Joe D'Amato for a loop. Radley Metzger sure was hip to this way before anyone else when he picked up this marvelously twisted little number for US distribution through his company Audubon. Gorgeous cinematography (favouring symmetrical compositions) may elicit cries of 'pretentiousness' from those who swear by shoddy skin flicks shot in someone's backyard. Hey, as far as I'm concerned, it's their loss for this is one thrill ride of a movie with twists so, well, twisted that you may not even believe them after you have actually witnessed them on screen ! Dagmar Lassander (immortalized as the gone to seed landlady from Lucio Fulci's HOUSE BY THE CEMETERY) has never looked more exquisite than she does here, subtly portraying the innocent (?) researcher held hostage by mad medic Philippe Leroy (with all the art-house favorites to his name, you wonder whether he has the good humor to mention this one on his c.v.) as their initially violent 'relationship' turns to S&M-tinged love story. Nothing is what it seems however in this sick and imaginative gem of a movie with several truly erotic moments achieved with surprisingly minimal nudity. I for one was completely baffled and enchanted by the way Schivazappa chose to suggest oral sex during one scene (I'll let you find that one out for yourselves...) and Lassander's gauze-clad boogie to an impossibly groovy 60s tune should have become iconic in a way similar to the image of Sylvia Kristel reclining in that wicker chair in her EMMANUELLE days. You may not know this film just yet, but trust me, once seen you'll never forget it !!!

I saw this episode of Masterpiece Theatre and immediately came to IMDb to look it up. I was greeted by a comment from another user, who believed that it was nothing special, a 6 out of 10, and underwhelming. I would feel morally remiss if I didn't disagree.<br /><br />Now, I am an avid fan of Masterpiece Theatre, but oftentimes the stories can be a bit silly on television, for example, "He Knew He Was Right" was absolutely horrendous. "Carrie's War," however, is probably the best I've seen so far. The entire cast does an excellent job, and it held my interest more than any other piece I've seen recently. The character Mr. Evans is of particular interest, and through subtle images of, for example, an untouched birthday cake or a garnet ring, my opinion of him went from bad to truly good. Truly. His ultimate demise, and the story of how everyone around him left him a cold hard man, is what brought out the bittersweet in this story for me.<br /><br />The end is gratifying in every sense but one; that everyone did not get what they deserved, but overall things worked out. I absolutely recommend this to everyone.

I thought this movie was LOL funny. It's a fun, not to be taken seriously, movie about one man's twisted views on life, love, and... well, ladies "from the lowly bus station skank, to the high-class débutante... bus station skank." Tim meadows plays a guy (Leon Phelps) who was raised by in a Playboy-style mansion by a Hugh Hefner-esquire father figure, surrounded constantly by beautiful porn models and actresses. When his "father" kicks him out on the street he must learn to fend for himself with nothing but the chauvinistic outlook on life that his youth has taught him... that and an unfathomable, nearly mystical level of charm and dumb luck. And so the hijinx begin! If you haven't seen this movie and you enjoy a light-hearted, semi-mindless, comedy/love story, then I highly recommend renting "the Ladies' Man".

The story is being told fluidly. There are no interruptions. The flash backs are woven into the present seamlessly. Casting was superb. Young Ya'ara looked very much like Ya'ara would have looked at that age. Her portrayal of a blind person was done convincingly. Director Daniel Syrkin have done a superb job in getting the various actors to work together in this story. The Cinematography is very good. You feel like you are with Ya'ara and Talia walking toward the ocean to the edge of the cliff. The English subtitles follow the Hebrew script very closely. It is interesting to note that even though "Out of sight" is not a direct translation of "Lemarit Ayin" Both names are very appropriate to the story.

Quite the most boring nonsense I have seen in a long time. The plot was full of irrelevance, and the acting was the worst I have seen in a long time.<br /><br />To make it worse, camera angles that made me feel sick were used , the incidental music was terrible and drowned out the dialogue (maybe not a bad thing then), and the shots of San Francisco looked as if they had been stolen straight out of the city tourist board's promotional video.<br /><br />Oh, and the obligatory sex scene was not even half well done. Better lighting next time, please.

While not exactly offensive, the 1967 version of "The Perils of Pauline" is certainly moronic. The title might lead you to expect a tribute to Pearl White (the original Pauline in the 1914 silent 20 episode serial) but for that you would be better served by the 1947 version starring Betty Hutton. This 1967 version is like a mix of "Casino Royale" and the weakest of the Elvis movies. Worst of all it is not a blend of these but more like someone scotch-taped together segments from each so that the thing skips back and forth between the two styles. <br /><br />What unity there is in the production comes from the pairing of Pamela Austin (Pauline) and Pat Boone (George Steadman), a good match because both lack even the most basic of acting skills (imagine Mandy Moore playing opposite Dan Quayle). <br /><br />Austin would later play opposite John Aston in "Evil Roy Slade", with the talent disparity between them actually painful to watch. In the mid-60's she was the "Dodge Rebellion" girl, as such she was featured in a similar series of perilous situations-imagine Sandra Dee in a dark blue jumpsuit. When the automaker's ad agency replaced her with the "Dodge Fever" girl someone got the bright idea to showcase her in a feature film. <br /><br />What story there is here begins with Pauline growing up in the Baskerville Foundling Home run by the actress who played Mrs. Chatsworth Osborne Sr. on "Dobie Gillis". George falls in love with her (Pauline-not Mrs Osborne) and sabotages several opportunities she has to be adopted. George leaves to seek his fortune and 19 year old Pauline gets a job tutoring a young oil rich Middle Eastern prince. When he tries to add the attractive blonde to his harem she runs away and goes from peril to peril. These include African pygmies, a 99½ year-old millionaire who wants to freeze her until his one year-old grandson is old enough for marriage, the movie industry, and the Russian space program.<br /><br />All this is intended to be silly and charming but manages only the silly part. There is some effort to incorporate a silent film look to the action sequences by simulating the under- cranking of a camera (which speeds up the action). Unfortunately everything else (film stock, production design, editing) is depressingly 1960's. Nothing here even approaches the images of Pearl White strapped to a log moving toward a buzz-saw or tied to railway track waiting for the approaching train.<br /><br />Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

I wasn't expecting to much of this movie when I went into the theater but I had been waiting for it for many years. To sum it up, it was pretty damn good! Chad Michael Murray was pretty good, I thought he was going to be another Chris Flynn from Wrong Turn but I was wrong. Elisha Cuthbert was also good but the best performance has to go to Brian Van Holt. He played the bad guy too well, I mean he was sick, sadistic, and very cruel. The back story between the brothers was good, plus I liked how no killings took place until about 40 minutes into the film. It gave you time to pick the character you wanted to see live and the one you wanted to see die. Jon Abrahams was pretty good as the goofy best bud of CMM. I liked how Chad kind of cried when he found him dead, it was better then just him being like, "Whatever, my buddy is dead, who cares". It showed how he really cared. So overall, this was a darn god slasher with some great effects. Bravo!

Thus starts "One Crazy Summer", the evil twin of "Better off dead..". How can any movie be bad when the opening lines are sung by David Lee Roth?<br /><br />This movie is a total blast. Pairing again John Cusack with Curtis Armstrong, but this time adding Bobcat Goldwaith to the mix has great, funny results. Hyperactive Bobcat grates the nerve of everyone around, Curtis "Ak Ak" is the son of a deranged military with pacifist tendencies, and Demi Moore (with natural breasts... wow!) as the love interest of, once again, chronically depressed Cusack.<br /><br />The story is, well, simple enough. The laughs are there, but both Savage Steve Holland films have a certain quality to them... they are funny, but they are also sweet. The scene where Curtis finds a blown up doll in the target practice beach, and begins musing about how a little girl won't be able to sleep was dumb, funny and touching. The animation used throughout is quite surreal. "The Boat" is hysterical (complete with Watsamatta U. sail and Odie plush doll). Overall, a fun film, though not as good as "Better off dead..."

I recall years back, Michael Douglas wanted his wife, Catherine Zeta-Jones, to be in a romantic film because he felt his wife had all the goods. No doubt she does, but NOT in this film. A colossal waste of time, no story, no character development, no chemistry, nada. This was not the vehicle that we all hoped this film would be, boring and a HUGE disappointment. Didn't even watch the whole film, torture. Catherine Zeta-Jones was obviously trained in how to work a kitchen, move around, present a dish but this wasn't the food network, nothing learned here and once her counterpart appeared, supposedly a romantic interest brewing, where was the chemistry. The poor slob on the second floor of her building trying all the ploys to connect and no character development there. The loss of her sister was poorly played out as who knew there was a closeness. The sister's daughter just was plopped here and there with something that was supposed to draw you in, NOT. Just a waste of movie time. The promoters certainly did their job to put this lack-luster film on all the networks tempting you with all kinds of teasers. Sorry to say, don't spend a dime.

***SPOILER*** Do not read this, if you think about watching that movie, although it would be a waste of time. (By the way: The plot is so predictable that it does not make any difference if you read this or not anyway)<br /><br />If you are wondering whether to see "Coyote Ugly" or not: don't! It's not worth either the money for the ticket or the VHS / DVD. A typical "Chick-Feel-Good-Flick", one could say. The plot itself is as shallow as it can be, a ridiculous and uncritical version of the American Dream. The young good-looking girl from a small town becoming a big success in New York. The few desperate attempts of giving the movie any depth fail, such as the "tragic" accident of the father, the "difficulties" of Violet's relationship with her boyfriend, and so on. McNally (Director) tries to arouse the audience's pity and sadness put does not have any chance to succeed in this attempt due to the bad script and the shallow acting. Especially Piper Perabo completely fails in convincing one of "Jersey's" fear of singing in front of an audience. The only good (and quite funny thing) about "Coyote Ugly" is John Goodman, who represents the small ray of hope of this movie.<br /><br />I was very astonished, that Jerry Bruckheimer produced this movie. First "Gone In 60 Seconds" and now this... what happened to great movies like "The Rock" and "Con Air"? THAT was true Bruckheimer stuff.<br /><br />If you are looking for a superficial movie with good looking women just to have a relaxed evening, you should better go and see "Charlie's Angels" (it's much more funny, entertaining and self-ironic) instead of this flick.<br /><br />Two thumbs down (3 out of 10).

I actually was looking forward to this movie. After reading a number of reviews before the release, it sounded like a genuinely nice film, one that was beautifully filmed and one with an interesting cast (Nicholas Cage, Penelope Cruz and John Hurt.)<br /><br />Well, it might have been all of those things BUT it is so boring that I defy almost anyone to sit through this in its entirety and keep attention. Also, Cage's attempt at speaking with an Italian accent is embarrassingly bad. He's such a good actor that I cringed every time he spoke in this film. <br /><br />'Disappointing" seems to be the most-often word used by reviewers here to describe this film, and I totally agree.<br /><br />I guess it didn't take long for word to get out about how bad this movie was because, like Cage's accent, it did not do well.

Pretty decent for his early work and no Kokaku Kidotai without it, and gets an 2 points extra for the easter eggs. For Shirow definitely a rung in the ladder. I am biased as a Shirow fan but this was a big step from Dirty Pair which was what I knew of him. Violent fun with a porno soundtrack! You cannot help but notice that. I know people appreciate him for Ghost in the Shell..but all of the deep spiritual overtones were dealt with in Appleseed. ESWAT killing terrorists, the struggle for humans to stay viable as bioroids phase them out, and Deunan staying thin despite her intake of junk food. Definitely like the characters even the traitor..and I do not know why.

"Nero" as the title of the movie is in Germany is a another attempt to show one of the most interesting Roman emperors, Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, better known as Nero. Although this attempt at least tried to show a more historic accurate Nero than the amusing but completely fictitious Nero Peter Ustinov played in "Quo Vadis!" it still is a major failure. And to those IMDb-commentators who still believe that Sueton and Tacitus propaganda is true, please read a book about Nero that was published less than 20 years ago. Nero did NOT burn Rome, this is proved! He did not murder Britannicus. He did not torture, kill and maim for pleasure, he was the first emperor who BANNED the gladiator fights. The movie still shows a lot of mistakes, errors and is by the way made in a really cheap style, especially the sets were cheap and unconvincing, the palace looking like some villa, the city itself looked like..well like a cheap set. The acting was between good and sub-par, the music nearly insignificant and the movie soon deteriorated after Nero became emperor to a rushed, bad edited mess without any clear narrative structure. So there still is the potential for an epic biography of Nero that shows the true Nero, who was one of the best emperors who ruled Rome, despite the lies of Sueton et al.

SPOILER ALERT! This Movie, Zero Day, Gives An Inside To The Lives Of Two Students, Andre And Calvin, Who Feel Resentment And Hatred For Anyone And Anything Associated With There School.<br /><br />They Go On A Series Of Self-Thought Out "Missions" All Leading Up To The Huge Mission, Which Is Zero Day. Zero Days Contents Are Not Specified Until The Middle To The End Of The Movie. The Viewer Knows Its Serious And Filled With Hate But Is Never Quite Sure Until The End.<br /><br />Now We All Know, If The Movie Is Based On The Columbine Massacre, The Ending Is Pretty Obvious. And The Ending Is No Different Than Any Other Movie About The Attack, They go And Kill Many Of Their Fellow Students In The End.<br /><br />I Have Seen A lot Of Movies On This Attack, And This Movie By Far Is My Favorite, And Most Respected. It Gives The Viewer And Inside Look To The Lives Of These Two Teens Who Hate Life, And Honestly It Gives The Viewer Some What Of An Understanding, And A Closure On The Horrible Event.<br /><br />Being Only 7 When The Events Played Out, I Never Knew The Seriousness Of The Shootings, Until My English Class Was Assigned An Essay Or Story On A Defining Moment In Our Generation. Well I Knew Everyone Was Going To Pick The Twin Towers, But I Wanted To Be Different, Because Of Course The Twin Towers Was Tragic And Very Defining, But I Didn't Think It Was The Right Choice For Me Because there was Really No Way Of Relating To that Because, I Was Only In The 3rd Grade And I Had No Idea What It All Meant. But The Shootings Did Leave And Effect. I Remember The Interviews, The Sky Views Of The School, And The Hurt And Terror In The Eyes Of Thousands Of People.<br /><br />This Movie Is A Compelling, Down To Earth, And Horrific Masterpiece, And I Would Reccomened It To Anyone.

Trapped: buried alive brings us to a resort that has just opened, and is soon to close.<br /><br />We start with a guy in gear blowing up drifts, to avoid the possibility of avalanches. somehow, that doesn't make sense. anyways, he's about to blow away one particularly big one, when he notices the resort is open. despite his best efforts, higher authority tells him his day is over.<br /><br />soon, as everyone expects, an avalanche hits.<br /><br />Look, i'm not gonna reveal any more, all i can say is this was a B-movie designed for the family channel (which i just saw it on, and the fact it had no commercials proves it's a B-movie) anyways, it's a pretty decent film, but it's partially unreal.<br /><br />firsthand, when people are buried by ice and snow, they're buried. not just traced by powder. or, what about a CD for a screwdriver? it's not possible. and finally, what i can't stress enough, is that an explosion cannot stop a avalanche, guaranteed.<br /><br />furthermore, it's worth a rental or a TV viewing, but not owning. 7/10.<br /><br />The movie is rated PG, but maybe it should have received something a little more strong. a boy nearly loses his foot in an elevator, but his leg is cut around the ankle, a guy is toasted by electricity and diesel, and in the weight room, dead people are laying around.<br /><br />enjoy.

It's about time we see a movie that stays unbiased towards these old Indian traditions. At times it is clear how most of the 'doctors' are charlatans, even lying about how they don't charge their clients. While they are wearing their gold watches, the 'donation' box is mandatory. Notice that there are only a couple of people who get 'cured' while we see quite a few cases.<br /><br />Keep in mind while watching that ingesting mercury is not toxic and that the smallest Indian bank note is 5 rupee, while the average salary in India is 1,700 ru/month.

I remember this show being on the television when I was a kid back in the early 1990s, and there was this rage about kids with goofy leotards doing kung fu on one another and riding around in plastic dinosaurs. It was called power rangers. I remember that little kids would go around hitting each other and then the shirts and the stuff from the show was banned in many school districts all over the country because this show taught kids how to fight each other in solving their differences.<br /><br />I never really thought of this as a show, especially when better shows like The Tick were playing on Fox Kids. Most older teens always looked at power rangers in a ridiculous and scornful manner, and it's not hard to wonder why. The footage is ridiculous at best. The colored rangers costumes look like stuff you would work out in and the dinosaurs look like plastic nonsense. Then you get into the acting, and of course those really laughable haircuts. All the guys run around with earrings on, half of them are wearing 90's mullets, and they always wear the same clothes everyday, and then change into leotard wearing power rangers.<br /><br />The toys are especially ridiculous as well, and was the joke of many late night talk show hosts. And of course two of the worst movies ever made, and I do mean two of the worst movies ever made were based on this show with nearly every critic trashing both the films, and the shows it was based on.<br /><br />Power rangers is nothing more than a bad television commericial for especially bad toy merchandising. As an adult, I don't look at it fondly, but rather as another embarrassment of 1990s kids shows, fashion and guys' earrings.

I really thought they did an *excellent* job, there was nothing wrong with it at all, I don't know how the first commenter could have said it was terrible, it moved me to tears (I guess it moved about everyone to tears) but I try not to cry in a movie because it's embarrassing but this one got me. It was SOOO good! I hope they release it on DVD because I will definitely buy a copy! I feel like it renewed my faith and gave me a hope that I can't explain, it made me want to strive to be a better person, they went through so much and we kind of take that for granted, I guess. Compared to that, I feel like our own trials are nothing. Well, not nothing, but they hardly match what they had to go through. I loved it. Who played Emma?!

This movie was a fairly entertaining comedy about Murphy's Law being applied to home ownership and construction. If a film like this was being made today no doubt the family would be dysfunctional. Since it was set in the 'simpler' forties, we get what is supposed to be a typical family of the era. Grant of course perfectly blends the comedic and dramatic elements and he works with a more than competent supporting cast highlighted by Loy and Douglas. Their shenanigans make for a solid ninety minutes of entertainment, 7/10.

The opening shot was the best thing about this movie, because it gave you hope that you would be seeing a passionate, well-crafted independent film. Damn that opening shot for filling me hope. As the "film" progressed in a slow, plodding manner, my thoughts were varied in relation to this "film": Was there too much butter in my popcorn? Did the actors have to PAY the director to be in this "film"? Did I get my ticket validated at the Box Office? Yes, dear reader. I saw this film in the Theatre! This would be the only exception I will make about seeing a film at home over a Movie Theatre, because at home you can TURN IT OFF. Were there any redeeming values? Peter Lemongelli as the standard college "nerd" had his moments, especially in a dog collar. Other than that this "film" went from trying to be a comedy, to a family drama to a spiritual uplifter. It succeeded on none of these fronts. Oh, and the girlfriend was realllllllllly bad. Her performance was the only comedy I found.

(Spoilers) "Cash Crop" goes something like this. Down-on-their-luck farmers grow pot to make ends meet. DEA agent blows into town. Farmers hide the pot. DEA agent leaves town. End of story.<br /><br />This flick features solid performances by some second tier actors, mediocre direction, and a so-so screenplay...but it ain't got no story. And since the story is the foundation of every drama, "Cash Crop" is an utter failure. Too boring to recommend.

After some quite OK Dutch action flicks, like Lek and Van God Los, Gerrard Verhage wants to make a movie about the life of a Dutch mobster. Well, mobster is a big word for Klaas Bruinsma. He isn't a real international big guy like George Jung (Blow) or Pablo Escobar. He is just an Amsterdam lowlife who made some money by selling soft-drugs. Things are often blown up in the Netherlands, and this movie is just an other example. But even then, the movie could be very nice if the story was okay told. Now there are major jumps in time: one day KLaas is just an ordinary drug-boy, the next shot he seems to be a big player in the drug-scene. Nobody knows how's that possible (except for those who read the book). The acting is really bad, the non-Dutch movie-watchers get to see one of the worst actresses in the Netherlands: Chantal Janzen. When you think she finally gets naked, then you are watching a stand in model. So: bad acting + bad montage + crap story = De Dominee.<br /><br />Please don't watch it, even if other people say it's good, because it isn't. I've warned you.

I have to offset all the terrible comments. I love this movie. I own the movie and the soundtrack. I watch it whenever I need a pick me up. Granted it's not like the Sound of Music but it's as much fun if picking at movies is not your thing. I adored the late (and great) Bobby Vann, and James Shigeta has always and will always be a favorite. I saw this when it first came out in the theaters. I'm a big musical fan and this one is 100 times better than Twiggy in "The Boyfriend". It's a modern musical and shouldn't be judged by all that went before. It's just the best for dreamers like me, who wish they could find this place - no illness, no wars, no drugs, all the bad things in life are gone. This is nothing more than a feel good movie. That is what all movies should be about. Shaun Phillips title song is superb and explains the entire feel of the movie. If the acting isn't the greatest-who cares. I love the idea of the movie. Peter Finch, a very stiff actor, Liv Ullmann, gorgeous as ever, Sally Kellerman, surprisingly good voice, Michael York, typical, and Olivia Hussey, stunning, all convinced me they were normal run of the mill people. Not one of them acted like actors in a movie. They acted like real people, the same way I would act if I found this place. Torn between going home and staying there, in awe of everything. Yes, there are flaws in this movie, but get over it, it's not Citizen Kane, it's a feel good musical!

The only other film besides Soylent Green that has such an air of hopelessness is On the Beach. Both films deal with the consequences for the species and the planet from man made cataclysms. On the Beach with nuclear war and Soylent Green with the environmental poisoning of the planet.<br /><br />Maybe there's cause for some optimism because as of 2007 we haven't reached either of the worlds described in those films and we were supposed to by now. New York City still has about 8 million people not the 22 million by the turn of the millenia as described in Soylent Green. Environmentalists always hail this film as showing the consequence of global warming. For myself it also shows the Right to Life ethic run amuck. Obviously there's no family planning in this world either.<br /><br />Charlton Heston is an NYPD detective who lives with room mate Edward G. Robinson who's old enough to remember the Earth before catastrophe struck. There's been a murder committed, Joseph Cotten an executive with the Soylent Corporation, a multi-national concern that has come up with a food product, some kind of wafer in many colors to feed the world's population. It's latest product is Soylent Green.<br /><br />The investigation finds Charlton Heston getting his man, but also it leads to some horrifying truths about the Soylent Corporation and the future of mankind. As Heston shouts in the end that Soylent Green is made of people, that we've become a race of cannibals, the horrifying thing is that there is no alternative. We've exhausted the planet and we have to eat our dead to survive.<br /><br />This was the farewell performance of Edward G. Robinson and in his memoirs Heston spoke movingly of Robinson even though they had differing political views. A few weeks after Robinson wrapped that final scene of his screen demise by consented euthanasia, he passed away in real life. Not many did, but Heston knew that Robinson was terminally and there was no acting involved in that final death scene between the two of them.<br /><br />Though the timetable was off, it doesn't mean that the world envisioned by Soylent Green may not come to pass. Hopefully we'll have not just the intelligence, but the sense of shared responsibility to keep that from happening.

I´ve seen this at the Fantasy Filmfest in Cologne and left the cinema halfway through this "movie" (with a bunch of other people), so maybe I´m not the right one to comment on it, but I think the fact of leaving "S.C." is reason enough to do so. "S.C." is a different film. People who need a coherent narration, characters or a plotline won´t find anything in this one. It´s supposed to be an experimental film, relying on the power of images. But these images have no power. They are so forced in their intention of simply grossing people out, that they have nothing else to say. The gibberish of the off-narrator is simply boring, the visuals are cheap. OK, the effects are good, but if that´s the only thing, why care? Husseins film wants to be shocking and thought-provoking - instead it is boring and annoying in its non-creativity. Note: Not every movie without a story is art and there is absolutely no creativity in breaking taboos anymore - especially not if everything is executed as bad as in "S.C.". I´d suggest director Hussein should either visit a psychiatrist or a filmschool, before he mistakes crap for art again. Note: I never want to see a baby getting slashed during birth again.

This movie appears to have been made by someone with some good ideas but who also never had made a movie before nor had they considered that a script should be edited or even funny. When I saw this film, I saw it for John Candy and assumed, incorrectly, that it would be hilarious. Instead, there was a stupid plot about mind control and so many flat, unfunny moments. And, to top it off, Candy delivered some of the crudest lines I had ever heard up to that time. So, despite a potentially funny cast and story idea, we are left with an amateurish and crude movie that will probably be too stupid for the average adult, though teens will probably find a few laughs. It's really a shame--it could have been so much better. I mean, with Eugene Levy, Joe Flaherty and John Candy it SHOULD have been wonderful.

Let me say at the outset that I'm not a very artistic person and that I don't "get" new art. That being said, this film is absolutely crazy, and in my opinion not crazy in a good way. Filmed entirely in black and white with a series of very loosely connected stories, Avida is a film for those who can look at modern art and say "wow, I feel the energy and passion of this painting." The only reason I give this film a 3 out of 10 is because I actually did manage to laugh at some parts, though mainly laughing at the sheer insanity of the film. Two of the characters throwing chairs on a lawn, as to do what these characters were doing, I have no idea. I wouldn't recommend this film to anybody.

This is a genuinely horrible film. The plot (such as it is) is totally undecipherable. (I think it has something to do with blackmail, but I'm not entirely certain.)<br /><br />Half of the dialogue consists of useless cliches. The other half is spoken by the various actors in such unintelligible imitations of "southern" accents that (thankfully) the words cannot be recognized.<br /><br />But the one true tragedy of the movie is that such a historic talent as Mary Tyler Moore apparently was in such dire financial or personal circumstances that she appeared in it.<br /><br />

Despite having a very pretty leading lady (Rosita Arenas, one of my boy-crushes), the acting and the direction are examples of what NOT to do while making a movie.<br /><br />Placed in southern Mexico, Popoca, the Aztec Mummy (real Aztecs, by the way, DID not made mummies) has been waken up by the lead characters and starts making trouble in Mexico City suburbia, during the first movie (The Aztec Mummy). In this second part, the leading man and woman want to find th mummy and put it in its final resting place (a fireplace would have been my first choice...)<br /><br />Into this appears The Bat, a criminal master-mindless stereotype of a criminal genius who creates a "human robot" (some idiot inside a robot SUIT) to control Popoca and (get this) take over the world. The final match between the robot and the mummy is hilarious, some of the worst choreography ever witnessed. The funniest part is that this movie was made and released by a serious Mexican movie studio!<br /><br />The acting is just as awful hearing the movie in Spanish as it is in English (they dubbed the over-acting!). You should watch this movie through MST:3000. The comments are even funnier.

I almost stopped watching Hindi movies because of the mediocre quality and story lines. One exception for this is Ramgopal Verma movies. This is a nice movie with great performances from the star cast. This is must see movie for those who are sick of watching stupid dancing and love stories. The adaptation of the story and characterization was exceptional good.You should watch this movie for Nana Patekar. based on the life of Mumbai cop Daya Naik this movie deals in a more realistic way. The film delves into the life of the common man, which he has apart from being an encounter specialist. I rate this as one of the best movie of the year

This film was amazing, it was extremely funny and moving. Damien O'Donnell and Jeffrey Caine have put together a great movie which will appeal to all ages. James McAvoy and Steven Robertson made this film brilliant. Their acting was excellent, there was this real lifelike feeling between them, that made you really believe they were the characters they were acting out. Romola Garai is amazingly gorgeous and brilliant in her role. The story of these two physically challenged people and their carer is well put over, and you really start to grow to know and feel for the characters as the movie goes on, it was especially upsetting at the end. I would recommend this movie to anyone that loves a truly heart felt movie, warning to the more sensitive viewer make sure you have tissues you will need them.<br /><br />Again amazing film!!

This film was just painful to watch... not in the good dramatic way that makes you cringe with emotions for well developed characters in dramatic situations (yeah, I pretty much made that last sentence up as I went along), but in just an absolute dull way for OVER two hours. Now, you all may think I'm just some ignorant reviewer who has no respect for Shakespeare or "artistic film-making"... well, you'd be wrong on both counts. I love the works of Shakespeare, especially the tragedies of Romeo and Juliet, Julius Caesar, Macbeth, and Hamlet, and I've watched plenty of "arthouse" films such as the surreal and well-made Eraserhead and Fellini's 8 1/2... but this was just over two hours of lost-in-translation Shakespeare, WAY too much nudity (I can understand artistic nudity in SOME scenes... but not in every other shot of a movie!!! IT WAS POINTLESS AND SERVED NOTHING FOR THE STORY!!!), and basically just overzealous film-making. I had high expectations for this film in that it was said to be "very artistic" and was an adaptation of Shakespeare's The Tempest... but this was just an extreme letdown. I gave this film a three ONLY because of Sir John Gielgud's acting presence (which far surpassed all of the no-names in this film) and the cinematography/set design combination as it made a lot of scenes look like paintings in motion... however, a lot of this film would've been better off as JUST a painting with a scroll of text below it. A true disappointment... maybe if Zeffirelli had been given the director's chair, this would've been much better. But this is one audience member's opinion, many others may enjoy this far more than me. That being said, if you can't find this at any nearby video stores (it's currently not on DVD), don't try to go too far out of your way to find it... it's not really worth it.

I liked this show from the first episode I saw, which was the "Rhapsody in Blue" episode (for those that don't know what that is, the Zan going insane and becoming pau lvl 10 ep). Best visuals and special effects I've seen on a television series, nothing like it anywhere.

I'll probably get a lot of flack for hating this movie- guess I didn't approach it with the proper dewy-eyed nostalgia of the generation before me. But suffice it to say- St Elmo's Fire was pretty crap-freaking- tastic, even as far as Brat Pack films go.<br /><br />Here is yet another lovely example of the smug, self-indulgent neurosis that is everything 80s (RENT, anyone?) The plot is virtually non- existent and the philosophies are kitchy at best, poorly delivered the rest of the time. The complete lack of anything resembling sympathetic characters doesn't help the situation. There really was no growth, no forward movement at all. Even the climactic suicide scene was effectually neutered by once again refusing to let death or anything resembling reality or adult life enter in. <br /><br />Each cookie cutter figure simply goes about making you hate them in the blandest, most predictable way possible. The Stalker is a creep for no discernible reason other than he is a Stalker and Andie MacDowell is gorgeous. The Jackass does everything in his power to constantly remind you he is, well, a jackass. The Gorgeous Slut hides really soulful, deep pain with a wild lifestyle. The Poet moods and mopes around for a full 3/4 of the film until he can reveal (!) he actually is full of teddy bears and sunshine and rainbows. The Virgin finally becomes a whole, happy human being after getting every Virgin's desire of one hot roll in the sack with a Jackass before he ditches her to really change (for real this time). The Cheating Bastard cheats until it is time for him to get caught. And finally The Feminist go around dousing holy water on any soul that utters "commitment".<br /><br />Which brings me to my final beef- what bond of super-cement was holding these people together as friends? I can't imagine being with just one of them- Now think of the vortex created by all that narcissism centered in one bar. And they were all so terrible to each other- heads in toilets, near rape, and sleeping around with everrrryone. The cherry was after two BFFs act like total baboons after screwing the Feminist, she's like, "umm, actually I don't want to be with either of you anymore. Let's be friends! And we can hang out in a totally unawkward way every day knowing that I may hook up with one or the other at any given point, but neither of you are satisfying enough for commitment (NOT THAT WORD!)." And they all smile as if to say, "Golly gee, I never thought of that! What a great idea!"<br /><br />Only it's not. Kinda in the way that watching this movie is not.

This is an incredibly fun action/exploitation 80s rocker. Charles Bronson rules as Paul Kirsey. The villains are hilariously bad. The soundtrack, by Jimmy Page is laughably bad. Alex Winter (Bill of Bill & Ted) is great as one of the street punks who gets wasted by Bronson and crew. Crew? Oh, those are the downtrodden townsfolk who team up with Bronson to win back the streets. The whole movie is enjoyable, with the last half hour or so exploding into non-stop action and mayhem. 9/10

I enjoyed this film. The way these mutants looked, along with the tone of the film, is very good. Plus, David Cronenberg as Philip K. Decker was great! It makes me wonder if his personality is exactly the same in real life (except for the killings of course).<br /><br />I was impressed with the creatures for this film, although this movie probably had a somewhat low budget, the mutants/creatures/monsters looked great, especially from 1990. This is definitely a unique film and not crap. It makes me want to go find a read the novella it's based off of. This is an interesting film because it shows how humans can be monsters and the "monsters" are the one with humanity.

First, let's call this movie what it is:<br /><br />1. It's a feel-good movie with a message.<br /><br />2. The acting is just okay, dialog slightly better, production value pretty good.<br /><br />3. Rugby scenes...just barely passable.<br /><br />But here's the trick: this isn't something Hollywood contrived, and it isn't trying to be a ferociously accurate portrayal of the sport. It is instead a pretty good representation of mostly real people, in real circumstances, and a real storyline. Sure, they could have done a better job actually rep'ing the sport, but my vote: it does a pretty good job at what it sets out to do.<br /><br />(And fwiw, I can't think of many football, baseball, hockey or soccer movies that are true to the sport either. C'mon...Bull Durham?)<br /><br />I'm not a rugby player (I was a wrestler) but I graduated from Highland, attended '86-'90, and occasionally trained with the Rugby guys. My brother-in-law David, however, was one of the original founding members of the Highland Rugby Club in 1976. (His younger brother, Billy, played the next year, as I recall. If you're interested, there's a Highland Rugby site at highlandrugby.net that addresses the history of the team.) <br /><br />By the time I was there the club had been in existence for about a decade, and had long since built a reputation for excellence. It's a fact that they focused on "broad" training topics: devotion, honor, discipline, effort, not tactics. I thought the rugby guys I knew were a little 'off' in the head, but I think I might have just been a little jealous. They were hard-core dedicated to the belief system that Gelwix promoted.<br /><br />With regard to the "cultural mixing" issues that have been brought up, it might be interesting to note that while I was there in the 80's, one of the larger schools in the city was shut down - South High School - and its students distributed among the other 3 primary SLC schools. To be honest, Highland pre-80's was pretty whitebread...I've got a picture of the team from (I think) 1977 that shows an *all* white club. South High, on the other hand, was a much more racially integrated school before it closed: I had a pair of friends from South who joined the team, one Tongan, one Samoan, and as I recall there were a bunch of Island-nation players that joined up '88-'90. I don't think anyone questioned the credibility of the team in adopting Maori (or other cultural) traditions: if there was one thing that was obvious about these guys, it's that they walked the walk. <br /><br />And as to the strength of the team when compared to the best highschool-age teams in the world: yeah, it's true that US-Rugby, on average when taken as a whole, does not represent particularly well against the best elsewhere. There are exceptions, but hey - it's a simple fact that Rugby doesn't have the prominence or exposure needed to develop the multiple traditions of excellence in the US that arise in other countries.<br /><br />With that said, judge Highland on its merits: <br /><br />- the *only* team to qualify for the USA Rugby National Championships every year of that organizations' 25-yr history.<br /><br />- a win record of 392 wins, 9 losses. Read that again...winningest coach in any US sport in history.<br /><br />- regular international tours. <br /><br />- some compelling wins against some legitimate international teams.<br /><br />Are they the world best? Maybe some years, probably not most...but they're pretty good on a consistent basis. And it's disrespectful to the game to blow them off, when Highland Rugby may be the best ambassador to the sport in the US.

I stole this movie when I was a freshmen in college. I've tried to watch it three times, the second two because friends wanted to see it. "Sweet, Adam Sandler, I've never heard of this movie, but since he's so funny its gotta be funny." Wrong! I can't make myself watch this pile of crap after the dream boxing match/insult war, where burning the guy with a good zinger causes your opponent physical pain. You would think that terrible comedy hurting you is ridiculous, but after watching this you'll know its true. This movie isn't worth the price I paid for it. I've watched a ton of Steven segal movies, and I've even watched Crossroads twice... but I still couldn't watch this.

When I saw this movie, all I could think was: What a disaster! No I'm not talking about the volcano, but about the movie itself. I have seen a lot of movies, but this is certainly one of the worst ever. I don't care about the fact if a volcano erupting underneath downtown L.A. is possible or not. Perhaps it isn't, but even than this could have been a good movie... but it sure isn't and I'll explain you why.<br /><br />I don't know how much lava flows out of an average volcano, but what I do know is that the volcano in this movie makes the Vesuvius, Etna and Mount Pinatubo together look like a little barbecue. I don't think there has ever been so much lava flowing out of a volcano as what we see in this film. I'm sure the director had a lot of money to spend on his movie, but I really wonder why he all spent it on the special effects and not on the script and the actors. I'm not saying that he should have hired a top cast, but this really is the opposite of what I would call good acting. Their performances are so unbelievably poor that it makes the entire movie even worse.<br /><br />And what's wrong about the script you probably ask yourself. Well, can you tell me who comes up with the idea of people standing a few yards or even a few feet from the lava without getting burned or having to hide for the heath? Or people sinking in the earth when the flow of lava isn't even two foot high? <br /><br />I'm sure I wouldn't be proud if I wrote such a script, but apparently there are script writers in Hollywood who don't mind about believability as long as it pays good money! VERY good money!!!<br /><br />When you see the movie, you'll probably agree with me that this is one of Hollywood's worst disaster movies, not worth more than a 3/10.

Welcome to Collinwood is one of the most delightful films I have ever seen. A superb ensemble cast, tight editing and wonderful direction. A caper movie that doesn't get bogged down in the standard tricks.<br /><br />Not much can be said about this film without spoiling it. The tag line says it all - 5 guys. 1 Safe. No Brains.<br /><br />William H Macy and Sam Rockwell lead an amazing cast. George Clooney should be congratulated for producing this gem.<br /><br />

Movie about a small town with equal numbers of Mormons and Baptists. New family moves in, cue the overwritten dialog, mediocre acting, green jello salad with shredded carrots, and every other 'inside Mormon joke' known to man. Anyone outside the Mormon culture will have a hard time stomaching this movie. Anyone inside the Mormon culture will be slightly amused with a chuckle here and there. You'll be much better off watching Hess's other movies (Napoleon Dynamite, etc..) than trying to sit through this one. The acting is mediocre. Jared Hess has had his hands on much more quality films like "Saints and Soldiers", and "Napoleon Dynamite". I would recommend both movies over this groaner.

Discovering something, the journey is so much more fun, so much more surreal and so much more emotionally galvanizing than when you finally arrive at the destination. Falling in love is perhaps one of the most opulent feelings in the world. You feel energized, invigorated and alive. You simply want to be around that person every second of the day and the very sound of their voice gets you excited and sometimes aroused. Love, and all the physical and emotional side effects that comes with it, is pure bliss. Where it goes from here is anyone's guess, but when you first begin your journey together, nothing can compare to it.<br /><br />Diane Lane and Richard Gere play Adrienne Willis and Dr. Paul Flanner, two emotionally scarred middle aged individuals. In this film, they are about to embark on that mystical journey together, where love, and the discovery of the emotions along the way, will help save them.<br /><br />Lane is dealing with the typical jerk of an ex-husband who still loves her, but in her eyes, only because the woman he cheated with no longer wants him. As hurt as she was by him, as much as she really dislikes him, there is a part of her that is actually considering taking him back. Why you might ask? Because in life, and love, sometimes comfort supersedes intelligence. Yes, this man cheated on her but she has kids with him, she built a life with him and there is obviously still a connection with him.<br /><br />Richard Gere plays a recently divorced husband and estranged father. He also just lost a patient as she reacted negatively to the anesthetic. He is now being sued by her family and he is guilt ridden but hardened about the issue. This is what brings him to Rodanthe in the first place. Although his lawyer told him not to, he felt compelled to visit the woman's husband in Rodanthe. He stays at the Inn that Adrienne is taking care of. Soon, they find comfort in each other's arms and discover that they too can have a second chance in life.<br /><br />By now this sounds like a simple idea for a film, and although it might be something you've seen or read about before, Gere and Lane simply own the film. Diane Lane lights the screen up with her smile. Her eyes twinkle in the dark and the life she brings to the character is one worth watching. Gere's character is a little different. He is more hardened and bitter. It takes Adrienne's pain and her passion to bring him out of his shell. He blames quietly himself for his strained relationship with his son and her secretly blames himself for the death of the patient. On the outside he tells anyone who will listen that it is not his fault, and that she was a 1 in 50,000 casualty. But deep down, it eats away at him. They find each other at a time when both need someone to listen.<br /><br />Gere and Lane have been in film together before but this is the first time they play lovers. They were married in Unfaithful but here they play lovers finding each other when the people in their lives have abandoned them. They have a spark and a real chemistry. I would love to see more films with them together. In fact, I'd love to see more films with Diane Lane but that's a story for another time.<br /><br />Nights in Rodanthe is a very passionate and romantic film about two lost souls who save each other. They both become better people, they both become stronger people. I enjoyed it immensely and would recommend it to anyone, not just couples. This is a film about redemption, absolution, and second chances.<br /><br />It will also ask you to bring some hankies.<br /><br />8/10

Last night I decided to watch the prequel or shall I say the so called prequel to Carlito's Way - "Carlito's Way: Rise to Power (2005)" which went straight to DVD...no wonder .....it completely ...and I mean completely S%&KS !!! waist of time watching it and I think it would be a pure waist of time writing about it.... I don't understand how De Palma agreed on producing this sh#t-fest of a movie....except for only one fact that I tip my hat to... Jay Hernandez who plays the young Brigante.... reminded me how De Niro got into the shoes of Brando to portray the young Don Corleone in Godfather II ...but the difference De Niro was amazing and even got an Oscar for it !!! Jay Hernandez well he has guts for trying to be a young Pacino.... too bad for him I don't think he will be playing in film anymore and by the way after I watched this sh#$%ty movie, I sat down and watched the original Carlitos way to get the bad taste out of my mouth.

Typical thriller, has been done many times before. Simple plot outline; cop Liotta becomes obsessed with Russell's wife, and he tries to bump off good ol' Kurt so he can have her. This is beyond predictable, it doesn't even try to make you guess, the plot is the plot and there's no thinking outside the box here. I guess then the only reason to watch it is to see how it develops, but nothing is done originally or interestingly. There's not really anything to say about this film, it's not particularly bad, but there's no good points either. Russell plays Russell and you know what you're gonna get when you see him in a film. Ditto Liotta. Stowe has an annoying Cher-esque voice. I read the plot outline and I could see the film in my head, it was so obvious and basic. I watched it and it rolled out in front of my eyes exactly as I had imagined. I felt not a drop of emotion throughout. I have no feeling towards this film, it's as if I never even watched it. Considering this, it's a pretty pointless film isn't it? Still, I'll give it 3/10 for some reason.

Savage Steve Holland wrote and directed his second film, One Crazy Summer, with John Cusack and Curtis Armstrong again in a supporting role. Cusack and Bobcat Goldthwait are recent graduates headed to Cape Cod in order to stay at Goldthwait's grandmother's for the summer. Along the way, they bump into Demi Moore being pursued by John Matuszak and a motorcycle gang. Soon the three are united in trying to save a house from being turned into another lobster restaurant by a conniving, spoiled family that considers "work" a dirty word. The film contains several funny vignettes like the millionaire dollar radio contest gags and the Godzilla skit.<br /><br />Like Holland's first film, Better Off Dead, John Cusack adds immeasurably to the film. Otherwise, this is a dud of a film filled with contrived situations and idiotic characters (as opposed to quirky). Moore even sings a few bars in a nightclub with some horrible synthesizers. Goldthwait's gags wear thin after awhile, and Armstrong never was an actor of any caliber to appear in anything except grade Z stuff. The tow truck twins are extremely annoying and obnoxious instead of the endearing underdogs they're obviously meant to be. This is more of a hit or miss, kitchen sink comedy which could have used a better script and direction. *1/2 of 4 stars.

Deathtrap is not a whodunit. It's a who gonna do it to who first. It's so hard to describe this movie without giving anything away so I won't mention anything more about the plot. As far as acting goes it is Cris Reeves greatest role as Clifford, a young playwrite. You really see the range in his acting abilities in this movie from "exhaling cheeseburgers" to downright frightening. Clifford is such a hard role to play and in the stage production of this I have never seen Clifford played well on both ends of the spectrum. The actor plays him as a little puppy or a homicidal maniac. Reeves is the only person I have seen who has the character right all the way through. As for Michael Caine he's.....well he's Michael Caine. One of the best actors of the last 50 years and in this film as good as he has ever been.

o m g!!! did you ever think they would make a movie about it?? well i knew they would, but i didn't know when!! and now its here at last!!! when i received it yesterday through the post i put it into my (wicked) stereo that plays dvds and instantly had this huuuuuuuuuuge grin on my face as cloud appeared (looking well....gorgeous!!) and they followed by all the other fascinating characters from final fantasy the game! including tifa and aeris, my favourites....(they are pretty too in this) the graphics knocked me out!!!! they were truly amazing. so real down to the last hair!!! the story line is OK bit confusing, especially as my version of the film was in Japanese, but of course - being a long time final fantasy fanatic - i did not mind a bit - i just read the subtitles!!! all the characters talk the way they would do in the game, and reno and rude are still ridiculous. the dragon scene is wicked too. just looks SO good!!! anyway.... the graphics were, amazing....the storyline , fantastic....and the basic idea of even having a ff7 film.......genius!!!

Well, where do I start...<br /><br />As one of the other reviewers said, you know you're in for a real treat when you see the opening shot - minutes and minutes of film time spent on a guy standing on a travelator.<br /><br />I won't repeat Rubin's excellent summary of the story. What I would like to say, though, is that this film gripped me more than any film I can remember. I sat open-mouthed, and on the edge of my seat all the way through. The camera work, sound track and *fantastic* performances (particularly that of Tony Servillo) draw you to the screen and won't let you look away.<br /><br />It's Italian, so of course everyone looks fantastic, but it is by no means merely an exercise in cool style. This is a film with lots to say about luck, loss and love.<br /><br />Go and see it.

This low-budget erotic thriller that has some good points, but a lot more bad one. The plot revolves around a female lawyer trying to clear her lover who is accused of murdering his wife. Being a soft-core film, that entails her going undercover at a strip club and having sex with possible suspects. As plots go for this type of genre, not to bad. The script is okay, and the story makes enough sense for someone up at 2 AM watching this not to notice too many plot holes. But everything else in the film seems cheap. The lead actors aren't that bad, but pretty much all the supporting ones are unbelievably bad (one girl seems like she is drunk and/or high). The cinematography is badly lit, with everything looking grainy and ugly. The sound is so terrible that you can barely hear what people are saying. The worst thing in this movie is the reason you're watching it-the sex. The reason people watch these things is for hot sex scenes featuring really hot girls in Red Shoe Diary situations. The sex scenes aren't hot they're sleazy, shot in that porno style where everything is just a master shot of two people going at it. The woman also look like they are refuges from a porn shoot. I'm not trying to be rude or mean here, but they all have that breast implants and a burned out/weathered look. Even the title, "Deviant Obsession", sounds like a Hardcore flick. Not that I don't have anything against porn - in fact I love it. But I want my soft-core and my hard-core separate. What ever happened to actresses like Shannon Tweed, Jacqueline Lovell, Shannon Whirry and Kim Dawson? Women that could act and who would totally arouse you? And what happened to B erotic thrillers like Body Chemistry, Nighteyes and even Stripped to Kill. Sure, none of these where masterpieces, but at least they felt like movies. Plus, they were pushing the envelope, going beyond Hollywood's relatively prude stance on sex, sexual obsessions and perversions. Now they just make hard-core films without the hard-core sex.

Robin Williams gave a fine performance in The Night Listener as did the other cast members. However, the movie seems rushed and leaves too many loose ends to be considered a "must see." I think the problem happens because there isn't a strong enough relationship established between the caller and the Gabriel Noon(I had to spell it this way, because IMDb wants to auto correct the right spelling to "No one") character. The movie runs a little over 01:30 and within the first 15 minutes, or so it seems, Noon begins his search for Pete Logande, the boy caller.<br /><br />This happens after he talks to the mysterious caller about 3 or 4 times. The conversations aren't too in-depth mostly consisting of how are you... I'm in the hospital...why did you boyfriend move out... etc. In the book, the kid almost becomes Noon's shrink and vice versa and the reader understands why he goes in search of this boy, once he finds out the kid disappears and thinks he might be a hoax.<br /><br />In the movie, Noon becomes obsessed with finding Logande, but the audience is left to wonder why? Since there really isn't a strong enough bond established between Noon and the caller, why bother? Who cares if the caller doesn't exist? <br /><br />I know there's a difference between a book and a movie, but those calls and that relationship was critical to establish on screen, because it provides the foundation for the rest of the movie. Since it doesn't, the movie falls apart.<br /><br />This is surprising because of Maupin's other work, Tales of the City. When it was made into a mini-series, it worked beautifully.

This is a gem, a real piece of Americana for all that this implies. If you are self programed to resist "life-afirming" stories, just stay away and leave the pleasure to the rest of us who still believe. And what makes the frosting on the cake truly delectable is that it is fact based on a real rags to riches story, no need to nit-pick what details were changed to make a compact story. Chris Cooper is one of the greatest living actors, and the complex, self-conflicted, bottom-line good at the core father he portrayed could only be pulled off successfully by someone with his skill and insight. The simple minded comments, refusing to accept a father who tries to lay down the law all the while sensing that he may possibly be off-track, expose the limitation of the commentator, not the writers or the acting. This is not for the cynical, or the simple minded.

This tough-to-see little picture played at the Mods & Rockers 2007 festival. It is a wonderful and loving look at Harry Nilsson, using many famous faces who sit for interviews, rarely seen TV performances and behind-the-scenes footage of Nilsson at work. There's even a few shots from "Son Of Dracula". This movie is the final and fitting tribute to one of the finest voices, the most clever songwriter and the funniest man in popular music. It's a crime that this man's name is not as well known as some of the songs he wrote and/or performed. His friends tell incredibly funny stories about this talented hulk with a subconscious wish for self-destruction. As a bonus, you even get Eric Idle performing the song with wrote for Nilsson's final album during the closing credits. It's funny, it's sad. It's not in general release. If this picture plays anywhere near where you live, see it!

I'm only going to write more because it's required. However, the summary I put at the top is way too wordy for what this film was. You pretty much know who's in on it from the beginning. In spite of its attempts at plot twists and turns -acting 'talent' trying hard to have looks of shock and dismay when a twist happens-, you never really need to wonder 'whodunit' in this 'mystery'.<br /><br />The more I write, the more I feel bad that I have to write so much in order to have a comment, but rules are rules. I really feel bad about saying this, but this is the lowest I've ever rated a movie... I think. It makes me wonder what I'm saving votes of 1 and 2 for. However, I thought this film deserved a 3, since I believe there was some talent in the film. Johanna Watts (or is it Watson) did a pretty good job. She was crying and distraught in one part and I thought she conveyed that emotion well. The man who played the character that was 'the drummer' did well, too, for his short part.<br /><br />Many of the actors did an 'ok' job. But the lead actor, David -forget his last name (terrible with names)- was pretty bad. I think he must have thought he was doing dramatic displays for 'The Young and the Restless' or 'Days of Our Lives'. If you try, you can just picture him in a white lab coat, playing a doctor with multiple personalities on 'General Hospital'. It doesn't help that the movie is even shot like a daytime soap. Although, I'm pretty sure I could shoot this same movie with a camcorder; though without the obvious and soap'ish sound editing.<br /><br />First time I ever thought the money to rent this movie was wasted. Though, I wouldn't watch it again, unless I was paid a large sum of money.

***SPOILERS*** Let's start with the "good" of this film--the serviceable acting of Cynthia Rothrock and Richard Norton. The rest of the acting is awful (this isn't aided by the atrocious script). The worst culprit is the villain, Buntao, the head of an Asian crime syndicate (played by Frans Tumbuan). I was laughing my head off as he was expressing his "fury" over having lost a bunch of money; horrid performance. Patrick Muldoon isn't much better, and his "it's a hostile takeover" line (that's the remainder of the title of this film) was delivered about as badly as one could do it. There are no other main characters, but no other actor/actress distinguished him/herself in this film. We next come to the plot. This should tell you all you need to know: In the original "Rage and Honor," Cynthia Rothrock, who plays Chris Fairchild, was a teacher in the inner city. Now, she's a C.I.A. agent (or was it some other governmental agency--sorry, but this film was so bad that I don't even remember). Hmmm...I can imagine what that C.I.A. application process was like. Interviewer: What past job experience do you have? Chris: I was a teacher. Interviewer: Okay; you're hired! I only give it a "2" because of some decent acting and a nice plot twist at the end (though we know that Tommy (Muldoon), the secret villain, will be caught).

A suspenseful thriller that bears some resemblance to Deliverance as for scenery and setting. There are also some very innovatively shot scenes and good music, although the daftness and sometimes seemingly careless attitude of one of the characters is unfitting to the situation, although this is not a mayor problem. It also poses interesting questions about justness of revenge and limits of friendship.<br /><br />

The Great Ecstasy of Robert Carmichael is bad film in every way. The script, the dreary pace, the lack of depth in any character, the pointless sub-plots, the dreadful acting, the needless climax all make this possibly the worst film I've ever seen. I found nothing likable, enjoyable or intellectually stimulating in any way.<br /><br />I imagine the film makers thought they were making something clever and dark, with its moody lighting, long protracted silences and vaguely haunting classical soundtrack. If so, they failed utterly. It just bored me, and I wish I had never watched it.<br /><br />Avoid at all costs.

Any person, claiming this movie to be a ninja classic film, must have seen this movie before the middle of the nineties or he was less then 10 years before he's seen it. Otherwise I can't explain this 'classic ninja movie' title.<br /><br />The fight scenes in this movie are just intolerable. Instead of casting Franco Nero as the ninja, they could hire some experienced martial artist instead. In any way the acting skill is not important in that kind of a movie. Nero's fighting ability is barely of some street fighter in a bar. His kicks and punches are lame.<br /><br />There's enough of old action movies with good action. This is just a waste of time.

Pay no attention to the comments behind the curtain! The majority of people leaving positive comments about this film must be receiving royalties. This is a horrible film in every way. Imagine high school kids with no money and no sense of humor making a slasher/comedy video. They would receive a D for this. College kids would receive an F or asked to leave the school. Since this monstrosity was made by "Professionals" I believe there should be jail time or at least cinema probation. I enjoy watching bad movies Like "Plan 9 From Outer Space" but, this thing doesn't even fall into that category. The script, acting, sound, and directing are so bad that it is virtually unwatchable. If you enjoy watching bad films that are amusing stick with Ed Wood, blaxploitation, or 1970's horror films. After viewing this you get the feeling you've wasted an hour and a half of your life.

I have copy of this on VHS, I think they (The television networks) should play this every year for the next twenty years. So that we don't forget what was and that we remember not to do the same mistakes again. Like putting some people in the director's chair, where they don't belong. This movie Rappin' is like a vaudevillian musical, for those who can't sing, or act. This movie is as much fun as trying to teach the 'blind' to drive a city bus.<br /><br />John Hood, (Peebles) has just got out of prison and he's headed back to the old neighborhood. In serving time for an all-to-nice crime of necessity, of course. John heads back onto the old street and is greeted by kids dogs old ladies and his peer homeys as they dance and sing all along the way.<br /><br />I would recommend this if I was sentimental, or if in truth someone was smoking medicinal pot prescribed by a doctor for glaucoma. Either way this is a poorly directed, scripted, acted and even produced (I never thought I'd sat that) satire of ghetto life with the 'Hood'. Although, I think the redeeming part of the story, through the wannabe gang fight sequences and the dance numbers, his friends care about their neighbors and want to save the ghetto from being torn down and cleaned up. <br /><br />Forget Sonny spoon, Mario could have won an Oscar for that in comparison to this Rap. Oh well if you find yourself wanting to laugh yourself silly and three-quarters embarrassed, be sure to drink first. <br /><br />And please, watch responsibly. (No stars, better luck next time!)

I loved this film. Not being a swooning Ed Wood Jr. fan, I prefer to appreciate his "boundless enthusiasm" and acknowledge his shortcomings. His movies are fun, but his personal story is one racked with pain. I hoped, and was delighted to find, that this film would be about understanding his turbulent life, rather than simply heaping him with posthumous praise. From beginning to end, this film evolves from a documentary into a mythology, leaving the cast and the viewer unexpectedly connected to each other and to Ed Wood Jr.<br /><br />What we get are people who knew Ed Wood the best talking about him from all perspectives, positive and negative, and showing us their character as much as Ed's. We get insight into Ed's personal and professional life: from his romances, to his drinking, to his sexuality, to his friends, to his enemies, and even to his film making.<br /><br />The film itself is shot in a low-budget way that seems done out of respect for Ed, as if using the techniques of most theatrically released movies from 1996 would be disrespectful (sort of like wearing a nicer suit than the President). The set designer uses a sense of humor and also a great deal of insight when matching each cast member with their background.<br /><br />Fans will be excited to hear personal testimony regarding Ed Wood controversies, and new comers will be amazed that this man was real. The DVD is full of impossible to find gems ("Crossroads of Lorado" and photo galleries), but the real treasure of this film is the surprisingly engaging and interconnected story.<br /><br />Ed Wood had a habit of defining people through their association with him (for better or worse), to the point where one woman will go down in history as "Swimming Pool Owner" for once letting him and his friends be baptized in her pool. This ability to define a person's legacy comes through universally, as the most amazing effect of the film is to not only give a well rounded idea of the man that was Ed Wood Jr., but also to give a comprehensive view of the community that he created. Somehow, without ever having more that one cast member being interviewed on screen at a time, the connection that Ed Wood created amongst the various people in his life becomes clear, and the viewer is left with great sense of involvement.<br /><br />Even the title hints at the B-list horror genre, but by the end, we see that even this is a kindness. What begins as unrelated stories by random people ends with the conclusion that all of the cast will be forever weaved into an unpredictably cohesive fabric that history will bring into haunting unity with Wood's legend.<br /><br />In many ways a living contradiction, Ed Wood Jr. could not be condensed to a single viewpoint. This collaborative effort is the closest to knowing him that we can ever get. Being itself a juxtaposition of themes, it is at once respectful, provocative, thoughtful, gripping, fun, sad, kind, and fulfilling.

Well, This was my first IMAX experience so I was pretty blown away about that, primarily; although with hindsight, I can't help wishing that it had been some other (less monochrome)film.<br /><br />Magnificent Desolation very much had the "Programme for Schools" feel the way it listed all the astronauts and this made it feel a LOT like reading National Geographic Magazine in 3D. Weirdly it actually had a very two dimensional quality that only occasionally exploded into reality and a lot of time it felt like some PowerPoint Presentation. There was a moment in the film when an unnoticed abyss opens; seemingly at your feel, that had a bit of a WOW factor but to be honest, that may have had more to do with me being an IMAX virgin.<br /><br />The commentary, provided by Tom Hanks, I personally found very, (what's a nice way to put it??) "flag-wavingly nationalistic" which didn't go down too well in central London, judging by remarks overheard as we left.<br /><br />Over all, I loved the IMAX experience, but dearly wish a different film had been on on that day. The Moon isn't a particularly colourful subject and to be honest, a lot of the 3D effects were lost in the monochrome scenery. All that would have been well, were it not for the documentary inserts and distractions like the interviews with American schoolchildren which spoiled it a bit

With a title like "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes!", anyone going into this thing would be expecting either a) a bad science fiction movie or b) a comedy making fun of bad science fiction movies. It's supposed to be a mix of both, with a dose of parody splashed in. Unfortunately, it falls flat very soon.<br /><br />You're never supposed to take this movie seriously, I realize that, but you're supposed to think it's funny, right? I found only a few of the jokes or situations were funny (i.e, the side-by-side phone conversations, the Russian Olympic spy eating steroid cereal, Superman walking by Lois, etc.). "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" strives to be a cult classic, but it doesn't make it. A cult classic is a movie that is so different that only a select group of people understand it (or a similar description). "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" could be enjoyed by any 8-year-old with a bad sense of humor, so therefore, it does not qualify as a cult film.<br /><br />There is one good actress in the entire thing: Sharon Taylor as Lois Fairchild. She is a thin, gawky reporter, but has an endearing personality, loves to overact, and is a natural comedienne. Unfortunately, she is put to bad use here.<br /><br />"Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" is not as funny as, say, "Amazon Women on the Moon" or "Kentucky Fried Movie", but it does have a few hilarious moments, so I would still recommend seeing it once. Avoid the director's cut, it has interruptions by the producer of the movie and some supposedly "lost" footage dubbed in a pretend African dialect (it can be found in English on the out of print tape).

This is by far the most awful movie I have ever watched. I have never before rated a movie 1 out of 10. My advice is don't watch it. This doesn't even classify as a movie.<br /><br />You'd be better off sitting on the couch bored rather than watching this movie. Acting was terrible but what was worst by far was the storyline. Highly unlikely sequence of events which aren't even funny. They are actually very lame and stupid. Very foolish choice by Ashton Kutcher and Tara Reid to act in this movie. Might even upset their careers a little.<br /><br />When I walked into Blockbuster, the main focus was on this movie , so I decided rent it. I sincerely regret it.<br /><br />Once you're 10 or 20 minutes into the movie you could basically predict what was going to happen. I was hoping it would get better , but instead it got worse.<br /><br />I am not exaggerating this. The movie is terrible. Don't watch it. Hope this helps.

I saw this film at a special screening. At first I thought the movie would be like a typical Amanda Bynes movie, but I was wrong. The movie is based on the Shakespeares book "The Twelth Night" This movie tells the story of a girl who lives to play soccer. Well when the girls team is cut she has to go to great lengths to get on the guys team at a different school to get revenge on the egotistical guys team at her old school. On her way she gets caught up in a long tangled web of love, lies, and deception. This movie is this years Mean Girls. I think it shows some great new actors abilities and there are defiantly some big stars to be featured in this movie.

"Ghost Son" is Lamberto Bava's best film and, at the same time, also his worst. I suppose that statement requires some slight clarification. It's his best because it's well directed, ambitious, accessible and very stylish, but his worst because it's a dull, unoriginal movie and undeniably a huge letdown to all the real fans of Bava's past efforts. Let's face it: many fans, myself certainly included, wouldn't have been interested in this film judging by the plot, the famous names attached to it and even the boring sounding title. The only motivation here was Lamberto Bava, who brought us large amounts of convoluted Gialli and fun splatter films in the past. "Ghost Son" is a bit of his comeback film, alongside "The Torturer", and although the latter definitely isn't a good film, it at least lives up to his fans' lines of expectations, with excessive amounts of sleaze, blood and sadism. "Ghost Son" is a weak and intolerably soft horror film, even talking in terms of mainstream ghost stories. The emphasis lies too much on sentimentality, and this badly affects the already limited number of horrific & creepily atmospheric moments. The basic premise might feature one or two potentially good ideas, but the film is overall dull and far too clichéd. John Hannah and Laura Harring star as a happy couple, living on a remote ranch in South Africa and breeding horses for a living. The joy and happiness couldn't possibly improve, so naturally something tragic is bound to happen, and it does. Mark dies in a car accident, but the inconsolable Stacey remains at the ranch where she's in constant contact with Mark's spirit. She even gets pregnant with his child, but shortly after baby Martin's birth mysterious events begin to occur. It seems as if Mark's restless and selfish ghost 'possessed' the baby and uses him to encourage Stacy into committing suicide. With all the focus on the couple's relationship, many of the events and sub plots are underdeveloped and/or remains unexplained, like the whole background of the youthful maid Thandi. There's too little action and the only real fright-moments are too obviously borrowed from classic films such as "The Exorcist" and "Rosemary's Baby" (vomiting green goo, self moving furniture…). Purely talking in terms of horrific entertainment "Ghost Son" is a painful misfire, but it has to be said, it's a beautiful and enchanting looking failure. The cinematography is extremely elegant and many camera angles are truly inventive and suggestive. The moody score sometimes even manages to create an ominous atmosphere even though there's nothing of any significance happening on screen. There are several beautiful images of the South African wildlife to admire but, if that interests you, I suppose you're better off watching National Geographic instead. Not much to recommend here. Fans of atmosphere-driven ghost stories have much better options to choose from and die-hard Bava fanatics are advised to (re-)watch "Demons", "Macabre" or "Blade in the Dark".

This is not a bad film. It is not wildly funny, but it is interesting and<br /><br />entertaining. It has a few funny moments. Cher gives a good<br /><br />performance in a role that is very opposite her real-life self. Her<br /><br />performance alone is worth the watch. If this movie had come out<br /><br />today it would not have been nominated, but by '80s standards it<br /><br />was excellent.

"Kolchak" was a TV series that really didn't fit into any category. Part horror, part comedy, some social awareness thrown in, and what we have is something that I think people weren't ready for. It's a shame really, as I've started to watch these shows on the Chiller network, (I never saw the originals), I realized how different and interesting it really was. <br /><br />Starring Darren Mcgavin as Kolchak a reporter for the International News Service, and Simon Oakland as his always angry boss, Tony Vincenzo, the show followed the exploits of a Chicago news reporter who more often than not, became a part of the story himself, as he searched the windy city for modern day creepies that go bump in the night. The underlying charm of Macgavin really sets the show apart. A somewhat goofy guy, who always wears the same suit, you cannot help but love him. His jokes are great, and the back and forth between him and the skeptical editor, Oakland, are downright hilarious. <br /><br />The stories are for the most part pretty good, and the acting is very good. The 70's were not a *great* period for special effects, and the show suffers for it, but if you suspend disbelief, what you have is a fun series that was ahead of it's time.

in a not so conventional sense of the word.<br /><br />This movie was one of my favorites as a young child, and I just recently remembered it, and thought to look it up. While many of the details are no longer clear in my mind, the overall feeling that the movie gave me has stuck with me over the years.<br /><br />If parents feel that their children can handle mature and sometimes violent themes, then I highly recommend this movie. It taught me a lot about life and death, and brought forth in me a lot of emotion. To this day, it remains one of my favorite films.

*Warning: 1 tiny inconsequential spoiler* You're right. This was no Bridges of Madison County. As soon as the lonely woman and Richard Gere checked into the big empty hotel, it was a foregone conclusion something kind of fun would happen. The question is: how will it come about? The answer is some stupid connect-the-dots story not worth sitting through. In one supposed bonding experience, they get drunk and clean out the cupboard of old cans.(That was my spoiler.) And the next day they put them back. LOL It wasn't compelling AT ALL. I'm an old married lady like the one in the movie and MY friendships are more interesting than HER romance with Richard Gere. LOL . . . It did have that advantage. You walk away and go, oh brother . . . even I could have written something more believable than that. I guess my life isn't quite as dull as I thought it was if I can scoff at a romance with Richard Gere. LOL! And that friend inherited that totally contemporary, probably computer-generated mansion, resting half in the ocean, from her GRANDMOTHER who built it AFTER THE CIVIL WAR??? Maybe her grandmother is Oprah and this was WAY after the Civil War? And yes, WHERE WAS THE EMAIL? What alternative universe do these people live in? I never want to see another movie that pretends we don't have email, and facebook,and texting. And OK, maybe these people have a horrible aversion to delivering news over the phone, but don't ask me to believe anyone in this age of instant communication that someone just drops into your life without calling first.

To me Bollywood movies are not generally up to much, though they are still quite desired and Bollywood is a big file maker as they have their own fans.<br /><br />The only motive that made me watch the movie was to see to what extent an American actress could change or affect the logic that Indian movie were based on. Not only did not it change the movie story also this blending caused some ridiculous series of events.<br /><br />I mean it is quite common to see heaps of illogical things through Indian movies as they have their own world in their movies. But once you see such incidents happen to an American it makes you laugh. For God's sake can you believe a famous American actress is stuck in desperate situation and feel impotent. Can you imagine an American actress falls in loves with a dance instructor whose fiancée already fell in love with American's boy friend and they met each other at the same time. There were lot of similar things to mention. the less said the better.<br /><br />Perhaps I was wrong as I expected too much from Indian Movies.

I just saw this on TCM tonight and was shocked at the over-acting by Jean Arthur. Her bugging her eyes out in surprise and just generally over-doing everything was not in the same style as Dietrich and Art Lund. Dietrich was marvelous in her restraint and comic timing. She being the best thing in this movie. The Wilder gags were flat and frankly more like something a freshman in college would write trying to "get away" w/being wicked,witty and dirty, but just sounded boring and not funny at all. It seemed the humor was being pushed too hard to be funny. The ending was totally contrived. <br /><br />SPOILER AHEAD: Never for a moment did I believe that Art Lund suddenly fell outta love w/Dietrich and then was suddenly madly in love w/Arthur. Oh, Billy. Get real! 3 out of 10.

A movie that tries hard to say something and generally fails. Like the fatuous academics that populate the movie, it meanders aimlessly, substituting endless (it seems like forever listening to it) conversation for some action or plot direction.<br /><br />Sadly, it's one of the best examples of canadian cinema I've seen.

This was a real let down for me. The original Bride with White Hair is a great kung fu fantasy film but this one was pretty weak. I didn't care at all for the new characters who unfortunately dominated the screen time and the story wasn't well developed. While the first film was tragic and involving this one was tedious (as I merely counted the time to the end when the ill-fated lovers would actually meet). The action was poor in this one as well. The fights were not choreographed very well and there really wasn't much kung-fu at all. Just a few weak sword fights between the highly dis-likable Lui and one of Lin's henchwomen. Lin herself mainly uses a sort of telekinesis to throw people into walls and sometimes her hair, a far cry from the impressive showing with the whip and kung-fu she displayed in the previous film. I still gave this movie a 4 because at least it was fast pace and I did want to see what was going to happen at the end, though I (as most anyone who watched the first one) predicted it would go down the way it did and after seeing it I found it anti-climactic and wished they had either made a proper sequel or just left the story alone. I really recommend the first one but as for the sequel only fans of the genre and those who really want to see Lin as the bride one more time need apply.