Datasets:

mushroomsolutions

/

imdb_sentiment_3000_Test

like 0

A movie visually graceful but interesting is mainly the plot. The film depicts a zigzag progress of exploring the main actor's innermost feeling. Max, who has lived in New York for two years and intend to marry a girl he met there, comes back to Paris and unexpectedly meets his ex-girlfriend whom he still fancies very much but finally finds out the one he loves the most in fact is her best friend. Non-linear narration thus many flashbacks and every part are articulated quite well. The three women Max has met symbolize something we must pursue although possibly having no clear picture about the underlying motivations. His fiancee is the one he needs rather than the one he loves and thus completely no loyalty we can see. She gives him also no love but only stability. True love also cannot be found in his relation with the ex-girlfriend. Merely a fantasy for him to escape - many things very romantic he has done for her but almost nothing seems amenable. The one who really animates Max's life in fact is her best friend. The equilibrium achieved at the end is not identical to the initial equilibrium because Max has understand much more about his innermost feeling. The nonlinear structure makes the progress of searching look more complicated. Not equally ingenious as "Pulp Fiction" but things seem much more natural in "The Apartment". Max is not the only character who undergoes a transformation and in fact interesting is also the description to Romane Bohringer. The good cinematography also makes her and Monica Bellucci look very beautiful. A good commentary of today's love and undoubtedly a film worth seeing. <br /><br />

Having never seen the original Dirty Harry, I judged this movie on a clean slate. And I must say, I quite enjoyed it. Sure, some of the acting by Sondre Locke made me a little squeemish - but hey, it was the 80's. But even if you can't get past her (and I almost couldn't) or her revenge killings (which seemed a little.. overdone ;P), it's worth it just for Dirty Harry. Or at the very least, the bull dog he affectionately names 'MeatHead' :P<br /><br />7/10.

Miriam Hopkins is "The Lady with Red Hair" in this 1940 biopic of Mrs. Leslie Carter which also stars Claude Rains as David Belasco, Richard Ainley as Lou Payne, and a fine cast of supporting players, including Laura Hope Crews and Victor Jory.<br /><br />Miriam Hopkins and Claude Rains give wonderful performances. Hopkins was a beautiful actress who really makes us feel for Mrs. Carter. Rains is great as the flamboyant, egotistical producer/writer/actor/impresario David Belasco, one of the great names in theater.<br /><br />Though Mrs. Carter's second husband, Lou Payne, served as adviser on this film, it's a poor representation of the real events of Mrs. Carter's life. True, there was a much publicized and bitter divorce, and she was undoubtedly viewed as a scandalous character for that and for becoming an actress. However, she had custody of her son Dudley, so there was no custody battle. Once she broke with Belasco, she did not go back to him and, in fact, started working in vaudeville and actually made some films toward the end of her life. She did indeed marry Lou, and he became her leading man in many productions.<br /><br />The driving force for Mrs. Carter in the beginning of this film is regaining custody of her son, but she finally realizes that in her time away from him, he is thoroughly bonded with his father. In the film also (and I'm not sure if it was true in real life) she traveled with her mother and lived in a theatrical boarding house, which gives the film some added interesting atmosphere.<br /><br />Not a bad movie, probably not a depiction of the greatness of either Carter or Belasco. One of Mrs. Carter's most famous moments was in The Heart of Maryland, where she wore a wig with six-foot tresses. Off-stage, fans blew her hair as she hung 35 feet above the stage clutching the center of a bell to keep it from ringing. Quite a visual.

For those of you who have no idea what Bug Juice is or was, it was a children's reality show about real kids living at summer camp. Bug Juice is the show that inspired me to go to camp. It was full of romance, friendships, fights, overcoming your fears, and dealing with the struggles of living away from home for 2 months. It was an amazing show that is no longer shown on t.v. regularly, but is amazing non-the-less. The show was never dull and always attracted my attention. It's really nice for kids who have never been to a summer camp to really see what it's like before going. Plus Disney did a really good job of picking camps to showcase because who wants to see a show that's at a camp for like only a week. The length of the camps where perfect for this show, and the environment they where in was fantastic. They where camps all over the U.S., that each provided unique activities for the campers. It was a truly amazing, unscripted show.

One of the best if not the best rock'n'roll movies ever. And it's not just mindless fun. There really were a lot of clever jokes in it. Of course I love the Ramones. But with all the "anarchy" and the "I hate high school" themes, the film doesn't at all take itself too seriously,which is what's great about it.<br /><br />I first saw the movie in the Spring of 1980, and I saw it again recently. Since I went to high school in the late 1970's, it made me kind of nostalgic. <br /><br />Like I said, this film doesn't take itself that seriously and isn't pretentious like so much other teen fare of the seventies, eighties, and nineties. And to speak of, it's not really dirty or disgusting either. Only PG rated. That's rare for a movie in this category. A great cult classic and a truly incredible time capsule.

Without Peter Ustinov and Maggie Smith, this could easily have been a turkey. But they are brilliant. Ustinov is at his best, and for fans of Maggie, it is great to see her in her early days, matching Ustinov every step of the way for with and timing. For Englishmen in their fifties (and I am in that bracket), it is always entertaining to see glimpses of and hear sounds of the Swinging Sixties, and although this film spends a lot of time in offices, it has plenty of Sixties nostalgia, including red buses, Carnaby Street, a song by Lulu and a delicious shot up the micro-skirt of a waitress, the like of which England has never seen since in public places. As an I.T. engineer, I know that the computer hacking tricks are laughable, but they are not meant to be taken seriously. Nor are the wonderful stereotypes of Italians, French and Germans.

Oh boy. Where do I begin on this piece of slime? This is one of the few real high-budget films on my list that I've actually seen fit to give a 1 rating, and that's not for the production values, which are pretty high. This movie has absolutely no respect for the account in the bible, and treats the whole story as laughable fantasy. I could not recommend it to anyone, except to see how low as a society we have become...<br /><br />For the first thing, Noah was absolutely not friends with Lot. Anyone who actually read Genesis could tell you that Abram was who they were thinking of. The writers were just trying to pad out the story with the whole Sodom/Gommorah subplot, and it seems out of place because it is. Noah is treated as a prudish goofball ("You were kissing! You were kissing!") but at least it's a step up from Voight's hilarious overacting in Anaconda. <br /><br />However, these offenses pale in comparison to the heretical treatment of God in this movie. God is portrayed as a petty, incomprehesible being who changes his mind at the slightest whim. ("I'm one eternal perfect, but I can be wrong") What? Where are they getting this from? This kind of God...no one should ever pay any attention to, much less worship, praise, or love. What the director's saying in this, I do not claim to know. I just know that a responsible treatment of Noah's Ark should not take such an easy way out. Shame on these people.

I saw this film when it first came out and hated it. I just saw it again 27 years later. I actually liked some of it... although Robin Williams was totally wrong for the role... What I remember most about hating the film is that it was almost the complete opposite of what I had understood when I read the book. Since I haven't re-read it, I can only give you my impressions from the past - but I am sure of one thing - the film is a paean to family life, whereas in the book, almost ALL traditional institutions - including, and perhaps especially, marriage - are shown to be strait-jackets that we would be well rid of. The only positive in the book is the wondrous nature of children...something that only the very beginning and ending of the film really captures (with that incredibly gorgeous baby floating in the air. Too bad Williams doesn't have a tenth of his charm!) My low mark is therefore from the fact that the film misrepresents the book. As a film on its own it fares better - but only for a few key performances. Mary Beth Hurt is wonderful - I think anyone watching it would fall in love with her. And John Lithgow as an ex football player who has had a sex-change operation is fantastic... he never once camped it up or made the character anything but commendable - and as such his performance had an incredibly integrity. I watched him closely during all of his scenes, and never once was he anything except womanly. Nothing in his performance ever came near the performance of a drag queen... and that made all the difference. In fact, of all the people in the film, his is the only one which is irreproachable. It is worth seeing this film only for his performance.

This is probably one of the best Portuguese movies I ever saw... I absolutely enjoyed the plot, because by the way the story was developing, you would get more involved on how their world was really upside-down... There is just only one part that doesn't really seem to fit in the movie, which is the girls' strip... It does not add anything important to the story, it looks like it's just there for a men entertaining purpose. The ending is a bit unexpected, though, at the same time, somewhat expected. If you don't understand, then follow me: after so many strange occurrences, the viewer is so used to oddities, that ending the movie with totally unexpected relationships (Like Mimoso and Susana) sounds totally natural after seeing the rest of the movie. But, most of all, Sorte Nula is a movie that makes you think hard trying to solve the mysterious occourings, laugh your head off with their unlucky lives and mess with your perception of what can happen in just a few minutes, when you turn your back away from something... for all that, I rate it 8/10

Or vice-versa.<br /><br />This is a French film noir directed by an American film maker (Jules Dassin) who had to leave the country because of being blacklisted by Hollywood thanks to HUAC. The premise of the story is rather familiar--one last jewel heist for Tony le Stephanois and his buds--and so is the ending with everybody getting... Well, no spoilers here, for sure, since this is the sort of film in which tension toward the ending is important.<br /><br />Dassin filmed in realistic lighting in black and white on the streets of Paris using actors and actresses who are not glamorous. The engaging--sometimes intruding--score by Georges Auric nicely enhances the movie and will remind viewers of many a similar score from American film noirs from the forties and early fifties. Jean Servais plays the hardcore, consumptive lead in a fedora much as Humphrey Bogart might have played him. Tony's recently out of prison, past his prime, but still tough and decisive when he has to be, his mind still sharp when focused, the kind of anti-hero whose eyes water even though the tears will never fall.<br /><br />Dassin plays the Italian safecracker and would-be ladies man who knows the rules but gets careless.<br /><br />In film noir we are forced by the logic and focus of the film to identify with the bad guys. Often there are levels of bad guys, the "good" bad guys we are identifying with and the "bad" bad guys who are out to do in our good bad guys, and then maybe there's a really bad, bad bad guy or two. (Here we have Remi Grutter, played by Robert Hossein, a slightly sadistic druggie.) Then there are the cops who are irrelevant or nearly so. In more modern film noir the bad guys are not even "good" bad guys, and they get away with it or something close to that. In the old film noir, which evolved from the gangster films of the thirties, the usual motto, following the old Hollywood "code," was "Crime Doesn't Pay," with every criminal having to pay for his or her crime before the end of the movie.<br /><br />Probably the most impressive feature of Rififi is how nicely the film moves along. The plot unfolds quickly and seamlessly much the way the great film directors always did it, directors like Stanley Kubrick, Louis Malle, and the best of Hitchcock. Some have actually compared this to Kubrick's The Killing (1956) and suggest that Kubrick stole a little. Well, directors always steal if need be, and there are some perhaps telling similarities, such as it being "one last heist" for the protagonist, and having the girl gum up the works. The similarities may go deeper because as this film was nearing its end I suddenly thought, oh, no! the suitcase in the back seat is going to fly out of the convertible, hit the ground, burst open, and all the money is going to fly into the air! Those of you who have seen The Killing may recall what happened to the money near the end of the film! Which reminds me of another film with something bad happening to the money: Oliver Stone's U Turn (1997) starring Sean Penn. There the money in his backpack gets blown to smithereens by a shotgun blast. Ha, ha, ha! Getting the dubbed version of this film would be an act of sacrilege since the dialogue (when there is some: the heist itself is done entirely without dialogue, about 30 minutes worth) is terse and easy to follow requiring only an occasional glance at the subtitles, which, by the way, are quite utilitarian and guiding as opposed to having every word spelled out.<br /><br />One other thing: all the brutality is done as sex used to be done in film, that is off camera. A guy gets his throat slit. We don't see it. I kind of like this approach. We don't have to see the gore. You could almost let your kids see Rififi--almost.<br /><br />Catch this one now and be on the lookout for a Hollywood reprise starring Al Pacino and directed by Harold Becker coming out next year in which you can be sure that the violent scenes will be played out in full.

This was the beginning of it all! Granted, this is not Friends at its best, but this was the show's pilot, let's not forget and not a bad one at that. We're introduced to the gang and Central Perk, where our story begins. Even from this first episode we get a sign of the Ross-Rachel relationship that will come over the next ten years, when Ross says: 'I just want to be married again' and Rachel storms in with a wedding dress on... probably not intentional as at the time the writers were going for a Monica-Joey relationship but fits nicely now when looking back. Something else.. in this episode Rachel is introduced to Chandler as if the two have never met before but in later episodes, the so-called 'flashbacks' this is contradicted as the two have met on three previous occasions. Nevertheless, the point is this a fine start to a great show. This episode may not be the usual Friends as we are accustomed to them, with the cast still a bit inexperienced but over the next few episodes we see why the show came to be what it was! Keep watching, first season is a blast!!

Every Christmas eve I make my kids endure yet another showing of It's A Wonderful Life. I also thoroughly enjoyed Bad Santa. So sue me. I admit it. I like cheesy, schmaltzy movies. I like excellent, intelligent ones too, but as with so many things, variety is a good thing. What would the Christmas season be without the annual cinematic ka-ching ka-ching of Santa in all his guises, from Edmund Gwenn to Billy Bob Thornton? Fred Claus will make no one forget Bedford Falls, but I do not believe a Christmas film should have to reach iconic stature to succeed. "Fred" is a perfectly OK holiday movie, with enough humor for the adults and sufficient charm for the kids. My wife and I laughed a lot, even if most of the humor was obvious and Vince was just being Vince. Paul Giamatti was a top-notch Santa, which helped a lot. Not a great flick, and unlikely to become must-viewing for anyone's annual Christmas traditions. But my wife and daughter and I enjoyed it for what it was, holiday schmaltz with a small dash of spice. There's nothing wrong with that.

If you've seen the trailer for this movie, you pretty much know what to expect, because what you see here is what you get. And even if you haven't seen the previews, it won't take you long to pick up on what you're in for-- specifically, a good time and plenty of laughs-- from this clever satire of `Reality TV' shows and `Buddy Cop' movies, `Showtime,' directed by Tom Dey, starring Robert De Niro and Eddie Murphy.<br /><br /> Mitch Preston (De Niro) is a detective with the L.A.P.D., and he's good at what he does; but working a case one night, things suddenly go south when another cop, Trey Sellars (Murphy), inadvertently intervenes, a television news crew shows up and Mitch loses his cool, which results in a lawsuit by the television station that's going to cost the department some big bucks. Except that they may be able to get around it, thanks to Chase Renzi (Rene Russo), who works for the station and likes what she sees in Mitch-- enough to pitch an idea to her boss for a `Reality' cop show, that would feature none other than Mitch Preston, whom Chase sees as a real life `Dirty Harry.'<br /><br /> Her boss likes the idea and gives Chase the green light. Now all she has to do is convince Mitch to participate, which shouldn't be too hard, since the station has agreed to drop the lawsuit if he will do the show. But Mitch is a cop, not an actor, and he wants nothing to do with any of it-- that is until he has a heart-to-heart with his boss, Captain Winship (Frankie Faison), who puts Mitch's future into succinct perspective for him. And just like that, the show is on. Oh, yes, there's one more thing; for the show, Mitch is going to need a partner. And who do you suppose they're going to come up with for that? Let's put it this way: Trey Sellars is more than one of the usual suspects.<br /><br /> This is Dey's second film as a director, his first being `Shanghai Noon,'-- also a comedy-- and he's definitely showing a penchant for the genre. From the opening frames he establishes a pace that keeps the story moving right along, and he allows his stars to make the most of their respective talents and personal strengths, including their impeccable timing. With stars like De Niro and Murphy, Dey, of course, had a leg up on this project to begin with, but he's the one who keeps it on track, demonstrating that he knows what works, achieving just the right blend of physical comedy and action, and employing the subtleties of the dialogue to great effect. <br /><br /> There isn't a more natural actor in the business than De Niro, and he steps into Mitch's skin like he was born to it. And after years of doing hard-edge, cutting drama (in which he turned in one remarkable performance after another), with such films as `Analyze This,' `Meet the Parents' and now this one, he has firmly established his proficiency for doing comedy, as well. Mitch is not an especially complex character; he is, in fact, something of an `ordinary' guy, but therein lies the challenge for the actor-- to make him believable, to make him seem like the guy who could be your neighbor and just another member of the community. And on all counts, De Niro succeeds. He's Mitch, the guy you run into at the grocery store or the bank, or say `good morning' to on your way to work; who likes to watch the game on TV and has a life, just like you and me, who happens to make his living by being a cop. It's the character Mitch has to be to make this film work, because it makes the `ordinary guy in extraordinary circumstances' angle credible. It's one of those role-- and work-- that is often wrongly dismissed out-of-hand, because it looks so easy; and, of course, this is what makes De Niro so exceptional-- he does make it look easy, and he does it with facility.<br /><br /> As Trey Sellars, Eddie Murphy turns in a winning performance, as well, and it's a role that fits him like the proverbial glove. Trey is a cop, but also an aspiring actor-- and a bad one-- and it gives Murphy the opportunity to play on the over-exuberant side of his personality (reigned in enough by Dey, however, to keep him from soaring over-the-top into Jim Carrey territory), which works perfectly for this character and this film. From his melodramatic take on a part during an audition, to his throwing out of one-liners-- delivered by looking directly into the camera (which as far as he's concerned isn't even there) while filming the `reality' show-- Murphy's a riot. And he has a chemistry with De Niro that really clicks (which is not unexpected, as this is another of De Niro's many talents; his ability to connect with and bring out the best in his co-stars, all of whom-- evidence will support-- are better at their craft after having worked with him, including the likes of Meryl Streep, Christopher Walken and Ed Harris, just to name a few). Most importantly, this is a part that allows Murphy to excel at what he does best, and he certainly makes the most of it.<br /><br /> Russo makes the most of her role as Chase, too, a character who isn't much of a stretch artistically, but whom she presents delightfully, with a strong, believable performance. And William Shatner (playing himself) absolutely steals a couple of scenes as the director of the show.<br /><br /> The supporting cast includes Drena De Niro (Annie), Pedro Damian (Vargas) and James Roday (Camera Man). Well crafted and delivered, `Showtime' is a comedy that's exactly what it is meant to be: Pure entertainment that provides plenty of laughs and a pleasant couple of hours that will have you chuckling for some time after. It's the magic of the movies. 8/10. <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br />

Based on the average short story by horror writer Stephen King about so called 'Sleepwalkers' ancient and immortal cat-like creatures that suck the life out of virgins in order that this energy may sustain them They have supernatural abilities- they can make themselves 'dim' which means they become invisible and can create subliminal mirages to fool people.They have been fleeing humans for century's we are told and have one by one been picked off till there are only two left.The film starts when a beautiful mother and her son arrive in a sleepy town, they are the last of the sleepwalkers and they are on the prowl for virgins to feed on. The mother sends her son out to enrol at the local high school so he can find a virgin, he does (Madchen Amick) and proceeds to try to get her alone so he can suck her dry. It is not made clear why the mother cannot seek out virgins herself- it would make things easier one would imagine as teenage boys are much more apt to follow a older beautiful woman to a secluded area than a teen girl follow a teen boy. However his plans are thwarted as the girl fights back, jabbing a pencil in to his ear. The police are called and the hunt is on!. The son is sick from his injuries and so the mother goes on the rampage killing cops left and right in her hunt for the girl who hurt her son and spouting some painfully unfunny one liners amidst the gore. Finally the girl kills the mother- end of movie. This movie is rubbish!. The acting is variable, from the average Brian Krause to the excellent Alice Krige. The special effects are average,and showcase some early computer effects which is mildly interesting as it shows how far such things have progressed in such a short time. The direction is muddled and the film falls in to camp in places. The director seems unsure whether we are supposed to fear the sleepwalkers or sympathise with them and when in doubt allows the film to become hysterical. Stephen King makes a mildly amusing cameo as an annoying gardener as does Mark Hamill, as a puzzled cop. Alice Krige seems to shoulder the film, her character is given depth and she gives an indication of what the film could have been with a better screenplay and better direction.

Wow! This movie is almost too bad for words. Obviously the writers wanted to somehow link this to the Ghoulies franchise, so they got Pete Liapis from the first one to reprise his role as Jonathan...only now, he's a cop and has no similar character traits as he did in the first one. The ghoulies in this one aren't the ghoulies from the last ones. The cheap looking puppets have been replaced with even cheaper looking costumed little people. Instead of being any main antagonist or being evil, they are more like the comic relief characters that appeared out of nowhere for no reason.<br /><br />When watching this film for the first time, it felt like I'd seen it before. Why was this? Because everything in this was stolen from another movie. All the cheesy cop lines and action scenes were from Lethal Weapon. The ghoulies were pretty much like Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck, except they weren't amusing at all. Even scenes from the original Ghoulies film were sprinkled throughout this flick.<br /><br />I think the target audience was supposed to be adults, but the mixture of black magic, cartoon slapstick, cop drama and bad acting doesn't work at all. I hope they don't make a Ghoulies V, because I don't want a movie studio to lose their money.<br /><br />My rating: BOMB/****. 78 mins. R for violence.

"You got any beans? Beans is good. You just eat them and you go." I couldn't help but laugh at that bit of dialog. Beans are the musical fruit, you know. The more you eat them, the more you go toot, toot, toot.<br /><br />Hmmmm... OK, i can understand why the actors were in this because they needed paychecks to pay their bills with, but i'm not really too sure what the intentions of the director and the writer were. Even after watching the making-of documentary in the DVD extras.<br /><br />Mike Rooker gave this a performance it really didn't deserve. I've seen him in other movies MUCH better than this one. What would have vastly improved this movie was to throw everything out, keep Rooker and instead made another entry into "The Substitute" franchise. Rooker would have made for a terrific substitute teacher who instructs naughty and morally-impaired youth regarding the error of their ways and how they can become more useful and productive members of society.<br /><br />Casper, you really shouldn't be just pushing through the undergrowth like that as you could get poison oak. Whoops. Never mind. I guess poison oak is the least of your worries now. Well, at least this time your croaking wasn't done by the tail of giant python. There are few things more embarrassing than being skewered through the chest by a giant snake. At least the death scene in this movie had a bit more dignity to it. As well as a more liberal smearing of karo syrup and red food dye. Nothing says sad and tragic death like the liberal use of karo and red dye!<br /><br />First time i've seen a monster wear a shiny rayon cape with a fur collar ruff. First time for everything, i guess. Just to be nitpicky, though, if this was an Indian ghost, how come it looked exactly like a monster out of European culture and folklore? Wouldn't the monster have been more sort of more indianish?<br /><br />While i did watch this all the way to the end credits, i don't realistically believe that i could in good faith recommend it to others.

Burt Reynold's Direct's and star's in this great Cop film, Reynold's play's the Sharkey of the title, who is a tough cop whilst working in undercover a drug bust goes wrong, and is demoted to vice, <br /><br />The machine of the title refer's to the motley crew Reynold's's assemble's to bring down a crooked governor who is involved in high class prostitution Cocaine and contract murder,<br /><br />The motley crew is played by Brian Keith, Blackploitaion favorite Bernie Casey, Richard Libertini,(as alway's quirky as an ace sounds-man) Charle's Durning, as the chief, The beautiful English rose Rachael Ward play's Dominoe a $1000 dollar's a night hooker whom Reynold's's protect's and eventually fall's for, When staking out an apartment used by the governor.<br /><br />Italian actor Vittorio Gassman, play's the High stake's pimp, who has a deadly gang of triad's at his disposal, And Henry DeSilva, play's His psychotic brother hit man who is highly strung On prescription painkiller's and angel Dust,<br /><br />The action packed finale see's the remaining member's of the 'Machine' Engaged in a deadly shootout with Desilva, which culminate's in one the Most spectacular stunt's ever put to Celluloid,<br /><br />Alas Hollywood has ran out of idea's and is contemplating a remake of Sharky's Machine! Why bother a 25th Anniversary Special Edition DVD would be ideal, not a silly ass remake,

As many know, this is the feature film debut of Edward D. Wood Jr. as as a writer/producer/director/actor. I have been a fan of Ed Wood for several years now. While I don't like this as much as some of his other films it was probably the largest insight that the cinematic going public gets of Wood during his life. Everybody knows that he was a transvestite. This film is about changing one's sex and how being a transvestite can create conflict in relationships with loved ones. This film is way ahead of its time in dealing with this subject matter and how it deals with it. However, the film still contains Wood's usual pitfalls of bad dialog, meaningless stock footage, and hokey special effects. Throw in Wood's usual overdose of Bela Lugosi hamming it up and you have Wood's first attempt at being a director.<br /><br />The plot is that a police inspector goes to a doctor after he discovers the body of a transvestite who committed suicide for advice on how to avoid further problems along these lines. The doctor tells him the story of Glen, who is also a transvestite. Glen wants to marry Barbara, but can't bring himself to tell her about his secret. He also tells the inspector about Alan who undergoes a sex change because he is really more suited to being a woman. Bela Lugosi plays a scientist who seems to add some kind of running commentary on what is going on (Lugosi's part really isn't well defined and proves to be most likely a vehicle for Wood to have a star in his film and Lugosi to get some cash).<br /><br />All in all, the movie shows the hallmarks of Wood's career. It was obviously shot on a very low budget and has quite a few things thrown in rather haphazardly. It definitely has the "it's so bad, it's good" feel to it. However, I do have to applaud Ed on his progressive thinking in making this film. Transvestitism and sex changes were not extremely open subjects in the early 50s. Wood took a big risk in making a film that portrays transvestites as people who are not sexual deviants and putting a more human face on cross-dressing.

This is another of those rare movies one feels grateful to be introduced to instead of the usual Hollywood tripe. It really is a roller coaster ride, as we follow the effects of a a forged 500 Euro note on a multitude of people. One asks 'what if' all the time but it certainly is a butterfly effect captured on film. It'll have you laughing, crying and biting your lip. I loved every minute of it! And thank you SBS Australia for showing films that are truly entertaining, even worth the effort to read the subtitles. The only downside to my mind is that I wont be booking a holiday to the Frozen Land - they all seem to be far too depressed - must be all that cold weather. Either way, watch it - it's worth every second.

this movie wasted my time. i saw only part of it and i was crying about the wasted time that i could of spent doing something productive and useful towards this earth. for everyone that has watched this movie more than once, i am blaming them for global warming as the the amount of black balloons that got entered into the earth from this piece of crap were not needed and if they came from a different movie, i would have forgiven them. robin Williams lowered his standards to actually participate for more than 10 seconds in this film and Tim Robbins, how he went from this film to the shawhsank redemption, i have no idea. please do not watch this movie for the safety of the earth. stop releasing black balloons into the earth from a film that they should have never funded or released. please burn all copies before anyone else has to watch this crap.

This movie was NOTHING like the book. I think the writer of the screenplay must have wanted the job of writing the sequel to Gone with the Wind and been turned down. This was his or her way of getting their ideas in anyway. The only similarity between this movie and the story it was portraying was the names of the principle characters and the location of the main action. None of the events that are shown in the movie happened that way in the book. For a Gone with the Wind fan (of both the book and the movie) this was deeply disappointing. If you loved the book Scarlett, don't watch this movie hoping to see it played out on the screen. They only share the title in common.

I agree with many of the negative reviews posted here, for reasons I will go into later on. But this miniseries is powerful and convincing because the talented cast really captures the dark truth of Hitler's world.<br /><br />Peter Stormare is perfect as Ernst Rohm, the brutal Brownshirt leader. Each scene he has with Hitler is explosive! Hitler is so evil he dominates everyone but the thuggish, primitive Rohm -- and he clearly digs Rohm for just that reason. The interplay between Stormare and Carlisle illuminates the way Hitler relished Rohm's brutality, but later sacrificed him for political reasons.<br /><br />Jena Malone turns in a heartrending performance as Geli Raubal, Hitler's doomed niece and the victim of his unspeakable perversions. Without revealing any of the sexual filth directly, Jena Malone plays out all the horror of the slow extinction of a young girl's spirit. She uses her eyes and voice to suggest all the horror that will be visited on millions in the years to come. And she's brilliant! Zoe Telford very nearly matches Jena Malone with her portrayal of Eva Braun. Eva is clearly sick, cruel and heartless -- but at the same time almost pitiably dependent on her Adolph's twisted tenderness. The aborted lovemaking scene between them (hinting at the spine tingling truth of Hitler's enormous self-loathing) is both chilling and erotic.<br /><br />Liev Schrieber gives a deliciously weasel-like performance as Putzi Hanfstaengel, the spineless man-about-town who is seduced by Hitler's promises of wealth and power. While a brute like Rohm simply loves the idea of crushing skulls under his boots, Schrieber's character is one of many Germans who abhors Nazi violence but can't resist the quick and easy route to money and power. His weak-willed fawning over Hitler soon loses him the respect of his wife, played with style and sensuality by the stunning and regal Julianna Margulies. They provide a true portrait of marriage and betrayal.<br /><br />These performances carry the mini series along, easily overcoming occasional weaknesses in the script. There is one exception. Regrettably, Matthew Modine's acting chops just aren't up to snuff. His noble lunk-haid journalist ruins every scene he has -- the viewer can hardly wait for Rohm's brown-shirts to stomp that smug, righteous look off his ignorant, corn-pone low-rent Hollywood golden boy face. But the story still works.<br /><br />Now in regard to the factual inaccuracies of the script -- Hitler's perversions and cruelty are rendered in a vibrant, compelling drama. But the battlefield record of Corporal Hitler is badly distorted. As if afraid the audience can't handle the idea of evil and courage in the same person, the writers make Hitler look like a whining coward who "begged" for an Iron Cross. As if anyone in the Kaiser's Army could get a medal just by whining about it! The movie makes it look as if Hitler were a coward in the trenches, when he was a fearless soldier. They also suggest his comrades despised him, when in reality he was widely admired by officers and enlisted men alike. The depressing thing is that the mini-series succeeds so well in representing Hitler as a monster in honest ways -- but they just couldn't resist the cheap shot.<br /><br />All in all, however, Hitler: RISE OF EVIL is a soaring success highlighted by powerful performances.

Watching some of the sequences (err, the entire 1/3 of the film devoted to the battle on the ice) in Alexander Nevsy, a film directed by the Russian legend Sergei M. Eisenstein (co-directed by Dmitri Vasilyev in his only significant credit), made me realize how much must really go into directing, at least on a scale such as this. If I were a member of an awards group at the time of this film's release I probably would award Eisenstein with the director's award of the year, posthumously. It is such a mad stroke of cinematic genius to pull off some of things that are pulled off in the film, though for someone like this director after coming off of his best work- Battleship Potemkin and October- it could have been something he scoffed at at first. But amid a film that is sometimes a little frustrating with how little grays come in to the black and white subject matter, it's still a marvel of celluloid almost 70 years later. Lord of the Rings fans, meet the films' grandfather, so to speak.<br /><br />To say that something is a propaganda piece already puts a connotation to it, and often a bad one. It is something that has a full-blown message to it, and a point of view. It's still a matter of hot debate (see the swarms of argument over Moore's films for proof), about whether great art can come out of something that is point-blank meant to rouse the audience in a specific manner. In this particular case, the Russians against the Germans. At the time it was nearing WW2 and Russia once again faced the 'German invaders', and it's interesting to note that Eisenstein was actually commissioned to make this film, as a rallying call for the Russians to never forget a crucial piece of their history. The end result comes out as being something that is actually slightly common from seeing Battleship and October, however; if nothing else comes through those films it's that Eisenstein is most concerned about how the image and the content can come together finitely for the viewer, that style can completely envelop the viewer without fail. On those terms Alexander Nevsky is fearless. <br /><br />But even with the whole idea of 'Russia great, Germans bad', there are some small moments where things are made a little less stringent, a little less strict to these ideals. For example, when we first see the Germans in Privka, they're not some faceless blob who are totally barbaric and have a blind conquering intent (not that they aren't out to take whatever they can). They have their own national pride going too, that it would be nothing less for them to go forward with whatever their Christian-led masters tell them to. At the least, the evil of the picture has a face, however kept at a low minimum for the more prevalent side to kick in. There's also a brief scene, before the ice-scape battle, where the Russian troupe has a joke that's being told and laughed about, and it adds a little extra depth where else there might be precious little. Because more often than not in Alexander Nevsky, with its battle songs loaded with a pride in warfare, there aren't any complexities to characters, most notably Nevsky himself (played in ultra-heroic fashion, only questioning near the start, by Nikolai Cherkasov) who perhaps has to be this way in Eistenstein's intention of having him as the one infallible force to be reckoned with in the tale. After all, to be looking for naturalism in an Eisenstein film is like trying to find non-Kosher pig's feet at a deli.<br /><br />But the real reason to see the picture isn't the acting, anyhow, but for the look of the film, how it moves and takes in such an expansive environment that Eisenstein lays out. On the epic scale it's just as ambitious as his 20's films, with a number of extras not just in the main battle scenes but also in the scenes in the cities, of the hundreds of people rolling on through. In fact, I'd say that any director working in Hollywood or elsewhere thinking of doing some kind of huge epic, particularly war, would do very well to take a look at this film, even with just the sound off. It's even better if thought of as a silent film, with the visual strokes accentuated fantastically at times. One could spend a whole month analyzing the battle on the ice, how it starts with the German soldiers far away and then coming forward like bugs, and then how Eisenstein inter-cuts between close-ups of the actors fighting and then to wide-shots and with sped-up editing. And, of course, one can't discount the power of the music as well, Sergei Prokofiev delivering one of the great rousing scores of any epic work. All the while the director's editing keeps our eyes moving along with this frantic action at breakneck speed. If this was just a short film, it would surely rank with the greats, much like the Odessa Stairs sequence.<br /><br />If I did find it a little less than totally magnificent, it would be because of the faults that do come in from a director who is much more suited to the silent medium than for sound. While I have yet to see Ivan the Terrible, my one negative criticism would be of his direction of actors, which is really as broad as can be, with the melodrama at such a high-pitch its staggering (the sub-plot of the two soldiers vying for the Olga is the best example I can think of). But even this considered, Alexander Nevsky overall is too extraordinary to ignore, and ratchets up an engagement in the action and the film-making to a level that puts a benchmark for films even today to try and live up to. Grade: A

1956 was the 20th Congress of the Communist Party and the Soviet Premier Krushchev made a speech denouncing Stalin and the Stalinist purges and the gulag labor systems, revealing information that was previously forbidden, publicly revealing horrible new truths, which opened the door for a new Soviet Cinema led by Mikhail Kalatozov, once Stalin's head of film production. This film features a Red Army that is NOT victorious, in fact they are encircled, in a retreat mode, with many people dying, including the hero, in a film set after 06-02-41, the German invasion of Russia when Germany introduced the Barbarossa Plan, a blitzkrieg invasion intended to bring about a quick victory and the ultimate enslavement of the Slavs, and very nearly succeeded, actually getting within 20 miles of Moscow in what was a Red Army wipe out, a devastation of human losses, 15 to 20 million Russians died, or 20% of the entire population. Historically, this was a moment of great trauma and suffering, a psychological shock to the Russian people, but the Red Army held and prolonged the war 4 more years until they were ultimately victorious. <br /><br />During the war, Stalin used the war genre in films for obvious morale boosting, introducing female heroines who were ultra-patriotic and strong and idealistic, suggesting that if females could be so successful and patriotic, then Russia could expect at least as much from their soldiers. Stalin eliminated the mass hero of the proletariat and replaced it with an individual, bold leader who was successful at killing many of the enemy, an obvious reference to Stalin himself, who was always portrayed in film as a bold, wise and victorious leader. But Kalatozov changed this depiction, as THE CRANES ARE FLYING was made after Stalin's death, causing a political thaw and creating a worldwide sensation, winning the Cannes Film Festival Palm D'Or, as well as the Best Director and Best Actress (Tatyana Samoilova), reawakening the West to Soviet Cinema for the first time since Eisenstein's IVAN THE TERRIBLE in the 40's. <br /><br />This film featured brilliant, breathtaking, and extremely mobile camera work from his extraordinary cinematographer Sergei Uresevsky, using spectacular crane and tracking shots, images of wartime, battlefields, Moscow and crowded streets that are extremely vivid and real. Another brilliant scene features the lead heroine, Veronica, who hasn't heard from her lover, Boris, in the 4 years at war, so he is presumed dead, but she continues to love him, expressed in a scene where she runs towards a bridge with a train following behind her, a moment when the viewer was wondering if she might throw herself in front of that train, instead she saves a 3 yr old boy named Boris who was about to be hit by a car. Another scene captures the death of Boris on the battlefield, who dies a senseless death, and his thoughts spin and whirl in a beautiful montage of trees, sky, leaves, all spinning in a kaleidoscope of his own thoughts and dreams, including an imaginary wedding with Veronica. This film features the famous line, "You can dream when the war is over." In the final sequence, when the war is over, the soldiers are returning in a mass scene on the streets, Veronica learns Boris died, all are happy and excited with the soldier's return, but Veronica is in despair, passing out flowers to soldiers and strangers on the street in an extreme gesture of generosity and selflessness revealing "cranes white and gray floating in the sky." <br /><br />The film was released in 1957 in Russia, and according to some reviews, "the silence in the theater was profound, the wall between art and living life had fallen...and tears unlocked the doors." <br /><br /> <br /><br />

Food always makes a good topic in movies, as "Chocolat" showed. "Babette's Feast" is the same type of thing. Babette Harsant (Stephane Audran) is a French cook who flees her native land after the repression of 1871. She moves to a very religious Danish village. The people in this village simply have no use for joy. That is, until Babette cooks them one of her exquisite meals.<br /><br />It's not just that this movie deals with bringing fun to a place that has never known it. Like other Scandinavian movies (and non-Hollywood movies in general), it shows that a movie can hold your interest without the use of explosions, car chases, etc. This is one movie that you can't afford to miss.<br /><br />One more thing. Do you think that the Danish word for "feast" sounds a little bit like "tastebud"?

I hated this film. Simply put, this film is so bad that I almost want to disregard ever watching it and never again mentioning it. But on the other hand, I can't resist a good bashing. And if there's one thing that Evan Almighty does for the audience it is that it brings out the best criticism.<br /><br />The film (a sequel to the much funnier Bruce Almighty) starts out by reintroducing the audience to Evan Baxter, a mere supporting at best character in the original film. That's right. This film shows no Jim Carrey or Jennifer Anisten. Not even a small cameo appearance. You know your film is bad when the guy that agreed to do Ace Venture: When Nature Calls won't even have a short walk-on role. But somehow they manage to keep Morgan Freeman as God. While sitting in the near empty theater bored out of my mind at the lack of comedy I couldn't help but wonder how much money it took to secure Freeman for this film. Then it hit me an hour ago. It's just a throwaway role that takes up all of 20 minutes in the 100 minute film. God just pops up in between scenes to tell Evan to build the ark. Sure I know Morgan Freeman won't look at this film in a year and think it's as good as his roles in The Shawshank Redemption and Million Dollar Baby but it's easy money.<br /><br />Where was I? Oh yes, the plot. Sometimes it's so hard to keep focused on the plot when you realize that you gave more thought thinking about the plot than the writer of the screenplay did. Anyway Evan (Steve Carell) has apparently left his job as a news anchorman for a job as a congressman. Yeah... with no transition in between. He never turns to his wife and says "I think I want to be a congressman." It just happens within the first five minutes and you are forced to deal with the big transition. Well as a congressman he is to partner for a bill proposed by John Goodman's character when suddenly God appears to tell Evan to build an ark. No "Hey, how you doing? How's the weather?" bit. Just "I want you to build an ark." Evidence of bad writing: Evan determines that God is giving him clues to build an ark after noticing a fan hold up a sign saying Genesis 6:14 when he's walking past his son whose watching a televised baseball game.<br /><br />That's basically the plot of Evan Almighty. There are some random supporting cast members that do their best at creating comedy but they don't do very well because they aren't given hardly any screen time. It's just your basic run of the mill family building an ark film. Oh and also there's that obligatory scene where a father has to cancel his hiking plans with his kids and wife because he becomes busy with work. They walk off disappointed but they understand, as do all the other times in film this has happened. Just once would I love to see the youngest kid turn to his father and kick him in the chins and tell him "You're a real bastard for canceling your plans with us. I'm going to turn emo now." There's also that drama that you'd expect from the father with his family when they realize (the wife, actually... the three kids have no problem helping dad build an ark) that he's gone crazy and he claims God wants him to build a big boat. But don't worry. His family decides to stick with him. Oops, I just spoiled the drama.<br /><br />Another problem with this film is that there is hardly any good comedy going on. I know the decision was made to rate have this be a PG film to get a bigger crowd reaction but I don't think I'm in the minority when I think that family humor is more than just guys getting kicked in the nuts and animals crapping. Maybe I'm wrong and that's what quality family humor has been reduced to. And if it is, please bring me more adult comedies so I won't have to sit through anymore of this crap (pun not intended).<br /><br />The ending is extra cheesy. All of a sudden the film takes a dramatic CGI filled turn that makes me shudder to think how it is a terrible waste of CGI. I bet it was expensive too. Finally after all that waiting we are told why God wanted Evan to build an ark. And boy oh boy I hated the reason why. I'll spare the details but it was like watching or reading a murder mystery and having the killer turn out to be the person who walked behind the main character for one second and had no lines.<br /><br />Oh and then there's a nice touch at the very end. The song "Gonna Make You Sweat (Everybody Dance Now)" plays over the credits and we are then subjected to the "dancing" of the cast. I don't get it. They spend 100 minutes unsuccessfully making a comedy and then they wrap it up with a thriller. I swear I haven't been that scared watching Steve Carell dance since ... well never. There you have it folks. Evan Almighty is the scariest film of all time.<br /><br />All in all I thought it was a wasted experience. I'm baffled at all the talented actors (Carell, Freeman and Goodman) appearing in this bore-fest alongside Lauren Graham, the woman from Gilmore Girls that has yet to prove to me that she can act her way out of a paper bag. But most of all I'm surprised at my will power to actually sit through the whole film without walking out.<br /><br />Rating: * out of ****

Sandler is amazing again... I have already become a Sandler fan. This movie is the saddest Sandler story. Its expression is fantastic. I cried more watching Click but there are some similar points. To consider the value of the family before losing it and to be able to say 'I love you' are a few of the most impressive truths in life... It is tough, it is real... and actually there is a real owner of this success, Binder. I don't think another director could give these emotions in such a way. <br /><br />Cheadle and Burrows are also amazing... Cheadle is one of my favorites since Crash. Don't expect laughing or much positive atmosphere... If you are ready to face the realities of life, don't miss this movie.

This was one of the best half-hour horror/suspense/fantasy shows of the eighties, without a doubt. Granted the show had a barely capable cast with every single episode, and it stank as far as production values (i.e. the sets) went, but darn it I have to give it some credit for being gutsy with the plots. I mean the plot of each episode was edgy enough that even I, a hardened horror movie, shock-film, and 70's grind-house buff got a little sickened and creeped out. Great show, just great, regardless of what the other reviewers have said here. My favorite episode was called "Bug House", yeah that was the title I think? Anyhow it still gives me the willies every time I think about it to this day, almost 20 years after it first premiered. Other shows like "Tales From The Darkside", "The Outer Limits" and (of course) "The Twilight Zone" were definitely better production values-wise, but in my opinion they ain't got a thing as far as plot lines go when compared to this sick little show! It definitely paved the way for the even more graphic cult classic phenomenon that was, "Tales From The Crypt".

One wonders why anyone would try to rehash successful movie plots that have already been seen, like it's the case with this movie. "The Wedding Date" is one of the best examples of why not to even try to remake, under the guise of a new story, something that should have been let alone. If a project like this goes ahead with the studio big honchos' approval, then go all out with big stars and glossy production values, that way, people will come for the stars.<br /><br />Alas, that's not what happens in this misguided attempt at comedy. The problem seems to be the way the screen writers have transplanted the story to London, when basically, this seems to be a typical American situation that not even the setting will be able to fix. Then there is the problem with the stars. Debra Messing and Dermot Mulrooney? They have as much chemistry as oil and vinegar!<br /><br />Since the Kat and Nick have no conflict from the start, the viewer is not pulled into the film the way the creators thought they would be. It's clear that Kat will fall for Nick, and vice-versa in this predictable story. Amy Adams, who was the best asset in "Junebug", comes across as a shallow girl who is willing to keep her lie going on and not come clean to the man that loves her and is going to marry her.<br /><br />For anyone interested, the credits at the end of the film run for almost seven minutes!

Leave it to Paul "sex on the brain" Verhoeven to come up with a pointlessly sleazy and juvenile version of the INVISIBLE MAN story. If he'd direct a Pokemon film, I'm sure he'd turn it into some massive orgy of sorts. I don't mind sex or even sleaze (check my other reviews) on film but frankly, it's obvious the director has a one track mind and he couldn't see interesting aspects about an invisible man storyline than the kinky implications it comes with it. It's a shame because it could have been good if the film didn't spend so much time having an invisible Kevin Bacon grope women. <br /><br />The game cast of actors does what it can with the one-note cheesy script but I felt bad for some of them, including William Devane, who is totally wasted here.<br /><br />But then what could I have expected from the director of SHOWGIRLS, which, btw, is much more entertaining than this stilted & bad film.

I will never forget when I saw this title in the video store way back when. I was always a big Weird Al fan and when I saw this video I rented and watched it. I was too young to appreciate all of Al's subtle humor and satire at the time but I remember it much later when I was old enough to understand what I was watching. If you are an "Al" fan, especially of his earlier work, you will thoroughly enjoy this film. It is done in the MTV-esque "Rockumentary" style and tells a true (but sometimes exaggerated) tale of how Al got to be where he was in 1985. You will love it if you like his brand of humor and, more importantly, his music.

Sergio Martino has impressed me recently with his Giallo classics 'The Strange Vice of Mrs Wardh' and the unforgettably titled, 'Your Vice is a Locked Room and Only I Have the Key' - but even so, I wasn't expecting too much from this film. The Case of the Scorpion's Tail doesn't get mentioned as much as the aforementioned titles when it comes to classic Giallo discussion - but I don't know why, because this is at least as good as those two! Dario Argento may be the 'king' of Giallo, but with the five films that he made - Sergio Martino surely isn't too far behind. In some ways, he even surpasses the master. All of Martino's films were released prior to the jewel in Argento's crown, the magnificent Profondo Rosso, so back in the early seventies - Martino was the king! The plot here follows the idea of murder for profit, and follows the insurance payout of a wealthy man. His wife inherits $1 million, and it isn't long before there's people out for her blood! When she turns up dead shortly thereafter, an insurance investigator and a plucky, attractive young journalist follow up the case.<br /><br />The Case of the Scorpion's Tail may not benefit from the beautiful Edwige Fenech, but it does have two of Martino's collaborators on board. Most famous is George Hilton, who worked with Marino on The Strange Vice of Mrs Wardh and All the Colors of the Dark, along with a number of other Giallos. Hilton has a great screen presence, and every time I see him in an Italian thriller; it becomes obvious why he is repeatedly cast. The beautiful Anita Strindberg, who will be remembered from Your Vice is a Locked Room, stars alongside Hilton and excellently provides the classic Giallo female lead. Sergio Martino does a good job in the director's chair once again, with several beautiful scenes - the best of which taking place in a room bathed with green lighting! The score by Bruno Nicolai (Wardh) excellently sets the mood, but it is the script that, once again, is the driving force behind Martino's success. Ernesto Gastaldi, the writer for Martino's other four Giallo, has put together a script that is thrilling while staying away from the common Giallo pitfall of not making sense; thus liberating this film from the rest of the illogical genre. The Case of the Scorpion's Tail is a quality Giallo film, and yet another success for the great Sergio Martino. If you like Giallo, you'll love this!

I was disappointed with the third film in the "Death Wish" series and wouldn't recommend this unless you are really into Bronson. He is his usual self in this one, maybe a bit lighter hearted than in the others; the rest of the cast is good if your watching a movie of the week on T.V. - the whole film has the production value of a bad episode of the A-Team and I like the escapism fun of a show like the A-Team but not on the big screen, even if it is an action movie that doesn't claim to be anything to sophisticated. The film takes a while to get going and then when it finally does, it gets out of control to the point of ridiculousness. The plot is something out of an episode of "Highway to Heaven" and Bronson seems like a fish out of water with the majority senior citizen cast and the gun play is so out of control you don't even get any satisfaction from Bronson's revenge against the bad guys. Skip this and go on to the 4th installment which I highly recommend.

This movie seemed like it was put together very quickly in both plot and graphics. My two daughters were ready to go 30 minutes before the end of the movie which rarely happens when we go to the theaters. This was a Nickelodeon Production and it would have been better if they had released it on the t.v. station. The animation itself in some parts was o.k. but the plot was horrible. A classic tale of a son trying to fulfill a fathers expectations is used in a lot of kids movies, but the animation or graphics need to be really good to keep a childs attention. This was not the case with this film. There were also awkward elements between the lead male character and the lead female character that the plot could have done without.

There are many problems with Mystery Men. First of all there are too many different characters for all of them to be given complex or even interesting personalities. The special effects detract from the story and are not really that special. Paul Reubens is wasted in a pathetic, juvenile role as a character who merely farts and speaks in an inaudible accent.<br /><br />Now onto the decent parts. William H Macy, three heavenly words, and his performance as the shoveler is pitch perfect. The sphinx is an exceptionally funny character who is only mysterious and merely spouts out the traditional mystical proverbs. Ben Stiller is very amusing as well, showing a weak character trying to make it into the big leagues of superheroes. All of the characters do, and that is an area which I found particuarly ironic. That is because all of the actors are Indie film actors trying to make it into the big leagues of Hollywood.<br /><br />To be honest, the reason I thought it failed at the box-office is that America doesn't get irony.<br /><br />All in all I loved the film, but I feel it would have worked better if more effort was put into tweaking the script rather than having unneccesary CGI landscapes and effects.

This is the forty minute film that introduces us to the character of the Butcher, who will later be examined more thoroughly in the feature Seul Contre Tous. In this film, it follows the early period of his life from 1965-1979, but focusing on the late seventies. The first images are of a slaughter of a horse, then the birth of a baby, the Butcher's daughter, who we quickly see growing up each year. The Butcher (played by Philippe Nahon in both films) is a man bitter with the world. He hates many things. His anger comes to a head when a man assaults his autistic daughter. The Butcher then maims the wrong man, and finds himself in prison.<br /><br />This film follows the butcher's life to just after his release from prison, then Seul Contre Tous takes over from there. I watched the films the wrong way about, Seul Contre Tous first. Try and watch this little film first if you can.

I had the TV on for a white noise companion and heard" $400 for a fully furnished apartment" So I ran into the TV room expecting another 70's flick and got much more. Luckily, I could rewind to the beginning (DVR buffer) and hit the record button to watch it entirely.(Cinemax uncut and in HD no less!) Aside from some holes in the story and intermittent improbable dialog/events, this is an effective thriller worthy of your time to watch. Pretty creepy and progressive at times: Beverly D'Angelo's character masturbates in front of Alison Parker, played adroitly by Cristina Raines, Parker stabs, in very gory fashion, her father, an explicit menage a trios scene.( don't let the kids watch) The film is TOTALLY 70's full of bad clothes(polyester suits and tacky ascots) and decor, bad hair,over bloated music score, and familiar looking cinematography. The cast is excellent, take a second on this film's home page to check it out.It was a surprise to see Christopher Walken, Jerry Orbach and Jeff Goldblum so young. Sylvia Miles- always wonderfully creepy! ENJOY!

"Kramer vs. Kramer" is a terrific drama about an unhappy woman who walks out on her husband and young son. The husband now has to take up the responsibilities of taking care of the boy. As he does, they get to know each other better. But then, the mother and wife returns, and she wants custody of the boy. "Kramer vs. Kramer" has lots of drama with some wonderful bits of comedy thrown in for good measure. Dustin Hoffman won his first Best Actor Oscar for his brilliant performance here. Most people say his performance in "Rainman", which won him his second Oscar, is his best. He was great in that film, but I disagree that its his best. In my opinion, the best performance of Hoffman's career is in this movie. Scene after scene shows us why Hoffman is one of the best American actors working today. He's also funny at times. Also giving a terrific performance is Meryl Streep, who wasn't as well known when she made this film like she is today. Streep, like Hoffman, also won her first Oscar (for Best Supporting Actress) for her work in "Kramer vs. Kramer" as the wife and mother who tries to find herself after walking out on her family. Justin Henry, who was only 8 years old when the film came out, is wonderful as Hoffman and Streep's son. He won an Oscar nomination for his role here, and still to this day he is the youngest performer to receive an Oscar nomination in a competitive category (Best Supporting Actor). Jane Alexander is also fine as a conserned family friend. She too got an Oscar nomination (for Supporting Actress where she lost to co-star Streep). "Kramer vs. Kramer" is a great film from start to finish. Writer-director Robert Benton has made a film that's absolutely unforgettable. <br /><br />**** (out of four)

This movie was pretty much a waste of an hour and a half of my time. I generally like the cheap horror monster type movies, but this movie was a disappointment. The main flaw being the lack of explaining the creatures. When they entered the house and found the man he could have at lease explained them. He doesn't really say anything about them other than that they killed his parents, and unless i missed something the didn't say how he managed to escape either... Not to mention the fact that it gives no clue or reason why the only survivor stays and essentially feeds the creatures after her own near death experience. It would have seemed that she would have had the opportunity to leave after the "cross incident".

One of those TV films you saw in the seventies that scared the hell out of you when you were a kid but still gives you an eerie feeling. No great actors or expensive production but everytime that phone rings......

dear god where do i begin. this is bar none the best movie i've ever seen. the camera angles are great but in my opinion the acting was the best. why the script writers for this movie aren't writing big budget films i will never understand. another is the cast. it is great. this is the best ted raimi film out there for sure. i know some of you out there are probably thinking "no way he has plenty better" but no your wrong. raptor island is a work of art. i hope it should have goten best movie of the year instead of that crappy movie Crash with a bunch of no names AND no raptors. i believe this movie is truly the most wonderful thing EVER.

I ordered this movie on the Internet as it is very difficult to get Turkish movies where we live. I've heard so much about the TV series from my friends and practically everyone in Turkey, I was expecting to see a breakthrough in Turkish cinema. What a disappointment.<br /><br />Me and my husband (who is an admirer of any movie with a bit of Turkish landscape and Turkish dialogues in it) only watched it all the way through because we had paid $20 for the DVD. Well, that was a boring way of wasting it.<br /><br />It was confusing, at times overacted, whereas other times underacted. The storyline was not only confusing, but adding a gay man walking with his dog on the beach and using some toilet humor in the script to make it 'Hollywood' didn't also work for me.<br /><br />The American characters were almost too stereotypical that it was neither funny nor realistic and like another user mentioned, the Turkish customs and lifestyle was irrelevant. <br /><br />The camera movements had no significance. Adding a few Dervishes (never seen in them in Kapadokya by the way) and broken plates -Greek style- only made the movie even more confusing. <br /><br />I am ashamed of this movie and all the noise the press has made about it. There are surely worthy movies made by Turkish directors which deserve more attention and respect.<br /><br />I give this movie 1 out of 10.

The film quickly gets to a major chase scene with ever increasing destruction. The first really bad thing is the guy hijacking Steven Seagal would have been beaten to pulp by Seagal's driving, but that probably would have ended the whole premise for the movie.<br /><br />It seems like they decided to make all kinds of changes in the movie plot, so just plan to enjoy the action, and do not expect a coherent plot. Turn any sense of logic you may have, it will reduce your chance of getting a headache.<br /><br />I does give me some hope that Steven Seagal is trying to move back towards the type of characters he portrayed in his more popular movies.

I should explain that as far as this trend goes for ripping off Asian horror movies, this Shutter is a head above The Grudge, and Dark Water, while still not achieving the same amount of atmospheric creepiness that The Ring establishes.<br /><br />Still though movies, like life, don't exist in a vacuum and are therefore up for comparison to other suspense/thriller/horror movies. Honestly, I'm not writing a lengthy synopsis here and will say that this movie attempts to rely on music induced "startle" scares rather than atmosphere and the "ghost" itself really isn't that remarkable. The plot is pretty basic and predictable and isn't anything to write home about either. While there are a few suspenseful scenes that border on creatively scary, most of the movie is pretty vanilla. If you enjoyed The Grudge and it's ilk then you might enjoy this.<br /><br />Grade: C-

Viewers gushing over everything including the title sequence (now THAT is funny) would have us believe this is some sort of cinematic miracle, but, trust me folks, this is one of the most embarrassingly bad films you could ever see, and if you're not laughing at it five minutes in, I'd say you've lost your sense of humor.<br /><br />David Niven plays a doomed and bravado-besotted RAF pilot who somehow thinks it appropriate to engage an impressionable (female) air traffic controller in an emotional conversation about love, just as he's plunging to his certain and fiery death. (Isn't it romantic...) Of course, he's spared by a quirk of metaphysical chance, and washes up on the beach, just as this same air traffic controller is riding by on her bicycle. (They immediately clinch).<br /><br />Looking past the bizarre homo-erotic subtexts, (so over the top you really need to refer to them as supertexts, from a naked boy sitting bare-butted in the sand playing the movie's twilight-zone-esquire theme on his little flute, to a celestial courier so campy/queen-y his makeup is caked on more thoroughly than the ladies'), the most bizarre aspects of the movie are how it weaves such bad caricatures of national and racial stereotypes into a convoluted attempt to argue some kind of point about the universal nature and power of love. We get it--fly boys like girls in skirts and heels, and girls like 'em back, and, apparently, all you have to do is cry a little to make it noble enough for your movie to get 10 stars on IMDb...<br /><br />As for the quality of the production, the continuity/editing is poor enough to induce cringing, and the lighting is, perhaps, even worse than that, but you hardly have time to notice because the script is so bad. There are games played with Technicolor, (whatever passes for heaven is in black and white if you can figure out the sense in that), and foreshadowing, (so funny my fellow audience member who usually like movies like this actually cheered and laughed when then the doc's motorcycle finally ended up in a fiery wreck), and freeze-motion, (which is funniest of all because the female lead is so poor at standing still you know the stage hands were guffawing off camera).<br /><br />The best shots are the early ones on the beach, but, after that, it's all downhill. The (moving like an escalator is moving) staircase is hardly the Odessa Steps, to say the least, and I'd really caution anyone from feeling like they'd have to see this lame attempt at movie-making on their account. The movie overall is bad enough to be funny, and that's about the best thing I can say for it.

The closing song by Johnny Rivers was the only great thing about this movie. Unfortunately that is all the positive I can say about this western movie. I have to write 8 more lines for my comments to be posted, but there is more than 8 lines of awful in this western. I am not sure if the movie was a tribute to Hopa Along, or just a spoof. The hero and the villain in this movie were too plastic. Not realistic at all. A lot of the supporting actors in this movie looked authentic, but the shooting scenes were a joke. A previous commentator thought this movie was great, and in the comments took a cheap shot at President Bush. This was not a democratic or republican western. It was just a bad western movie to be sold commercially. I wonder if it made any money. At times I thought I was watching a movie made by college movie students. If that was the case, then it was a great movie.

Because some people, like me, like to know EVERYTHING about a movie even if they plan to see it, including the ending. Anyway, here's the ending as I remember it, because I couldn't have been more than 8 yrs old when I saw it for the first and only time on TV. But I'll tell ya, it sure scared the little kid that I was, and I thought about it for days afterward, and it still stands out in my mind to this day, even though some of the details are a little vague. Abe Vigoda was in this movie? I don't remember that! I didn't even remember that ol' Barnabus was in this movie, and I LOVED Dark Shadows. So, at the end, the lead character (Belinda Montgomery?) is lured by the Judge (Joseph Cotton, I'm guessing, even though I remember it as him being an old family physician or something instead of a judge; see how memory fades?) to the wedding place, which as I remember it is in a cavern of some kind? Maybe I've got that wrong; and Shelley Winters is there laughing, and the Judge has a cape on, and the camera angle is kind of looking up at him, and he throws back the cloak, and he has goat legs, and he announces he's actually her father, the Devil, and she's played right into their (the satanic cult's) hands, because the "mortal" guy she has fallen in love with (I guess that's Robert Foxworth) turns out also to be the guy Satan wants to marry her off to, The Demon with Yellow Eyes, and yep, sure enough, they show Robert Foxworth, and his eyes glow yellow. There are a lot of close-ups in the last few minutes of the film. Everyone is laughing and rejoicing, except for Belinda Montgomery, who is very unhappy, and cries or screams or something, and that's the end. The bad guys win.

Okay, to be fair this movie did have an interesting concept. Given a few script rewrites, some decent actors and a budget, this might have been a fairly decent cult flick instead of the MST3K fodder it turned out to be.<br /><br />Still, it was better than "Armageddon."

"Pecker" proves that Waters has no intention of changing his tacky ways in his old age. A lot of things have changed since Waters started making films in the 1960s, but 40 years later he is still doing what he wants to do. Over the years, the budget of Waters' films has increased considerably. This is one of his most recent productions, but I was amazed to see that Waters still has that "trailer-park" touch. Edward Furlong plays Pecker, a kid who is obsessed with photography. He lives a quite life in Baltimore, MD, with his friends and family. But Pecker attracts the attention of a New York art agent (the always watchable Lili Taylor), and his life changes for the worst. Once again, Waters makes fun of art, fame and heterosexuality. It is not among his best films, but there are some big belly laughs here ("Memama" has the best lines in the film!). It is consistently clever and funny, and has that very "queer" sensibility that I have come to love in Warters' movies.

The first Robocop had a sense of cynical wit and a sick sense of violence. It was a fine line to walk, but Paul Verhoeven pulled it off and the film did so well, they made a sequel. How awful. (Possible Spoilers ahead - though anything that could spoil this is beyond me).<br /><br />Irvin Kershner is not the director for this type of film. He clearly did not understand the wit of the original and as a result the massive over-the-top senseless violence looks really bad - and worse is very distasteful. Even worse is the musical score. Leonard Rosenman was an old man from another era and the heroic, light music does not match the images on the screen at all! What was he scoring?! The Great American Hero?! Worst of all, he completely eliminated Robocop's theme from the first film, which was so memorable and perfect. Can you imagine a Superman film without John Williams' fanfare, or Indiana Jones, etc.? How could he do that?!!<br /><br />The plot is just a collection of ideas that don't gel. In beginning we see Robo "stalking" his old wife. Fine, good idea. But, they completely drop it after that. Then, there is this a stupid idea of the company reprogramming Robo to be nice. That's thrown in for 10 minutes and then is immediately dropped. Or, the silly idea that the repulsive 10 year old drug lord reminds Robo of his son - Once again, a weak motif that is shown briefly twice and dropped. This may work in a comic book, but not on film and Frank Miller was unfortunately too inexperienced at the time and threw every idea in along with the kitchen sink. It doesn't work as a whole.<br /><br />Some people here seem to be praising the corporate bashing in this film and the privatization of the police. That is the best part of the film that is consistent with the first. However, in the original, the old man was a tough business man out for a profit, but ultimately fair in the end. In this film, he is just pure evil in his lust for money and power. You can't just change characters like that for no reason. And Nancy Allen's character is useless in this film, whereas in the first she was essential to Robo's search for himself. She is as gratuitous as the violence in this film.<br /><br />And the violence, yes the violence. I enjoy many violent, bloody films when they serve purposes and are meant to tell a story. Irvin Kershner seems to get off on human beings being blown to bits, shot to pieces, children lusting for death and torture and peoples' desire for drugs. He doesn't know when to stop. Do we really need to see every last innocent bystander (even people trying to help others) get shot up???? It is inferred when we see the bad Robocop shooting repeatedly! Instead Mr. Kershner proves he has very little taste for this type of work and creates an abominable mess that is a terrible piece of pop art and worse, a disgusting message of violence for any young person watching this film.<br /><br />No, this film isn't meant to be message-y and I certainly don't watch Robocop movies or Alien or Predator movies for that reason. However, when you go too far and cross the line, much of what you do must be put into question. And as for this film, in the words of the evil kid drug dealer's last words as he dies, "It still sucks".

I picked up this video after reading the text on the box, the story seemed good, and it had Keanu Reeves! But after 5 minutes of watching, I noticed how horrible his acting was, he walks and talks so stupid the whole time, it's fake and not convincing. It doesn't end there, almost ALL the characters act so badly it's laughable, the only acceptable acting was by Alan Boyce (David), but the guy commits suicide early on and you don't see him again, you never even know why he did it! Everything about this movie screams low quality, I can't believe how such a thing gets released! I was tempted many times to stop watching, in fact I did, half way through it I decided to stop watching and turned the thing off, came to the IMDB to check what other's thought about it, I found zero comments (not surprised), so I decided to force myself to handle the pain and go back to finish it then come here to comment on it. The only good thing going (for me) was the high-school Rock band theme, the occasional guitar playing and singing parts, but that's not worth it.<br /><br />Very bad acting and directing... Terrible movie.

Kinda funny how comments for this film went consistently downhill, now add mine. I think the script could have been saved by better acting, and the acting by a better script. Together, it was difficult to watch, and I don't flinch from such subject matter.<br /><br />Sigourney was the best part (I thought the relationship between her and her surviving son was pretty much the only new thing this film offered to its genre) but even she lagged. Can't blame her, who knows what takes were left on the cutting room floor by the director and/or editor. The whole movie had an "okay, that's good enough, let's move on" feel to it, when I KNOW there was more to be mined from the actors and the script, which did have some good lines and some interesting themes.<br /><br />I don't think this counts as a spoiler, but a perfect example is the scene where Sigourney marches up to her son's supposed tormentor's house and has this look on her face and I thought "that's the face of someone who is overacting what it's like to see someone living in a mobile home" and sure enough, next shot, meant to shock us I'm sure, bully lives in a trailer as opposed to a nice house, like hers.<br /><br />As many other posters have pointed out, there are SO MANY better movies with similarly airy scripts about similarly messed up families that hit the notes better -- "Celebration" probably being the ultimate example that I've seen.

... Hawk Heaven for lovers of French cinema and by extension French Screen actors/actresses. At its worst it's an indulgence, actors getting to bitch about other actors, question the validity of acting as a profession at all, etc whilst at its best it's a glorious celebration/send-up of some of the finest actors currently working. From a simple premise - Jean-Pierre Marielle's request for water being ignored in a restaurant - Blier spins off in all directions and allows the cream of French cinema to strut their stuff before the camera even throwing in nods to those no longer around (Jean Gabin, Lino Ventura) including the Director's father, Bernard, one of the great stalwarts of French cinema, from whom he fields a celestial phone call at the end of the film. Discursive and prolix, yes, guilty as charged but also something of a guilty pleasure.

Once in a while, a film comes along that raises the bar for every other film in its genre. A film of this caliber will influence many films following its release for years to come. `A Chinese Ghost Story' falls in this category. It is arguably one of the best horror films made during the 1980's; possibly one of the best ever made.<br /><br />The filmmakers have crafted a movie that appeals to every horror fan. The story is engrossing and original. The villains are appropriately menacing and frightening. The sets are creepy and atmospheric. There is even a little blood and gore to satisfy the splatter fan of the house. But don't let the `horror' label scare you off, if you're not a fan of the genre. This film easily fits into many different categories.<br /><br />The screenwriter has deftly blended the drama, comedy, horror, kung fu, and romance genres into a delicious deluxe cinematic pizza. `A Chinese Ghost Story' is a beautiful epic love story told, thankfully, without the gratuitous nudity and/or explicit sex scenes that have ruined many Hollywood `love stories'. Those put off by the romantic elements of the story can sit back and revel in the fast-paced swordplay and `wire-fu'. If that's not enough, actors Leslie Cheung and Wu Ma provide enough humorous situations to satiate your appetite for comedy. This film offers something for every film fan.<br /><br />Director Siu-Tung Ching and Producer Tsui Hark assembled a truly amazing cast for this film. Leslie Cheung proves that he is not only a gifted actor, but also a talented singer and a charming physical comedian. I cannot possibly think of a performer other than Cheung who could have portrayed Ling Choi Sin better (except maybe Chow Yun Fat). Joey Wang is enchanting as Lit Su Seen, the enslaved spirit who steals the heart of Cheung's character. Her portrayal of the title character is truly haunting and memorable. Wu Ma is hilarious as the cantankerous Taoist who aids the young lovers.<br /><br />On technical level, this film is very impressive, even by today's standards. The direction is superb. I wish that today's Hollywood executives would seek out talented artists like Siu-Tung Ching rather falling back on the usual MTV video or Pepsi commercial `directors'. The cinematography is gorgeous. You have to commend any cinematographer who can make a film look good when most of its pivotal scenes take place in the dead of night. The special effects make-up is top-notch. In fact, most of the creature effects in this film blow away the shoddy CGI ghouls and goblins that have become commonplace in modern horror films.<br /><br />Since its release, "A Chinese Ghost Story" has spawned two worthy sequels, a full-length animated movie, and countless imitations. None of the films that followed it or copied it were able to capture the magic of this classic, however. This film is required viewing for any horror fan or just anyone looking for great way to spend 95 minutes of your time. 10 out 10.<br /><br />

I went through the highs. I went through the lows...cried, laughed, puked my ever-loving guts out. But through it all, I was made whole. I became a better person for having sat through this experience in self-imposed degradation. It's not every day we can say that we have lived through the worst, and come out the other side with something closely resembling our sanity whole and intact. Friends...neighbors-unite and be as one now. Go out and find this film and languish in its extravagancies. Place it high on the mantel and kiss its polystyrene box. Take it to bed. Take it out with you when you go shopping, or have blind dates with strange people. They will appreciate you all the better for your sublime and uniquely schizophrenic slant on cinema. And then they will throw their beverage of choice in your face (but you will have the last laugh). I ran for Governor with this little beauty under my belt (and you can too!). It is a treat worth having again and again.

Wimpy stuffed shirt Armand Louque (blandly played by veteran character actor Dean Jagger in a rare lead role) joins a group of researchers who want to find and destroy the secret technique of creating zombies. Armand falls for the lovely Claire Duval (fetching blonde Dorothy Stone), who uses the meek sap to get Armand's colleague Clifford Grayson (the hopelessly wooden Robert Noland) to marry her. Furious over being used and spurned by Claire, Armand uses his knowledge of voodoo to get revenge. Sound exciting? Well, it sure ain't. For starters, Victor Halperin's static (non)direction lets the meandering and uneventful talk-ridden story plod along at an excruciatingly slow pace. Worse yet, Halperin crucially fails to bring any tension, atmosphere and momentum to the hideously tedious proceedings. The mostly blah acting from a largely insipid cast doesn't help matters any; only George Cleveland as the hearty General Duval and E. Alyn Warren as the irascible Dr. Trevissant manage to enliven things a bit with their welcome and refreshing hammy histrionics. The drippy stock film library score, the painfully obvious stagebound sets, and the crude cinematography are pretty lousy and unimpressive as well. In fact, this feeble excuse for a fright feature is so crummy that not even the uncredited starkly staring eyes of the great Bela Lugosi can alleviate the brain-numbing boredom. A dismally dull dud.

Al Pacino? Kim Basinger? Tea Leoni? Ryan O'Neal? Richard Schiff? My mouth was watering. I dropped everything to watch this movie on Cable. 30 minutes in I was having trouble staying awake. 60 minutes in and I hit the record button and fell asleep. Finished watching it the next morning. Shouldn't have bothered. What a waste of a great cast and an idea that could have been an interesting story of a "Day in the Life..." Cure your insomnia if you have it and watch this movie. I guarantee you at least an hour and a half of uninterrupted sleep. Dialogue horrible. Continuity non-existent. Camera work could have been done with a hand held Super 8 and looked better. <br /><br />This movie was a total disaster.

At the time I recall being quite startled and amused by this movie. I referred to it as the most important movie I'd seen in ten years, and found myself bumping into people who said similar things. <br /><br />Bernhard has an unusually perceptive behavioral notebook. And she has shaped the bitter adolescent personality that we all had, into a corrosive, adult world-view. The two together provide a startling mix which may be too edgy for some viewers. (Hi Skip. I wish you weren't my brother so I could **** you!) <br /><br />Bernhards search for herself after returning to LA from New York, results in the immersive trying-on of various personas (all of which fit poorly) for our amusement, but enough of them involve acting out to appeal to a "black imperative" values system that the real barometer of her resituation is whether black culture accepts her. (It's been a while. Nina Simone comes to mind. And she has an impressive, solidly-built black lover in the movie) A pretty black girl attends the shows, and seems to be authorizing Sandra's faux-blackness, but ultimately rejects her.<br /><br />Just as Catholics deem themselves lucky to suffer for Christ, here Sandra depicts herself suffering at the hands of a black culture in which she craves a place; as if she cherishes her worthiness and her rejection. It's the only value system implicated in the films world, outside of Bernhards arty confusion.<br /><br />For a nation whose chief issues are racism and money, it's refreshing to see one of the 2 topics dealt with in an atypical way.

I saw this movie when I was a kid and have been looking for it ever since.It rates up there with Cabin in The Sky, Stormy Weather and Carmen Jones as a must see in movies that showcased the awesome talent of African Americans.In the 60s the local Los Angeles TV stations would have a movie of the week and some stations would show the same movie for 5 days.Porgy and Bess was one of them and my whole family would be there all 5 nights in front of the TV and only moved on the commercials.South Pacific,Oklahoma and The Sound of Music are all musical classics that you can pick up at any video store. It would be a shame to let this collection of some of the best talent America had to offer be forgotten or locked in a vault.Please make the film available to the public.

My Name is Earl(2005) <br /><br />Review:......For I have seen this.<br /><br />This is something else. First off, how is this rated so high? I cannot understand that. This "show" is filled to the top with either annoying people, stupid people, or just plain unlikeable. The "gags" are hideous.<br /><br />I saw one episode where the wife of Earl's brother wrapped and washed herself with dead fish. Not kidding. That wasn't funny, that's repulsive. Then she and Earl's extremely stupid brother(and I mean stupid) then had sex. I nearly threw up.<br /><br />This has to be one of the most desperate attempts at comedy in a long time. Jason Lee is a talented actor, but is trapped in a helpless role in this horrible "comedy".<br /><br />Earl is now in jail for this current season. Let's hope he gets the chair just so this show gets put out of it's misery.<br /><br />The Last Word: This show would be funny to people who think Larry the Cable guy is funny. To the rest of the world, NOT A CHANCE. Avoid like the plague.

I've long heard that to get their start in 'legitimate' films, many behind-the-camera types work on porno films.<br /><br />The people who produced and directed this monstrosity stayed too long.<br /><br />Poorly paced, staged and written, it uses a lot of perfectly good talent (Diehl, Dorn, Eggert) badly.<br /><br />Much sexual activity is teasingly implied here by the brassiere-popping host to the alien creature, but it never crosses the line...<br /><br />You'll still want to shower afterwards, though.

Those reviewers who have complained that this movie lacks plausibility or has problems of construction are missing the point. This is a wonderfully camp romance, with plenty of Play, gypsies! Dance, gypsies! music, that both sends up exotic love stories and celebrates them. Buttoned-up Ray Milland makes an amusing foil for a Dietrich with black hair, tattered scarves, and tons of jewelry. The character's eagerness to feed Milland and look after him more closely resembles the good German hausfrau Dietrich was off the set than her mannered vamp roles. Censorship being in force, it's made clear that they share a caravan on platonic terms only, with Milland fighting off Dietrich's advances with a determination remarkable for a heterosexual bachelor who might be killed any day. His only excuse is that she smells, so perhaps a stuffy, fastidious Englishman might indeed be put off.<br /><br />In the small role of Milland's young companion on his secret mission, Bruce Lester adds a note of camp of a different kind. We are told at the beginning that he hero-worships Milland, and indeed he rather fawns on him. When, after they are separated, he meets Milland, now transformed into a brown-skinned gypsy with a shirt open to the waist, his glowing appreciation of the disguise even further suggests that not only Dietrich is romantically infatuated with Milland.<br /><br />Despite the wonderfully improbable characters and sequence of events, the growing love of Milland for Dietrich and his acceptance of the non-rational aspects of life is rather touching. And when, on their last night alone before he escapes, he says that each of them now contain half of the other, the two have become one, and then darkness falls, I think we can assume that the censor decided to give them a break! One goof--at the beginning, Milland, who is supposed to be English, refers to a lieutenant, using the American pronunciation. (The English say "leftenant.") Since Milland was British, he must have been saying it that way because the American movie-makers feared that American audiences would be distracted and confused by the British style.

Nothing Carson Daly has EVER said or done on this show has EVER made me laugh, or even smile a little. I DO NOT understand how this show has survived for so many years.<br /><br />Even the "funny" band member is just like one of those kids in high school who thinks nobody is good enough to even look at him. Daly and that dude are just arrogant frat boys. It seems like they don't even try to be a little funny.<br /><br />AWFUL AWFUL AWFUL show.<br /><br />It makes my soul cry.<br /><br />I just cannot stress enough how AWFUL this show is. Don't watch it. But if you absolutely have to, I recommend clawing your eyes out and clogging your ears with cement beforehand.

Before she went into politics or public service, Glenda Jackson was one of Britain's finest film actresses. This film displays her talent despite having a supporting role in a stellar cast that includes Julie Christie as Kitty, the wife of a British Royal Captain who has lost his memory of the last 20 years, and Jenny played by American Ann-Margret in an almost unrecognizable role as the doting sister. Alan Bates plays the captain who suffers from memory loss triggered by the shell shock during World War I. Sir Ian Holm has a smaller role as the doctor treating him. You see familiar faces like Sheila Keith, Patsy Byrne, and Frank Finlay. You can't help but watch Glenda play a dowdy housewife and the first true love of the Captain but they came from different classes. It's not the greatest movie but it's good to see Glenda's amazing talent. She is still a fantastic actress, comedy or drama. She makes Margaret Grey into a likable character and you see why a regal captain fell in love with her.

This is one of my favorite comedies ever. Not wanting to condone the uninspiring lifestyle of its hero, but taken for what it's worth and not as trivializing alcoholism, the movie is simply a lot of fun. It tells the unlikely tale of a perpetually drunk, irresponsible 40 something bachelor named Arthur who is set to inherit a vast fortune, but only if he marries Susan, chosen because the family thinks she might make something of him. Arthur proposes, but then unwisely falls for Linda, a waitress and petty thief.<br /><br />Dudley Moore is perfect as Arthur, the world's most endearing drunk, whose antics are a laugh a minute. Admittedly, Moore IS Arthur and I agree with those who can imagine no other actor in the role. The ladies of the piece are also well portrayed. Liza Minnelli sparkles as Linda, and her on screen chemistry with Moore is great. Jill Clayburgh plays Susan, the wealthy and more appropriate woman chosen for Arthur. <br /><br />However, this film is literally made by Sir John Gielgud, who portrays Arthur's sarcastic but moral butler, Hobson. It's obvious these two have had a great mutual affection during Hobson's longtime employment. Hobson is Arthur's best friend and purveyor of unsolicited commentary and advice. The most interesting relationship in this film is not Arthur's romance at all, but his unusual rapport with this witty and of course perpetually disapproving servant. It's the butler you'll remember best long after the closing credits roll.

To be honest i had heard this was pretty bad before i decided to watch it, but i'm never one to let others influence my viewings, in fact i'm more likely to watch something out of defiance!. Bullwhip had one thing going for me before the viewing anyway, the fact that Rhonda Fleming and those gorgeous eyes was in it had me interested right away. The picture isn't very good, and is in fact very morally dubious, all the characters are corrupt and shifty in one way shape or form, all motivated by greed or egocentric victories, this is all well and good if the surrounding film can do justice to a bunch of despicable people and create a taut climax shuddering picture. Sadly it doesn't, and as the finale fills your eyes with sugar you can't help shouting out that you have been cheated into watching a pretty bad film, nobody in the cast come out with any credit, with lead man Guy Madison painfully wooden in the extreme.<br /><br />Not even the lovely Rhonda can make me recommend this to anyone, 3/10

One of the most underrated movies I've seen in a long time, Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey is the second hilarious adventure of Bill S. Preston Esq. and Ted Theodore Logan, aka Wyld Stallyns. There are two ways to look at this film: First, you see dumb dialogue, far fetched plot, juvenile idea. OR.. You see brilliantly downplayed idiots who yet again find themselves in a situation too big for their brains. Throw a Bruce Willis or a Arnold Schwarzeneggar into this plot and it becomes a big blockbuster movie. Bill and Ted go into the story with the same level of sincerity, only it's Bill and Ted. This is a tricky fence to balance on, but when you watch the movie not as a throwaway screwball comedy, but as an adventure featuring two guys who have no business being in an adventure, it becomes so much more.

An American In Paris is an integrated musical, meaning that the songs and dances blend perfectly with the story. The film was inspired by the 1928 orchestral composition by George Gershwin. <br /><br />The story of the film is interspersed with show-stopping dance numbers choreographed by Gene Kelly and set to popular Gershwin tunes. Songs and music include "I Got Rhythm," "'S Wonderful," and "Our Love is Here to Stay". It set a new standard for the subgenre known as the "songbook" musical with dozens of Gershwin tunes buried in the underscore. The climax is "The American in Paris" ballet, an 18 minute dance featuring Kelly and Caron set to Gershwin's An American in Paris, featuring an Impressionistic period daydream in the style of various painters, is one of the longest uninterrupted dance sequences of any Hollywood film. The ballet alone cost more than half a million dollars, a staggering sum at the time.<br /><br />It's funny to think of such a work of art being born over a pool game between film producer Arthur Freed (SINGIN' IN THE RAIN, WIZARD OF OZ, ON THE TOWN, MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS and THE BAND WAGON) and Ira Gershwin. It was Freed's idea to buy the title so he could use if in a film about Paris and Gershwin's idea that it would only use Gershwin music.<br /><br />Original cast was to have Cyd Charisse but she discovered she was pregnant before shooting began. A major reason Gene Kelly suggested Leslie Caron as the female lead was because he felt this movie needed a "real" French girl playing Lise, not just an American actress playing one. Gene Kelly discovered Leslie Caron while vacationing in Paris where he saw her perform in a ballet. When she got the call to audition, she said, "Who's Gene Kelly?" According to Leslie Caron, her introductory dance sequence, which included a seductive dance with a chair, was considered too suggestive by some censors. Gene Kelly directed the brief fantasy dance sequences shown as Lise is introduced.<br /><br />Vincente Minnelli first wanted Maurice Chevalier in the Georges Guétary part, and 'Celeste Holm' in the 'Nina Foch' part.<br /><br />Minnelli was a groundbreaking director of musicals with Meet Me in St. Louis (1944), An American in Paris, and The Band Wagon (1953). He used color and songs in ways they hadn't been used before. He used space and time imaginatively. Best of all, though, he allowed himself to cut loose for the long ballet sequences that end all his movies. The ballet in An American in Paris may be his best work.<br /><br />Even though Vincente Minnelli is credited as the sole director, he was sometimes tied up with his divorce from Judy Garland and other directing projects, leaving Gene Kelly to take over the directing duties.<br /><br />Other highlights include Guetary's rendition of "Stairway to Paradise"; Oscar Levant's fantasy of conducting and performing Gershwin's "Concerto in F" (see why it was Oscar Levant's favorite.)<br /><br />The ballet sequence, now that we know it was successful everybody now wants to take credit for it, Freed, Minnelli, Kelly… but before the film was completed the New York office of MGM said no to spending a half million dollars on a ballet. So Freed went to studio head Louis B. Mayer himself and got him to agree, New York said no. Finally Gene Kelly showed the New York office how a British film, THE RED SHOES used a long ballet sequence and that film became a world wide hit – and is still considered today the premium example of a successful art film. Well the financial guys finally gave in and signed the checks.<br /><br />There was a break in production after 1 November 1950, at which point Gene Kelly began rehearsing the ballet choreography. By the time production for that final sequence resumed on 6 December, Vincente Minnelli had finished directing another film - Father's Little Dividend (1951).<br /><br />Irene Sharaff designed a style for each of the ballet sequence sets, reflecting various French impressionist painters: 'Raoul Dufy' (the Place de la Concorde), Edouard Manet (the flower market), Maurice Utrillo (a Paris street), Henri Rousseau (the fair), 'Vincent Van Gogh' (the Place de l'Opera), and Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec (the Moulin Rouge). The backgrounds took six weeks to build, with 30 painters working nonstop.<br /><br />Roger Ebert said after viewing the recent restoration, "An American in Paris has many qualities, not least its famous ballet production number, with Kelly and Leslie Caron symbolizing the entire story of their courtship in dance." An American In Paris is often compared to SINGIN' IN THE RAIN as to which it the greatest musical ever made, and one critic put it best when he said, "SINGIN' IN THE RAIN makes me happy and An American In Paris makes me feel good." The ballet represents Kelly's fantasies as depicted by the great French artists (Renoir, Rousseau, Lautrec, Dufy) he admires. Arranging a screening for the then ailing Raoul Dufy, the actor and producer ducked out until the end credits. There, relieved, they found the artist, moved to tears, requesting a second helping of the sumptuous finale.<br /><br />The film was also the first to win a Golden Globe award for Best Motion Picture (comedy or musical.)<br /><br />Gene Kelly received an honorary Academy Award that year for "his versatility as an actor, singer, director and dancer, and specifically for his brilliant achievements in the art of choreography on film." It was his only Oscar.

I have to say that I know the documentaries of Mister Örnek and so I knew that I will get a very well made piece of movie documentary. I was not disappointed. As a history nerd - I did saw hundreds of documentary and liked the different approach of this work.<br /><br />The Director and his 17 Consultants (historians, Veteran families) tried to access the reality of the gallipoli through the letters of solders from both sides. So, the history is followed by British, Australian and Turkish soldiers.<br /><br />Narrated is this docu by Jeremy Irons and Sam Neill - both boost the intensity and emotionality of this documentary by their great voices.<br /><br />I saw this film in a cinema in italy in Dolby Surround. I did buy the DVD last year and will wait again 3-7 years for the next work of this talented director and his very good documentaries.<br /><br />Summary: Well made. Intense. History with emotions - wrapped in a war documentary with great narrators

There is a story (possibly apocryphal) about an exchange between Bruce Willis and Terry Gilliam at the start of Twelve Monkeys. Gilliam (allegedly) produced a long list (think about the aircraft one from the Fifth Element) and handed it to Butch Bruce. It was entitled "Things Bruce Willis Does When He Acts". It ended with a simple message saying: "please don't do any of the above in my movie".<br /><br />There is a fact about this movie (definitely true). Gilliam didn't have a hand in the writing.<br /><br />I would contend that these two factors played a huge role in creating the extraordinary (if not commercial) success that is The Twelve Monkeys.<br /><br />Visually, the Twelve Monkeys is all that we have rightly come to expect from a Gilliam film. It is also full of Gilliamesque surrealism and general (but magnificent) strangeness. Gilliam delights in wrong-footing his audience. Although the ending of the Twelve Monkeys will surprise no one who has sat through the first real, Gilliam borrows heavily from Kafka in the clockwork, bureaucratic relentless movement of the characters towards their fate. It is this journey, and the character developments they undergo, which unsettles.<br /><br />I love Gilliam films (Brazil, in particular). But they do all tend to suffer from the same weakness. He seems to have so many ideas, and so much enthusiasm, that his films almost invariably end up as a tangled mess (Brazil, in particular). I still maintain that Brazil is Gilliam's tour de force, but there's no denying that The Twelve Monkey's is a breath of fresh air in the tight-plotting department. Style, substance and form seem to merge in a way not usually seen from the ex-Python.<br /><br />Whatever the truth of the rumour above, Gilliam also manages to get a first rate (and very atypical) performance out of the bald one. Bruce is excellent in this film, as are all the cast, particularly a suitably bonkers - and very scary - Brad Pitt.<br /><br />It's been over a decade since this film was released. When I watched it again, I realised that it hadn't really aged. I had changed, of course. And this made me look at the film with fresh eyes. This seems to me to be a fitting tribute to a film that, partly at least, is about reflections in mirrors, altered perspectives and the absurd one-way journey through time that we all make. A first rate film. 8/10.

On his recent maligned reality-show, Mr. Shore conceded his filmic oeuvre is best enjoyed stoned. No, he must have said "best watched." While a healthy toke might see you through the end credits, there is little pleasure to be found, save some sporadic chuckling at the picture, not with it. Titular hyphenate absence is the least grievance. Other hyphenate, wholesome Tiffani-Amber Thiessen (I dare you to rub out that "Saved by the Bell" patina of purity) is miscast as a rural vamp; she's too round of face for treachery. Mr. Shore, himself occasionally displays the odd talent for mimicry (I thought I recognized a Jimmy Stewart in there), however it is never aptly used. The trite fish-out-of-water formula has yet to be rendered with less grace. Our hero, Crawl has precious little wit to account for expeditiously charming his agrarian antagonists. Ultimately, I had to announce it's been ascertained: THE WORST MOVIE EVER. P.S. As another fish, Adam Sandler fared better with "Mr. Deeds." It may take a Shore to appreciate a Sandler.

These writers are trying to re-create the characters they have on "scrubs" in a different occupation however the characters they are stuck with have no charisma or acting ability not to mention the writing seems poor and effortless. These guys are trying to create something that would be good if the writing wasn't so disgusting which is leaving the shows only lifeline to be two attractive teachers that that are barely keeping it alive. The humor in this show seems like it is trying to target an audience with an I.Q. of 40 or below. Another reason why this show is becoming a failure could be that the writing on the show "scrubs" is excellent and this show has to follow it up leaving the viewer in an odd position not knowing whether to cry or to just lose hope in new sitcoms all together. This is just my opinion but i think these guys should stop now before they humiliate themselves anymore than they have already.

Well, Jesus of Montreal is basically an intelligent movie. The actors are indeed good and the technical side of the movie is okay. But, although I was very interested in the topic and like to think and discuss about religion (I am an atheist), it was hard to force myself to watch the movie to the bitter and in my opinion somehow unconsciously funny end. Why is this movie so incredibly boring? I don't know. It just is and so it is not recommendable.

This film should never have been made! It stinks, it's awful, it's no good, it's bad, it's terrible. Starting to see a pattern here? Jackie Mason is certainly no Rodney Dangerfield. Gone were Ted Knight and Bill Murray, who, along with Dangerfield, were essential to the first film. It seems that the three of them (the stars) all knew a stinker of a script when they saw one. The one who didn't have the good sense to bow out of this was Chevy Chase, who stuck around but was extraneous to both films in my opinion. This film is quite simply NOT FUNNY. Nor does it have any other endearing qualities. This thing relies heavily on anti-Semitism to work and it works to it's detriment. I hated this thing. A waste of everybody's time.

An unfunny, unworthy picture which is an undeserving end to Peter Sellers' career. It is a pity this movie was ever made.

I cannot see how anyone can say that this was a real good entertaining movie. With a few well known actors I found it hard to believe that this was only made in 2005. It's crap! The acting is tantamount to amateur dramatics, poor amateur dramatics. Unless you want to laugh loudly at an amazing 100 minutes of pure corn, don't bother to download it or rent it, worst that I have seen in years. It's from the bygone days of acting, where cowboys are shooting 8 bullets from the six-shooters. The more well known the actor, the worse they were, Drury was just sad. I was extremely disappointed with Lee Majors, has he actually stooped to this sort of garbage? It was bad enough when he played the six million dollar man.

"Jefferson in Paris" is a truly confounding film. It presents Thomas Jefferson (Nick Nolte) in the most unflattering light possible, painting him as a liar, racist and pedophile, yet offers not a shred of condemnation for those sins. This is the way he was, the film seems to say. End of sentence, end of movie, the door's behind you.<br /><br />After arriving in Paris with his daughter Patsy (Gwenyth Paltrow), Jefferson proceeds to win the heart of Maria Cosway (Greta Scacchi), the wife of a homosexual English painter (the criminally underused Simon Callow). A turn of events sends Maria to England, however, and Jefferson proceeds to forget her with astonishing speed for a man who, mere minutes of screen time before, was asking her to live with him in America.<br /><br />He's been bewitched, you see, by Sally Hemmings (Thandie Newton), one of his slaves just arrived from America. Just why he's bewitched is hard to tell--although Sally is undeniably beautiful, she acts like a simple-minded child in front of Jefferson. When she isn't telling ghost stories in exaggerated "darky" speech patterns, she's slinking around his bedroom, practically oozing lust for her distinguished massa.<br /><br />If her behavior is an attempt to excuse Jefferson's, it doesn't work. Jefferson damns himself further when Maria, tired of waiting for his letters, travels from England to see him. I've not changed toward you, he insists, offering weak excuses for not writing. To her credit, Maria sees through his brazen lies immediately. When Sally appears, and she and Jefferson flirt openly (and cruelly, to my mind) in Maria's very presence, the illusion falls apart completely.<br /><br />No one today believes that Jefferson, Washington and the rest were utter paragons of virtue and morality. Yet, are we supposed to believe that the learned, distinguished Jefferson would be attracted to Sally, a woman whose most intelligent conversation is about how "massa's Frenchie friends don' unnastan' aw corn" and who rubs herself against his front as she passes, right before Maria's eyes?<br /><br />Even if we let that slide, it's followed by the horrifying revelation that Sally was only 15 when this affair took place (Jefferson was 41). Strangely, this fact comes out only toward the very end, when Sally's brother James is understandbly furious at her blase announcement that she is carrying Jefferson's child.<br /><br />Jefferson is equally blase when told that Sally is carrying his child, and patronizingly tells her that she'd be far better off under his protection than free and living in France with her brother. But, he promises, I'll free her when I die and our children (including any more that come, Jefferson says, in a chilling declaration of Sally as *his*) when they reach 21. Oh thank you, massa, you feel like telling the screen. Big deal.<br /><br />The worst scene is still to come, however, involving Jefferson's daughter Patsy. She is already angry at him, first for breaking his vow, made to her mother on her deathbed, not to marry again. (Obviously the woman wasn't just talking about matrimony.) Jefferson has also refused to allow Patsy to become a nun as she wishes, despite earlier moralizing about freedom of religion (that seems to mean freedom to agree with him).<br /><br />Having promised Sally and her brother their freedom, Jefferson calls in Patsy to witness the bargain and promise to fulfill it should anything happen to him. Sally's brother blurts out the impending birth of the child, and Jefferson asks, "do you swear?" Paltrow's performance in this scene is brilliant, although she has almost nothing to say. Her face nearly contorts in agonizing pain at this revelation, yet she controls her grief and whispers yes.<br /><br />If anything, and the filmmakers could have had something if they'd emphasized this point more, "Jefferson in Paris" is an indication of the status of woman in the late 18th century, viewed even by men like Jefferson as attractive property, pleasing but without true intellect or souls. We see Jefferson shed a few tears over a letter from Maria, obviously telling him where to get off, but he's soon laughing away at a wild dance from Sally, complete with tossed hair and heaving bosom.<br /><br />I don't know whether this is an accurate portrait of Jefferson or not. I don't care to watch it, however, just for the sake of watching it. This Jefferson is no hero or even an anti-hero. He's a selfish, lying child-molestor--and one who gets away with it--not the kind of man I want to see a movie about.

Rose – Does anything actually happen in this episode? It introduces our two leads, a slow-witted grinning idiot of a Doctor and an utterly un-interesting companion. There's no plot to speak of, childish humour, mixed with some extremely bad pacing and incidental music. What else is there to say, really?<br /><br />The End of the World – A marginal improvement, in that we see our first outer-space scenario. Subsequently brought down by poor contemporary humour, paper-thin logic, very poor pacing, and tired SF clichés.<br /><br />The Unquiet Dead – Best episode to date showing what can happen when someone knows how to structure an episode, write interesting character dialogue, AND integrate an intriguing plot. Let down solely by the Doctor and Rose.<br /><br />Aliens of London/World War Three - Doctor who degenerates into farce. What more can be said. Penelope Wilton brings the proceedings a little gravity, trying her best in dire circumstances. Some poorly written, and out-of-place soap opera elements come to the fore in these two episodes, and a return to poor pacing, bad plotting and cringe worthy humour/satire.<br /><br />Dalek – Not great, however still far above the RTD fare to date. The pacing and script are all fine (though the Doctor and Rose still irritate). The effects and menace of the Dalek are introduced well. The finale, however, took an interesting premise that reduced the Doctor's most notorious foe, into a cuddly touchy-feely mess, and turning a previously un-seen menace, to a blue rubber squid that looked like a child's toy.<br /><br />The Long Game - The first RTD script to show any plot, even if it was in a clichéd 80s style. Still, it was marred somewhat by his usual over-reliance on juvenile jokes, placing it too far in the future to make logical sense, and again poor pacing. Not as bad as his previous efforts, but instantly forgettable.<br /><br />Father's Day – The initial premise could've been vaguely interesting, but common sense and logic abandon this episode from the very beginning. Also, we are treated to a whole episode of Soap Opera. Before you start thinking this is all about characterization, remember, there's a big difference between lame Soap Opera and characterization. On the plus side, it does prove RTD isn't the worst script writer so far.<br /><br />The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances - This started off in a mediocre way, with some cringe worthy moments, and some illogical mistakes that even a primary school pupil wouldn't make (Well lit windows in a blackout, anyone?). After this, the first part takes a more interesting and sinister turn. Florence Hoath truly steals these episodes, showing us what an interesting companion could've been like. She could also act. Instead we get the annoying and politically correct Captain Jack as the new companion. The conclusion was a little hasty, but sufficient. The pacing and script improved with a reasonably good storyline, making these two episodes quite atmospheric and intriguing. <br /><br />Boom Town - I have to be honest, except for a few examples, I had been so disillusioned by the current series, that upon seeing the trailer for another 'Slitheen' episode, I gave up and didn't subject myself to the torture.<br /><br />Bad Wolf - Reality TV, arguably the worst facet of the modern media, is basically used as the premise. There's no subtlety whatsoever. Do we get any interesting social commentary as in the likes of The Running Man or Truman Show? No, of course not. This in an RTD episode, so they're basically here to cynically try and pull in the audience of said shows. Once again, logic goes out the window, as we're placed 200,000-something years in the future. RTD tries pointlessly to shoe-horn in some 'over-arcing' story here, with no relevance other than it's own existence and when the villains are revealed at the end... They make empty threats, and the Doctor grins once more like an idiot for the climax! Faster paced for the most part, than RTD's other efforts, this has one or two interesting moments. Otherwise, another lacklustre instalment.<br /><br />The Parting of the Ways - The big finale. More of a damp squid, literally. All of the Dalek menace set up in 'Dalek' is brought crashing down, as they become rather pathetic. So many plot holes riddle this episode, with typically poor contrivances. Daleks want to harvest humans as Daleks, but then vaporize entire continents? Dalek's can vaporize said continents, but not destroy the Tardis in space? The Tardis is now indestructible and can land anywhere, even over people so they can be saved in it? This ability can't be used to easily destroy the Dalek 'god'? The Daleks can vaporize entire continents, but don't just nuke satellite 5 to destroy the doctor, and instead let him play around? The doctor is a pathetic coward without the conviction of his actions, after eradicating his whole species to try and eliminate the Daleks? These and many other holes aside, we are treated to the lamest dues ex machina solution ever conceived, joined with a near pointless story arc.<br /><br />So what can we say about the new series, all-in-all?<br /><br />Would this have gained a second series if it were anything other than Doctor Who, with RTD behind it? Would most of the episodes have been seen as anything other than un-original and forgettable, if they were anything other than Doctor Who, and had RTD's name attached? I think not.<br /><br />Some people would have us think we can't say anything against RTD, since we owe him for bringing Doctor Who back to our screens. However, this at the expense of good characters and stories. Personally, I'd rather not have a poorly planned, ill conceived product, churned out at that price. I'd rather wait till someone could come along and make a genuine effort. For the most part, this is the kind of puerile rubbish that gives SF a bad name, marring what is otherwise the most creative genre.

The big bad swim has a low budget, indie feel about it. So many times I start to watch independent films that have had really good reviews only to find out they are pretentious crud, voted for by people who are so blinded by the idea of the film and its potential to be provocative that they forget that film is a form of entertainment first and foremost.<br /><br />I do not know if The big bad swim has any message or higher meaning or metaphor, if it does then I missed it.<br /><br />From the get go BBS felt right, it was easy and warm and human, there were no major dramas or meaningful insights, I just connected with the characters straight off. And when, as with all good films the end came around I felt sadness at the loss of that connection.<br /><br />If you are looking for something big, or fast or insightful look elsewhere, look for a film trying to deliver more than it can. BBS delivers a solid, enjoyable, real experience and I felt rewarded and satiated having watched it.

not your typical vamp story, not bram stoker or anne rice here. a truly original vampyre story. these vampyres are genetic mutants who the sunlight don't bother. they are pure evil to. <br /><br />the film is not perfect. many of the actors are clearly amateurs. the two leads who play van helsing and rally the vampyre chick are pretty good though. the film is intensely violent which may disturb some people. also it is loaded with scientific detail that many will find hard to understand and may get bored with. i was sold on the clever storyline and the couple good performances. no telling how successful this film could be if they had a bigger budget and it got mass distribution

The essential message - one which Miller would have surely intended after seeing Vichy war crimes trials - is that hatred of somebody without rational basis is a waste of life. Meat Loaf's character, Fred, has known Lawrence for many years, and yet when the time comes, at the bidding of his fanatical supporters, he allows them to attack a man who is not part of their "target" group. For me, this is the crucial message - it doesn't matter what Lawrence and his wife do from this point onwards - they are marked, and have chance to save themselves by using reason. Animal aggression and anger have blinded Fred's Union thugs to reality.<br /><br />A friend of mine suggested I should see "The Wave" to study how irrational hatred and evil ideology can take over people without them realising it. I once conducted an experiment in a role-playing game, and was shocked to see how normal and level-headed people welcomed the creation of an oppressive police state - which would ultimate threaten them all - because it crept in in stages.<br /><br />Fred is the start, his LA friends and preacher idol are the catalyst which pushes his neighbours over the edge into violence without stopping to think that what they are doing in wrong.<br /><br />The relationship between Lawrence and Finkelstein, the Jewish shopkeeper is a fascinating one, because Lawrence misses the point almost until the end: if the bigots force Finkelstein out, where is he to go? If his family have fled the Nazis, what an irony to be tormented again in the land of "freedom".<br /><br />That big poster (it's a fairly famous propaganda piece) about American families enjoying the highest standard of living in the world is a very important detail. When you see this film, watch for the grafitti on the subway train, and all the little posters. The message lurks there too.<br /><br />This movie should be on the curriculum of every school, especially in our time when baseless hatred is being promoted so widely by "reasonable" people who are just extremists in thin disguises.

I saw this film over the weekend and while I was impressed as always with the beauty and polish of Church-produced films, I left disappointed that this one fell so short, failing to inform members and leaving investigators with many unanswered questions.<br /><br />The film is 70 minutes of vignettes from the life of Joseph Smith. It's not a true biopic because there's no real coherent narrative. Most of the episodes concern Joseph doing good deeds, playing baseball, running races and laughing with children, often in sloooow motion. What a great, just folks kind of guy that Joseph was, huh? Look at him out there beating rugs for his wife Emma. Well, howzbout the rugs of his 33 plural wives?? No mention whatsoever is made of polygamy. A glaring omission.<br /><br />And it is in such omissions where the film falters. It supplies too little information and leaves critical thinking audience members wondering WHY is Joseph getting tarred and feathered, WHY is he getting thrown in jail and WHY does that mob want to kill him? The film's climax is of course Joseph and Hyrum's trek to Carthage jail (riding past a veritable United Nations of faces looking out from Nauvoo's doorways). But no mention is ever made about WHY. Nothing about Smith suppressing the Nauvoo Expositor newspaper and ordering its press destroyed for its revealing the secret teaching of polygamy. The audience is left to wonder or to assume it's just more baseless persecution of the Church. No mention of Joseph being charged with treason for declaring martial law and calling out the Nauvoo militia.<br /><br />Of course I certainly did not expect this Church-produced film to present the Joseph of Richard Bushman's recent biography Rough Stone Rolling, but I was surprised and taken aback at just how little of substance was actually presented.<br /><br />And worse, what substance that was presented was often inaccurate. Two examples jumped out at me. First, the translation of the Book of Mormon. The film shows Joseph reading right off the golden plates in their two-ring binder, which plates in reality were hidden far from the site. It's well known that Joseph did his translating by burying his face in his hat, peering at the seer stone in there. The second inaccuracy occurs at Carthage jail, where the mob storms the cell. The History of the Church reports that Joseph had a six-shooter and even fired off a few rounds before jumping out the window and giving the Masonic signal of distress (as reported in Times & Seasons).<br /><br />Maybe showing the reality of the gunfight would have shattered the heart-tugging mood the filmmakers had created, but by omitting it they were unfaithful to history and failed to show Joseph as he really was: handy with a gun and able to defend himself. In fact, the impression the film gives is that Joseph was a nice guy, but also something of a milquetoast that everybody beat up, tossed in jail and eventually murdered in cold blood. He was far from that; Joseph was a disciplined and determined man who endured a lot of hardship and struggle to bring to fruition that in which he believed.<br /><br />See the film, but know going in that's it's cotton candy. Then get your meat and potatoes by reading a copy of Bushman's biography of Smith, Rough Stone Rolling <br /><br />PS: Church-produced films have no credits, but seasoned eyes can pick out a couple familiar faces. Rick Macy is excellent as Joseph Smith, Sr. and Bruce Newbold, beloved as Thomas in Finding Faith in Christ, here plays the cranky Methodist minister who failed to show Christian love to a young seeker after Truth.

Universal Soldier: The Return is not the worst movie ever made. No, that honor would have to go to a film that attempted to make some sort of statement or accomplish some artistic feat but failed in a pathetic or offensive manner. However, perhaps no movie I have ever seen has tried for so little and succeeded so completely as did Universal Soldier: The Return. <br /><br />This film is a sci-fi/action travesty that has virtually nothing to recommend it. The acting is as bad as any movie I've ever seen. The plot is terrible and predictable. The special effects are pathetic. In short, anyone even remotely connected to this film should be ashamed of themselves. US: The Return makes previous Van Damme fare seem like groundbreaking cinematic masterpieces. Some movies are so bad, they're good. Believe me when I tell you that this is not one of them. I'm really not sure what else to say here. I doubt many people were considering seeing this movie if they hadn't already, but just in case: don't.

Let's not kid ourselves, this atrocity is not Plan Nine or Cat Women. It is bad, period! The performances vary from drama school theatrics (Marla English) to a 'couldn't care less' walk through (Tom Conway). The photography (even in a good print) is so murky it is occasionally hard to see what is happening. The real problem, however, is the aimless, pointless, nearly plot less story and the leaden, paceless direction. At a brisk 77 minutes it still feels endless.<br /><br />The screenplay is especially inept. There are two story lines that only intersect at the very end of the picture. Tom Conway is trying to create a super race, using voodoo and modern science (although there is little science in evidence) which he can control telepathically. He is keeping his wife prisoner (for no discernible reason). Meanwhile a couple of petty crooks and a white hunter type guide are trying to find the village in which he is working, in the expectation of gold and jewels. When they finally arrive, Tom Conway decides that one of them, the woman, is the perfect subject for his experiments. She is turned into a monster, kills Conway (natch!) and then reverts to normal. She sees a gold statue half drowned in a boiling pool, tries to retrieve it and falls in the water and apparently drowns. The white hunter rescues the wife. In the final shot we see the supposedly drowned woman emerge as the monster again; threatening a sequel (now that really is a scary thought!).<br /><br />The AIP producer, Samuel Z Arkoff, in a lecture included on the DVD, prides himself on spotting the teenage niche market and satisfying it with ingenious low budget movies. However, it is difficult to see how anyone could think this rancid concoction would satisfy any sort of audience. What appeal do they think it could possibly have? The monster appears so rarely that it could hardly be called a horror film. The jungle action is tepid and tedious. There are no teenagers in it and no characters that teenagers could be expected to identify with.<br /><br />The producers exposed 77 minutes of film, but they didn't make a movie. This is a con trick and Arkoff should be ashamed of his association with it.

This movie about two Italian brothers who came to Germany with their family is just great!<br /><br />It isn't an idealistic movie, I would say it shows life as it is or was in the 60s and 70s when the main story takes place. The characters are very nice but have also some "dark" sides, what makes you believe that these are real persons. Great movie with great actors to show that life is not funny all the time, but that you can find happiness with "fire and passion" as the main character Gigi would say.

This is a classic example of an increasing problem with films. Why is the background noise and the soundtrack dramatically louder than the dialogue? What sense does that make? This film isn't alone. Most films seem to do this now. For 2 years, I wondered if it was just something wrong with my TV, but then I got a new TV & there it is again. BACKGROUND noise that could be taking place a city block behind the actors drowns out the dialogue.<br /><br />It was even more distracting in this film because, in the English version anyway, the woman mumbles constantly. I kept hoping Jean Reno would say "Excuse me, would you speak up or get the marbles out of your mouth." If you watch it on DVD & you have even high-school French, I recommend the French version with subtitles.<br /><br />I give it 4 because Reno was so good in Leon. People rave about the scenery, but I saw it on a TV & I lived in the Rockies for a few years, so "Enh".

When I started watching this movie I saw the dude from Buffy, Xander, and figured ah how nice that he's still making a living acting in movies. Now a weird movie I can stand, given that it's a good dose of weird like for example David Lynch movies, twin peaks, lost highway etc. And you sort of have to be in the mood for one. This one however made me mockingly remember the crazy websites about there about conspiracy theory's that make absolutely no sense. I mean come on people Nazi's who conspire with America to make an unholy trinity of evil powers? I was surprised they didn't mention the hollow earth in this movie with Hitler flying saucers and lizard people. Maybe if you had like 60 grams of heroine with this movie it would make some sort of sense, but seriously I don't condone drugs like I don't condone this movie. It should be burned, shredded and forgotten just so good ol' Xander might get another acting job. It wasn't his acting though, that was alright, but the script just didn't make any sense. Sorry.

Well - when the cameo appearance of Jason Miller (looking even more eroded than he did in Exorcist IV) is the high point of a picture, what've you got?<br /><br />It's a little bit country, a little bit rock n' roll: mix two drunks with money who drag their kid all over the place with a bog-dried mummy (have you figured that one out yet - DRIED in a bog?) in the basement, Christopher Walken with a bad dye job, and a little girl who might have been an interesting character if they'd developed her.<br /><br />I understand - sort of - that they're going back to visit her relatives. After that....<br /><br />Problem: There are several interesting flashbacks to what I must assume is her mother being killed in a car bombing (I think). This is never connected to anything. <br /><br />Problem: What do we need the grandmother for? Now, the grandmother could be interesting. She speaks Gaelic, or Celtic, or something. Maybe you can make something of her. The best they can do is that she 's got a tobacco habit. That's all.<br /><br />Problem: They cast a real shifty character as the husband. Is he type-cast (will he sell his wife to the devil? Maybe he can look forward to the trust fund he manages for her)or is he cast against type (after all, he has a good haircut and nice clothes)? He drinks, he hesitates. He's not a bad guy. Not a good one. But dislikable. Why didn't they DO something with him?<br /><br />No problem: an old boyfriend shows up. The husband knocks him down. He comes back to knock down the husband. (It gets pretty stupid, but at least THAT character has motivation.) <br /><br />NOW - she's an alcoholic, he's an alcoholic; he might only have married her for her money. The grandmother is locked in the bedroom. The blind uncle takes our heroine to the basement to show her the mummy of a witch (are you following this?) who may come to life. In fact, you KNOW she'll come to life, the music swells. A little girl lives in the house, takes tea to the grandmother (unlocks the door to do so) and provides granny with cigarettes. Periodically, granny gets out. But nothing happens. <br /><br />Husband and wife lose the kid in the house, subsequently lose their bedroom. Uncle gets his throat cut in the basement. The leading lady has nose-bleeds. The husband drinks. They both drink. In the face of all of this, the awful truth alluded to in the first over-voice is - omigod - an abortion when the leading lady was twelve years old.<br /><br />In spite of all these dangling-thread ingredients, nobody managed to get a story on the screen. No bridge between situations, no graduation from mild disturbance to awful horror, just long slow scenes that go nowhere.;nbody, really, to care about - and they had places to go with that aspect - the innocent kid in the charge of drunks,the grandmother who might be locked up because she's a monster, but no, her worst fault is smoking. She's got great hair, good makeup. <br /><br />In short, no plot. Just a little random (predictable)violence in a dark library, with the rain gushing in, and the sound track cuing us in. You need more than a few drunks and Christopher Walken to make a movie.<br /><br />The production values were good. Oh. Nice scenery, good wardrobe. The cameraman, at least, knew what he was doing.<br /><br />I bought it. Poor me.

The first hour or so of the movie was mostly boring to say the least. However it improved afterwards as the Valentine Party commenced. Apart from the twist as to the identity of the killer in the very end, the hot bath murder scene was one of the few relatively memorable aspects of this movie. The scene at the garden with Kate was well shot and so was the very last scene (the 'twist'). In those scenes, there was some genuine suspense and thrills and the hot bath murder scene had a nasty (the way slashers should be) edge to it. The earlier murders are frustratingly devoid of gore.

I really think this movie deserves some Oscars! I really don't care what people can say badly about this movie...because it's a really well played parts from Samuel L. Jackson, and mainly by Christina Ricci!! I'm a big fan of hers, right since I saw her in Addams Family...been trying to watch all things she makes, and this is absolutely one of the best parts she played!! I love her looks (even though people say she's not pretty...I think she is...and I love her eyes)!! The movie is about many things...people say that is religious...people say that it's about racism...people say that is about drugs...people say that is about nymphomania...well...maybe is a little bit of all that!! But what I truly feel is that this movie has a high level of eye opening for what blues is...what it stands for...and mainly were it comes from: life...heart...pain...sorrow...and above all...spontaneous feelings!! I hope you get to see it...if you are that kind of person that likes a movie not only from the pictures or the story it tells...this is a good movie to see...if your not...well...see it anyway...cant hurt that much, and you get to see Christina Ricci acting so horny!! She's a fox!!

"A Fare to Remember" is a totally derivative, almost ridiculous movie, but has a warmth about it that makes it a very effective and upbeat holiday movie. It stars a pretty newcomer, Challen Kates, as a high-powered ad executive who, right before her wedding, has to rush from L.A. to Seattle to keep a client who has rejected every other presentation. She has transportation difficulties from the beginning and seemingly no money. This is the first dumb thing - were there no ATMs anywhere? She must make a fortune. At any rate, she meets a cab driver (Warner) who looks like a homeless man, and he drives her to her presentation and when she emerges with a huge box of beef jerky (the client's product), he's there to take her to the airport. All flights are canceled, so in order to get to L.A. for her wedding, she hires him to take her there.<br /><br />Along the way, they bond and learn from each other. It's a very sweet movie though there is absolutely nothing new in it - it combines "Six Days and Seven Nights" and a few other films. But the chemistry between the stars is good, they're likable, and the acting is good. Look for Jerry Springer as the head of the beef jerky company and a cameo by Karl Malden.<br /><br />This is a nice film to take in over the holiday season. It's on Lifetime.

The first murder scene is one of the best murders in film history(almost as good as the shower scene in Psycho) and the acting by Robert Walker is fantastic.A psychopath involved with tennis star in exchange murders.That´s the story and overall this film is very good but theres one problem:why dosen´t Guy Haines go to<br /><br />the cop in the first place.4/5

Dr Steven Segal saves the world from a deadly virus outbreak. This movie strikes me as foolish earnestness that has morphed into an unintended camp classic (the best kind). Memorable lines include "Knowledge is like a deer. Chase it, and it will run away from you" and "Drink this. It will make you feel better." It is so sublimely bad -- they couldn't have made it any worse if they tried.<br /><br />Segal tries to convince you that he is 1. sensitive -- by saving a stricken pony; 2. a good father -- by a saccharine cooking scene for his daughter; 3. a man of science -- by looking at a fake spectrum; 4. in tune with nature -- by using homeopathic remedies; 5. politically correct and multicultural -- by having Indian friends; 6. an iconoclast -- by opening a rural practice after a former life in a national research lab; and 7. an action hero -- by being really fat but yet can still fight. ROTFL.<br /><br />It's good to see on as a late-night Saturday flick, with friends, preferably (but not necessarily!) inebriated.

This video is so hilariously funny, it makes everything else<br /><br />by Eddie Murphy seem very disappointing (even Beverly Hills Cop and The Nutty Professor, which just goes to show you how good this really is). To be honest, I don't think that I've ever<br /><br />laughed at something as much as this, including Naked Gun and the rarely seen Bargearse. This show is amazing, although it must be said that it is certainly filled with the word beginning with F that is four letters long (plus its extended version beginning with M) but it didn't bother me. See it, the funniest thing I've ever seen and probably the funniest you ever have too.

Despite the feelings of most "Star Wars" fans, in my opinion "Return Of The Jedi" is the greatest cinematic film ever created. Ever since the first time I saw it, it's depth, intensity, special effects, and moving story have overwhelmed me. The film was so well put together that it has been able to stand the test of time over the last 20 years. Filled with powerful action, as the climax of the original trilogy, George Lucas gives us a rousing finish of the "Star Wars" saga in "Jedi".<br /><br />Film Summary (Contains Spoilers For Those Who Have Not Seen It)<br /><br />After "The Empire Strikes Back" left us hanging for 3 long years we finally find the end of the story in "Return Of The Jedi". Darth Vader, in emotional turmoil makes a surprise visit to a new uncompleted Death Star to oversee it's construction. The Emperor is first seen in this film as he has the ultimate plan to destroy the Rebel Alliance and bring young Luke Skywalker to the Dark Side. Luke, Lando, Leia, Chewie, and the droids all travel to Tatooine to rescue the frozen Han Solo from the crime Lord; Jabba The Hutt. After Han has been rescued, and Jabba defeated, Luke returns to Dagobah to find a dying Yoda where he learns the awful truth; Darth Vader is in fact his father. The rebel heroes regroup with the Rebel Fleet. Now joined by other species and races including the Mon Calamari the Rebels must make a all-or-nothing plan of attack to destroy the Death Star before it is completed. While Lando heads the space attack in the Millennium Falcon, the Rebel heroes must disable the Death Star's shield generator on the Forest Moon Of Endor. It is here that the Rebels happen upon the furry, but mighty Ewoks. During the the two part intense battle, a third battle must take place as Luke willingly delivers himself to Vader in an attempt to convince him to leave the Dark Side. In emotionally charged sequences Luke must face his father as the Emperor lures out his dark emotions. As young Skywalker is about to face his death at the hands of Palpatine, Vader turns on his wicked master to save his son's life. <br /><br />Filled with a deep timeless story of good vs. evil, "Return Of The Jedi" is a spectacular, emotionally charged film that redeems the good in all of us.

I have seen bad films but this took the p***. Made no sense, and all the characters do is swear every couple of seconds, oh and i think one has a low sperm count. Its that good. A welshman plays a sweary cockney. A posh english bloke plays a foul mouthed unlovable rogue of a paddy, and some lesser lights play dim tarts.<br /><br />And there are some Russian gangsters. Oh yes some one has a gun and maybe talks rubbish whilst high on drugs.<br /><br />Avoid this film like the plague.

October Sky is a highly lauded movie, and it¡¦s easy to see why. The story is easy to comprehend and many turning points are gripping, the actors and actresses do fairly good jobs, especially Jake Gyllenhaal and Chris Cooper, the hero finally gets what he wants, and it¡¦s a true story. Frankly I think the director¡¦s achievement is not comparable to the sparks and heat the original story generates. We don¡¦t see any special narrative or cinematography; the power of the movie relies much on the riveting plot and tough situation the young hero is trapped in that most audience will find themselves identify with the characters. We feel Homer¡¦s desire to earn his father¡¦s recognition and create his own future, and his resilience wins our respect. ¡§October Sky¡¨ reminds me of a later 2001 Japanese production of mini series ¡§Rocket Boy,¡¨ which might owe some of the inspiration from this movie. Actually these two works shot from two different cultures provide interesting comparison. When October Sky unfolds a story of a young man crying out loud to claim his right over his own destiny, ¡§Rocket Boy¡¨ offers a more compromised description that could sometimes constitute an acrid criticism of modern society. Starring the outstanding actor Yuji Oda, ¡§Rocket Boy¡¨ focuses on three men as ordinary as can be: a travel agent who has a dream of becoming an astronaut, a boastful advertising agent who is on the brink of being torn apart by his inferiority complex resulted from the extreme success of his father and older brother (like what Homer feels in his family), and a food company employee who is about to getting married but scared of this idea. The collected social consciousness superimposes its definition of success on its constituents and steps further to force them suffocate their dreams by claiming them ¡§impossible.¡¨ To compensate for his lost ideal, Kobayashi (Yuji) works in the tour operator because it¡¦s called ¡§Galaxy.¡¨ When his client fails him and his girlfriend decides to leave him, he finally finds strength from his father¡¦s words, who had determined to be a sailor but later found life on the sea less attractive as he had presumed. ¡§But I don¡¦t regret it,¡¨ his father told Kobayashi, ¡§at least I tried.¡¨ It is his father¡¦s confession that encourages him to resign his job and apply for astronautships despite the fact that he hurts his legs and needs to move around on a wheelchair. Kobayashi¡¦s effort finally fails, and he goes back to the travel agency. But his ¡§crazy¡¨ courage inspires his friends, and everyone loves him more. Just before the end of the series, Kobayashi is on the job as a guide of a space camp meant to let children learn more about astronauts. After the tour is over we see him leaning against a tree, unfolding a sheet of poster he tears from the bulletin board that says: ¡§Astronauts Wanted for 2004.¡¨ Kobayashi looks at the piece of paper and laughs and laughs, just like a kid looking at his ticket to Disneyland. Kobayashi may never get what he wants, but he dares his destiny and ¡§just does it.¡¨ This series is so heart-gripping not because the hero exhibits any heroic deeds, but his ordinariness and unstoppable urge to realize his dream which make us wonder and envy. Unlike Dilbert or other sarcastic writings, this show enlightens us and teaches us something. Homer and Kobayashi both have the dream, and they do what they can despite other people¡¦s opinions. I recommend other IMDB users to see the Japanese TV series. If you are a nine-to-fiver, you will feel more touched. I feel sorry that IMDB doesn¡¦t have its data, maybe you can ask somebody from Japan to help you.

Dull haunted house thriller finds an American family moving into a 200 year old house in Japan where a violent murder suicide love triangle occurred. <br /><br />Novel setting is about the only element of interest in this very slow moving horror flick by the director of Motel Hell. The film generates zero suspense and is composed of somewhat choppy scenes that rarely seem to be leading anywhere overall. <br /><br />One obvious example is a fairly early scene where the male lead visits a temple after realizing that his house is haunted as the monk had earlier warned. The monk recounts the history of the house (which the viewer is already familiar with from the opening sequence) and then the film simply cuts away to something else. Earlier the monk had offered to help. Well, where is the help? The family continues to stay in the haunted house as things get worse and worse and no mention of the monk is made until nearly the very end when he turns up again to do what he should have done an hour earlier--try to drive the spirits out of the house, although by this time it's difficult for the viewers to care.<br /><br />There are some (probably) unintentional campy laughs in seeing the American actors at the end become possessed by the Japanese spirits and suddenly start doing bad martial arts, I say probably because the scene is more than a little reminiscent of the chainsaw duel from the same director's Motel Hell which was more obviously meant to be amusing, but on the whole this is a forgettable dud.

An apt description by Spock of an all-powerful fop into whose clutches fall the crew of the Enterprise. This was one sector of space our starship should have avoided: first Sulu & Kirk simply disappear off the bridge; a landing party follows them to the surface of an unknown planet and encounter Trelane, a seemingly aristocratic man dressed in attire from an Earth of many centuries past. But he demonstrates abilities of someone or something far beyond human and doesn't register on McCoy's medical tricorder. The officers manage to escape back to the ship but, like some bad cosmic penny, Trelane keeps popping up. He brings them all back, including some female companionship, to continue his games. The dilemma now takes on elements of 'The Most Dangerous Game' out in space and there's an exasperating, even infuriating aspect to the crew's utter helplessness before such unbridled power.<br /><br />What really makes this a great episode is the memorable performance by guest star Campbell as the overpowering but not all-knowing alien. His character is obviously an early version of Q, who was introduced 20 years later in the pilot for the TNG series. Trelane's confrontation scene with Spock stands out among all the strange drama which unfolds. As usual, Kirk quickly begins to look for possible weaknesses in his new nemesis, despite being quite outmatched. The answers to exactly what or who Trelane is are right in front of us the whole time so, when we do learn the truth, it makes complete sense in view of Campbell's pitch-perfect acting. He indulges himself constantly, preening before some unknown audience, remarking on things with a flair which is infectious but not quite right - we can't quite pin it down at first, but there's something missing here. Every few minutes, his tone becomes sinister and the crew now appears to be in serious danger. In a way, you can't take your eyes off him, always waiting to see what he does next. Actor John de Lancie captured that similar tone as Q on the Next Generation series.

We are in a small town, a homely widow (Ida Lupino) hires a handyman (Robert Ryan) to look after her house. She soon starts to regret it as Ryan grows erratic by the hour, it appears that she is host to a dangerous schizophrenic, and now she is unable to escape her house.<br /><br />Beware, My Lovely is adapted from Mel Dinelli's {The Spiral Staircase} story and play called "The Man". Pretty much a one set movie and a two character driven piece, the film boasts two great central performances and offers up an interesting take on mental illness. One however shouldn't be fooled into thinking this is a violent and nerve shredding picture, because it isn't. It's clear from the get go that Ryan's Howard Wilton is a dangerously troubled man, but this is a different sort of "peril" movie. One that throws up another slant on psychosis and thus makes it difficult to hate our dangerous protagonist.<br /><br />Ryan and Lupino are a great combination, they had also done the excellent, and far better, On Dangerous Ground this same year. So with both actors clearly comfortable together, it brings out a finely tuned character story all based in the confines of one house, re: prison. Ryan is particularly strong as his character flits in and out of madness, with some scenes powerful and at times inducing fear and at others garnering deep sympathy. The direction from Harry Horner is safe {he in truth doesn't have to do much other than let his actors run with it} and George E. Diskant's cinematography contains some smart and impacting visual touches. With one involving Christmas tree baubles immensely memorable. Falling some where in between being average and great, Beware, My Lovely has enough about it to make it a recommendation to fans of borderline and easy to follow Film-Noir. For fans of Robert Ryan tho, it's something of an essential viewing, oh yes, and then some. 7/10