Datasets:

mushroomsolutions

/

imdb_sentiment_3000_Test

like 0

Without a doubt this is one of the worst films I've ever wasted money on! The plot is, erm sorry, did I say there was a plot? The scariest moment was when..., nope can't think of one! The best special effect that had me hiding under the bed covers was..., nope can't think of one for that either. You knew who the killer was right from the start. There was nothing scary about the whole movie, in fact the only two vaguely interesting bits were when you saw the kid sister, Misty, in the shower and when you saw Nurse Toppan take her top off. This film should only be watched to get an idea of how NOT to make a horror movie!!!

I was curious to watch this movie. A lot of people seem to be excited. I also have my beliefs. I believe in Jesus Christ but I'm opened for any kind of views or opinions. It doesn't matter for me, if Jesus existed in the way it's written in the bible. If Maria was a virgin or not, or all the other similar pagan coincidences. What matters for me is the idea of salvation, the idea of love as the only way to find peace in this world.<br /><br />What made me angry is when somebody takes a sentence, present it as a fact but without showing the context it was written. For example, they showed in this movie following sentence big: "Those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them - bring them here and kill them in front of me" Jesus (Lukas 19:27) What they didn't tell you is the context. Jesus told a story about an evil king. There is no passage in the bible where Jesus supports killing. He is love! After quoting the bible wrong they present us yelling people (pseudo-christians) filled with hate. The majority of viewers don't check the informations presented so they start thinking Jesus=hate=not good for me or for anybody else. This is pure manipulation people. Please use your brain. Don't take everything as a fact they tell you in this movie. We destroy our own basis, our civilization if we start dismantling Jesus in this way and the message he brought to us. You saw off the branch you're sitting on.

A plane carrying employees of a large biotech firm--including the CEO's daughter--goes down in thick forest in the Pacific Northwest. When the search and rescue mission is called off, the CEO, Harlan Knowles (Lance Henriksen), puts together a small ragtag group to execute their own search and rescue mission. But just what is Knowles searching for and trying to rescue, and just what is following and watching them in the woods? <br /><br />Oy, what a mess this film was! It was a shame, because for one, it stars Lance Henriksen, who is one of my favorite modern genre actors, and two, it could have easily been a decent film. It suffers from two major flaws, and they're probably both writer/director Jonas Quastel's fault--this film (which I'll be calling by its aka of Sasquatch) has just about the worst editing I've ever seen next to Alone in the Dark (2005), and Quastel's constant advice for the cast appears to have been, "Okay, let's try that again, but this time I want everyone to talk on top of each other, improvise non-sequiturs and generally try to be as annoying as possible".<br /><br />The potential was there. Despite the rip-off aspects (any material related to the plane crash was obviously trying to crib The Blair Witch Project (1999) and any material related to the titular monster was cribbing Predator (1987)), Ed Wood-like exposition and ridiculous dialogue, the plot had promise and potential for subtler and far less saccharine subtexts. The monster costume, once we actually get to see it, was more than sufficient for my tastes. The mixture of character types trudging through the woods could have been great if Quastel and fellow writer Chris Lanning would have turned down the stereotype notch from 11 to at least 5 and spent more time exploring their relationships. The monster's "lair" had some nice production design, specifically the corpse decorations ala a more primitive Jeepers Creepers (2001). If it had been edited well, there were some scenes with decent dialogue that could have easily been effective.<br /><br />But the most frightening thing about Sasquatch is the number of missteps made: For some reason, Quastel thinks it's a good idea to chop up dialogue scenes that occur within minutes of each other in real time so that instead we see a few lines of scene A, then a few lines of scene B, then back to A, back to B, and so on.<br /><br />For some reason, he thinks it's a good idea to use frequently use black screens in between snippets of dialogue, whether we need the idea of an unspecified amount of time passing between irrelevant comments or whether the irrelevant comments seem to be occurring one after the other in time anyway.<br /><br />For some reason, he doesn't care whether scenes were shot during the morning, afternoon, middle of the night, etc. He just cuts to them at random. For that matter, the scenes we're shown appear to be selected at random. Important events either never or barely appear, and we're stuck with far too many pointless scenes.<br /><br />For some reason, he left a scene about cave art in the film when it either needs more exposition to justify getting there, or it needs to just be cut out, because it's not that important (the monster's intelligence and "humanity" could have easily been shown in another way).<br /><br />For some reason, there is a whole character--Mary Mancini--left in the script even though she's superfluous.<br /><br />For some reason we suddenly go to a extremely soft-core porno scene, even though the motif is never repeated again.<br /><br />For some reason, characters keep calling Harlan Knowles "Mr. H", like they're stereotypes of Asian domestics.<br /><br />For some reason, Quastel insists on using the "Blurry Cam" and "Distorto-Cam" for the monster attack scenes, even though the costume doesn't look that bad, and it would have been much more effective to put in some fog, a subtle filter, or anything else other than bad cinematography.<br /><br />I could go on, but you get the idea.<br /><br />I really wanted to like this film better than I did—I'm a Henriksen fan, I'm intrigued by the subject, I loved the setting, I love hiking and this is basically a hiking film on one level--but I just couldn't. Every time I thought it was "going to be better from this point until the end", Quastel made some other awful move. In the end, my score was a 3 out of 10.

Delightful film directed by some of the best directors in the industry today. The film is also casting some of the great actors of our time, not just from France but from everywhere.<br /><br />My favorite segments:<br /><br />14th arrondissement: Carol (Margo Martindale), from Denver, comes to Paris to learn French and also to make a sense of her life.<br /><br />Montmartre: there was probably not a better way to start this movie than with this segment on romantic Paris.<br /><br />Loin du 16ème: an image of Paris that we are better aware of since the riots in the Cités. Ana (Catalina Sandino Moreno) spends more time taking care of somebody else's kid (she's a nanny) than of her own.<br /><br />Quartier Latin: so much fun to see Gérard Depardieu as the "tenancier de bar" with Gena Rowlands and Ben Gazzara discussing their divorce.<br /><br />Tour Eiffel: don't tell me you didn't like those mimes!<br /><br />Tuileries: such a treat to see Steve Buscemi as the tourist who's making high-contact (a no- no) with a girl in the Metro.<br /><br />Parc Monceau: Nick Nolte is great. Ludivine Sagnier also.<br /><br />I've spend 3 days in Paris in 2004 and this movie makes me want to go back!<br /><br />Seen in Barcelona (another great city), at the Verdi, on March 18th, 2007.<br /><br />84/100 (***)

This gets a two because I liked it as a kid, but it became so redundant that I just started to hate it... I can't give this a descriptive review because it would be restating one thing after the other, I probably wouldn't say anything that everyone else didn't say already.<br /><br />The only other thing about this show is that it's pretty nasty, with the kid with the boil to that twisted babysitter to the stupidity that runs around and about in it. I have a cousin that loves this show and he's the strangest and dumbest person I have met. This show should be pulled from the air. It's always the same thing over and over... They need to put better shows on Nick. I'm getting really really tired of stuff like this.

I used to watch this on either HBO or Showtime or Cinemax during the one summer in the mid 90's that my parents subscribed to those channels. I came across it several times in various parts and always found it dark, bizarre and fascinating. I was young then, in my early teens; and now years later after having discovered the great Arliss Howard and being blown away by "Big Bad Love" I bought the DVD of "Wilder Napalm" and re-watched it with my girlfriend for the first time in many years. I absolutely loved it! I was really impressed and affected by it. There are so many dynamic fluid complexities and cleverness within the camera movements and cinematography; all of which perfectly gel with the intelligent, intense and immediate chemistry between the three leads, their story, the music and all the other actors as well. It's truly "Cinematic". I love Arliss Howard's subtle intensity, ambivalent strength and hidden intelligence, I'm a big fan of anything he does; and his interplay with Debra Winger's manic glee (they are of course married) has that magic charming reality to it that goes past the camera. (I wonder if they watch this on wedding anniversaries?......."Big Bad Love" should be the next stop for anyone who has not seen it; it's brilliant.) And, Dennis Quaid in full clown make-up, sneakily introduced, angled, hidden and displayed by the shot selection and full bloomed delivery is of the kind of pure dark movie magic you don't see very often. Quaid has always had a sinister quality to him for me anyways, with that huge slit mouth span, hiding behind his flicker eyes lying in wait to unleash itself as either mischievous charm or diabolical weirdness (here as both). Both Howard and Quaid have the insane fire behind the eyes to pull off their wonderful intense internal gunslinger square-offs in darkly cool fashion. In fact the whole film has a darkly cool energy and hip intensity. It's really a fantastic film, put together by intelligence, imagination, agility and chemistry by all parties involved. I really cannot imagine how this got funded, and it looks pretty expensive to me, by such a conventional, imagination-less system, but I thank God films like this slip through the system every once in awhile. In a great way, with all of its day-glo bright carnival colors, hip intelligence, darkly warped truthful humor and enthralling chemistry it reminds me of one of my favorite films of all time: "Grosse Pointe Blank".......now that's a compliment in my book!

Evil Breed is a very strange slasher flick that is unfortunately no good.The beginning of the film seems promising but overall it's a disaster.The dialogue is pretty bad but not near as bad as the acting.The acting is brutal and unbearable.Most of the characters deliver there lines horribly and even if that is on purpose the method doesn't work because the characters become annoying.Some of the kills are innovative but it took far too long to get to them.After about a half hour through the movie we get the first death (other than in the beginning)and then almost every other character is smoked within the next five minutes.The movie then turned into sort of a spoof with ridiculous looking characters,unrealistic karate like fights,and a scene in which a man gets his intestines pulled out of his a*sscrack.None of it is funny it's just plain ridiculous.The film then becomes ultra gory and ultra pointless.Most of the characters are clichéd even for slasher standards and are as solid as butter left on the counter for 5 days.Evil Breed isn't even laughably bad therefore it fails in it's main task.Watch Texas Chainsaw Massacre,Just Before Dawn,or See No Evil for a real slasher.

I am easily pleased. I like bad films. I like films featuring attractive young women in small amounts of clothing.<br /><br />This film gives all the above a bad name. Yes, you know going in that what you're getting is not high art, or anything like. But, even for the type of movie it is, Beach Babes From Beyond isn't very good.<br /><br />Some people have given it 10. I can only assume that these are people who have had the organs which enable rational thought to take place surgically removed.<br /><br />It isn't very good. It simply isn't very good.<br /><br />3 out of 10 solely on the grounds of a) novelty value for the famous relatives and Burt Ward and b) some of the girls are cute.<br /><br />Oh, by the way, did I tell you that it isn't very good?

It was a saturday night and a movie called BASEketball was on TV. I had always wanted to watch it but never got around to it when it was in the cinema. Boy was i mistaken. Words cannot describe how funny this film is, starring the creators of South Park, who share a natural on screen chemistry when being funny. I taped the replay the next day and exactly one week after watching it for the first time, i have seen it 7 times!!. Im obsessed with it, and i know anyone who appreciates trey and matts work will appreciate this movie. A MUST SEE, THIS IS MY #1 COMEDY OF ALL TIME

I bought the DVD a long time ago and finally got around to watching it.I really enjoyed watching this film as you don't get the chance to see many of the more serious better quality bollywood films like this. Very well done and but I would say you need to pay attention to what is going on as it is easy to get lost. When you start watching the movie, don't do anything else! I would actually advise people to read all the reviews here...including the ones with spoilers, before watching the movie. Raima Sen gave her first great performance that I have seen. Aishwarya was easily at her best. All performances were strong, directing and cinematography...go watch it!

I had tried to rent this on many occasions, but was always with the girlfriend, who, as a general rule, usually rejects heist flicks and ensemble comedies with the comment "Uhm... looks good, but i'm not in the mood for that movie." Thus entereth the "Almighty Solo Movie Night"!<br /><br />Anyway, I found Welcome To Collinwood a rather enjoyable movie. While ultimately fairly forgettable, it does have moments of fun and a few laugh out loud moments. I was unfamiliar with the fact that it was a remake, and as a general rule watch movies trying to ignore that fact and watch them on their own merits anyway. George Clooney puts in a humorous and brief cameo as a wheeled safe cracker that, for the most part left me wondering two things... 1. wouldn't every comedy be better if Mr. Clooney put in a strange 5 minute cameo? and 2. How do they make fake tattoos that look old and faded, and how easily do they wash off? The cast, all fine actors in their own right, put in a great job, and you get the impression that they had a good time working together which is fairly important in a movie like this. Needless to say all does not go as planned in this movie, both plot-wise and humor-wise, but it made me check out the special features and consider watching the original, so I consider it a success! Rent this one for a good time, maybe grab a few friends and a pizza. you'll have a good time.<br /><br />***7/10***<br /><br />On a side note, the soundtrack is spectacular. It's great to hear the far under appreciated Paolo Conte used, and it left me humming snippets of the score long after the credits rolled.

A kooky, but funny bit of diversion. You kind of have to see it from the beginning to follow what's happening, but each report to earth has it's own little joke. Pretty good special effects for a very low budget sci-fi t.v. show. It's fun to watch. Sort of in the vein of Red Dwarf, but even more low budget. For someone who's just coming in in the middle of one of the episodes, what you have to realize is that these guys are all incompetent, because they've been moved up the ladder of command, because the other officers died. Also, the main guys are from the laundry corps, which is why they have laundry in everything. If you like Red Dwarf, you'll probably like this. Slightly different t.v. concept, in that all you see is the Commander's report each day.<br /><br />It would be better if this were explained more, not just in the very beginning of the first episode, but then it was pretty hard to figure out what had happened in Red Dwarf too, if you hadn't been told.

This movie is retarded a cheap movie that tries to be a stoner movie because the characters are looking for pot but none of them are smokers just a bunch of garbage Thomas Hayden church should not direct anymore especially this movie which is a waste of film. People who liked this movie gave good comments but from all the people on here some are just retarded and don't watch movies so they think that any bad movie is good the actors suck and the movie sucks balls.<br /><br />I think that many people are going to be upset because this movie tries to make itself look like the ultimate weed movie when it is just the worst movie about weed that I have ever seen I hope that people will stop the director from directing crap like this even weed cannot make this movie funny or entertaining .

You like to solve mysteries? You like complex narrations? This is for you. Brilliant, clever movie by Francis Leclerc(son of a legendary french Canadian signer Felix Leclerc). Flashy photo and clever editing is the word of Leclerc, strongly helped by Roy Dupuis who's dythirambic in the lead role.<br /><br />The plot is about Alexandre Tourneur, veterinary in his 40's who just woke up from a coma after being unplugged by somebody unknown. Tourneur is struggling to remember who hit him as he was ending a deer's sufferings on the road. Throughout the struggling, he has weird behavior and it seems like something took over him.<br /><br />Not spooky, but very mysterious and well played movie. I have my hypothesis on the ending(I think the Indian caused the accident) but this ending was open to any explanations.<br /><br />I strongly recommend it 9.5/10

I don't really mind the creative ideas interjected in these movies, but seriously. There isn't one coherent part of the game in this movie. That seems to be the trend, buy the rights and then just make a movie that has zero to do with what the fans want. This butchering is almost entertaining because you know you are getting away with hiding behind a lack of skill, and control of money (not yours) that allows you to do this. Play a game, or hire someone to, and please make a real movie, or stand in the boxing ring and have your butt handed to you as you so claim won't happen.<br /><br />wow, 9 lines of text and i was done. had to add blah to bug you, sorry

I've also been looking to find this movie for quite some time, and how great it would be to find it on DVD...<br /><br />I saw this movie when I was about 6 years old, in the Netherlands. And I was very impressed by it. It was shown before Walt Disney's JUNGLE BOOK! <br /><br />What I remember of this movie is fragmented. I remember that an Indian boy was friends with an eagle. This impressed me very much. For some reason he was thrown out of his village (did not grasp the reason for this). When other boys threw stones at him, he climbed a rock and jumped off. At that time he turned into an eagle and flew away with his eagle friend. As an eagle he was still wearing his turquoise necklace. <br /><br />CB

Jason Bourne sits in a dusty room in with blood on his hands, trying to make sense of what he's just done. Meanwhile, a CIA chief in NYC outlines the agency's response to what's just happened on screen. An American flag stands proudly on the centre of his desk in the foreground of the shot, but as he speaks, it slips out of focus as his plan veers into morally dubious territory, as if it doesn't want to be associated with the course of action the government man decides is necessary in the interests of national security.<br /><br />This shot effectively captures the mood of the film. As well as portraying Bourne's quest to find out how he became Jason Bourne, Ultimatum is also an examination of the human costs of the measures taken to protect us in the interests of stability and security.<br /><br />It is also probably the best film you'll see in the cinema this year. <br /><br />It's just so intense. Bourne says to Simon Ross (Considine) "This isn't some newspaper story, this is real" and in the audience you almost believe him. The camera shakes, but remains steady enough for you to see everything and feel like you're there with Bourne as he tries to elude his pursuers, and the performances are so good that these guys seem as though they are the characters they're portraying, instead of just being actors performing well-written roles. The action scenes are so brutally fast-paced and well choreographed that they seem instinctive instead of planned to the minutest movement; the stunt-work is nothing short of amazing.<br /><br />The pacing is just incredible. It keeps driving forward towards its conclusion, but not so fast that it leaves you struggling to piece together the plot; the script delivers the information you need as quickly and clearly as possible before moving on to the next tense action set-piece. While they're often simple (the Waterloo sequence is essentially just a man on a phone being watched by a man on a phone) they're charged with such dramatic intensity that you can't take your eyes off them. The film is just so focused on powering forwards that you can't help being swept along by it.<br /><br />With its intense action set-pieces, brilliantly paced storyline, and intelligent examination of the decisions made in the name of national security, the Bourne series is one that accurately captures the ambiguities of our age. Ultimatum is its peak.

This is one of the best crime-drama movies during the late 1990s. It was filled with a great cast, a powerful storyline, and many of the players involved gave great performances. Pacino was great; he should have been nominated for something. John Cusack was good too, as long as the viewer doesn't mind his Louuu-siana accent. He may come off as annoying if you can't stand this dialect. The way that Pacino's character interacted with Cusack's character was believable, dramatic, and slightly comical at times. Danny Aiello was superb as always. David Paymer was great in a supporting role. Bridget Fonda was good but not memorable. There were times when this picture mentioned so many characters, probably too many. It may take a second viewing to remember, "which Zapatti was which?" After so many cross-references, one has to stop and think just to recap. The ending didn't have a lot of sting. It was built up for so long and then was a bit of a letdown. This was one of the few problems with the film. Since the movie wasn't billed as a "huge, blockbuster" big screen hit, it made some forget that this movie even existed. Pacino and Aiello were great but the film's lack of "splash" in the theaters may have accounted for no nominations. It was semi-successful in the home market, and viewers are still learning that this title is out there. Made in 1996, it still stands up today and will remain popular for many years to come.<br /><br />So, make yourself some lemon pudding (you'll see) and see this movie!

For months I've been hearing about this little movie and now I've seen it. I find it cute, cute how so many fledgling directors make movies where they combine other people's creative ideas in order to make their own one-joke premise of a movie. Troops, Swingblade, any of the million Blair Witch parodies come to mind. If all that these directors want is a foot inside Hollywood's door then they're doing the right thing and they should keep it up because combining plot outlines is how Hollywood makes films. How many times have you heard the phrase, "It's Animal House meets Back to the Future"; "It's Wall Street meets Dead Poet's Society"; or "Shakespeare in Love meets Star Wars"? I remember when independent films meant original and daring not safe and predictable.

I have read almost all the books by now, and have seen the musical production in two different languages. I absolutely adored everything that I have been acquainted previously. But lately I've been running out of resources to sustain my fancy. I still have couple of books left, but they are either in transit or they are the sequels which I am not in a hurry to read. So an idea dawned on me - Sink me! There are movies which I have not watched! Thus, I must watch them immediately.<br /><br />The first five minutes of these series were... acceptable. In fact, I quite enjoyed the variation of the reason for the denunciation, however different it had seemed. It went all downhill from there, though. Chauvelin was too... foppish? And, I daresay, too old for this role. Not nearly that dark and dashing figure with his dreadful either-or. (And what was that with random bed scene featuring him? It was way too creepy - wasn't his only love the Madame Guillotine, and his only interest - his job, and his only obsession - Sir Percy?) Marguerite... Prettiest woman in France? Cleverest woman in Europe? I think not. Although, whatever compelled her to break into the study of Sir Percy I haven't the faintest idea. And whatever my Lord Tony has done to deserve this death? Yes, every member of the League did pledge his life to Sir Percy, but he would have never endangered any of them nor would have run away like a coward when his dear friend faces mortal danger. And if by any means he had to mourn his companion, he would have done that, mourn, not just move on as if nothing had happened. Which brings me to another point, Sir Percy. His portrayal was most dreadful. He was neither a lazy fop, nor a gallant and elusive hero who is a master of transformations. Nor did he care too much about cravats (his pronunciation of that word alone made my ears bleed) And with his own hands he had never killed anyone. So what was that with him randomly walking around and slaughtering people?<br /><br />The costumes were just too flashy for that time period as well. This is post-revolutionary France we are talking about! Not pre-revolutionary. People in dresses like that stand out in a crowd quite easily. It was all just... gah!<br /><br />Although, I must admit, after I watched other parts my opinion did change slightly. Watching it as a separate work, independent of Scarlet Pimpernel series, it was tolerable. Just your other average hero in the mask. But for what they tried to pass it, it is still miserable.

I was bored, around 10pm, so I watched this movie. And I could not stop laughing. Everything was so ridiculous. The way the kids were acting like they were older than 11 just cracked me up. One of the kids had a ring, that supposedly killed people after 3 or so years. It gave me the impression that he wanted to be a gangster.<br /><br />It's pretty hard to take little kids seriously, especially when it has to do with eating worms. They act like everything is such a big deal, like if Billy (the main character) doesn't eat the worms then the world will end.<br /><br />This is a good movie for little kids (excluding the fact that a 5 year old says 'penis'), but not for teens or adults who don't want to waste their time.

This was a riveting film, one that really drew me in. I'm a big fan of William H. Macy, and he puts in a wonderful performance. His great likeability, coupled with the way his character breaks the fourth wall, really gave me a sense of complicity in his actions. I found myself waiting tensely for the whole house of cards to come collapsing down around him (and by extension myself, as his confidante and silent witness). It took several minutes for me to relax once the film had ended, I was so wrapped up in it. <br /><br />Good performances all around, too, not just with Macy. Arkin was quite good, as was Cromwell (he was surprisingly fierce). In short, I highly recommend this film to any fans of Macy and/or the murder mystery. But you may want to prepare to feel a little guilty.

I am a lover of bad movies. I own "R.O.T.O.R." and "Boa vs. Python" and am working to build up my collection to such great titles as "Troll 2" and "What's up Superdoc?" But "Storm Trooper" is not even bad enough to make it to the list of wonderfully terrible movies. It's just lame. The guy who said he's had better dialogue with his potted plants has it right. Everything about this movie is stupid. When the robot guy runs into the car it seems almost as if he knew it was going to blow up, there was just no reason he would ever run in that direction. "Judge, Jury, and Executioner," "The perfect cop...but they went too far," I mean, come on, why do people bother making these movies anymore? R.O.T.O.R. makes it because it is hysterically awful, but Storm Trooper is just a waste of cinema because it isn't even bad enough to be so bad it's worth watching. This belongs in someone's home movies collection, something they can be sort of proud of, but that is all. I am p*ssed off it was on an HBO channel (with only 1-star, which is why I watched it) because it didn't belong there. Even if you love bad movies, do not watch this movie. It is shameful.

Action & Adventure.Billie Clark is twenty years old, very pretty, and without a care in the world,until a brutal street gang violates her life, and she turns into an ALLEY CAT bent on revenge! When the gang attacks her grandparents house and her car, Billie uses her black belt prowess to fight them off. But at the same time she earns their hatred, and she and her grandparents are marked for vengence.When her grandparents lose their lives to the brutal thugs. Billie becomes like a cat stalking her prey-and no prison,police force,boyfriend,or crooked judge can get in the way of her avenging claws. She's a one-woman vigilante squad,a martial arts queen,a crack shot with no mercy. She's the ALLEY CAT.Watch for the dramatic ending versus the Gang leader! Rated R for Nudity & Violence, Other Films with Karin Mani: Actress - filmography,Avenging Angel (1985) .... Janie Soon Lee , "From Here to Eternity" (1979) (mini) TV Series .... Tawny, Filmography as: Actress, Stunts - filmography,Avenging Angel (1985) (stunts)P.S. She should have been Catwoman in the Batman Movie!<br /><br />

The Wicker Man. I am so angry that I cannot write a proper comment about this movie.<br /><br />The plot was ridiculous, thinly tied together, and altogether-just lame. Nicolas Cage...shame on you! I assumed that since you were in it, that it would be at least decent. It was not.<br /><br />I felt like huge parts of the movie had been left on the cutting room floor, and even if it's complete-the movie was just outlandish and silly.<br /><br />At the end you're left mouth agape, mind befuddled and good taste offended. I have never heard so many people leave a theater on opening day with so much hatred. People were complaining about it in small groups in the mall, four floors down from the theater near the entrance. It's that bad.<br /><br />I heard it compared to : Glitter, American Werewolf in Paris and Gigli. My boyfriend was so mad he wouldn't even talk about it.<br /><br />Grrrr!

It is very rare for a film to appeal to viewers of all ages--to children for a fine narrative and a wonderful, colorful production, and, to adults, for a literate script, fine production values, good casting/acting, all bound together with a fine Rozsa score. Two roughly contemporary films accomplish this--"Thief of Baghdad" (1940) and "The Adventures of Robin Hood" (1938). Some of the back story on this production is fascinating. This production, commenced in England in the summer of 1939, moved to Hollywood, and proved a cover for British intelligence efforts! The producer, Alexander Korda, was subsequently knighted in 1942. Here is a unique case of the intersection of art, commerce, and politics! By all means, secure a good CD of this film for your library!

If you want to see how to ruin a film, study this one very closely. In fact, it is so bad that people should buy it for that reason alone. Especially note how most of the scenes look as if they were knocked up in about 5 minutes. Realism escapes this movie on every level. The overall impression is that someone was given a below average script, wannabe actors, an average director and absolutely no budget whatsoever. With a formula like that, it just had to be doomed.<br /><br />I rented this once, and I swear I got stupider watching it. If you are a humanitarian, buy this horrible, horrible movie, and burn it-UNWATCHED- as a favor to the world. It has no discernible plot, bad acting, and then tosses in something about evil ugly women just to really cap the whole thing off. I would suggest watching paint dry before this stupid waste of a tape! Seriously. The paint would be better. I wish I could give this negative 10 stars.

Movie didn't have much plot and was uninteresting. Basically you spend a lot of time watching people paint. Also it's very difficult to hear or understand the dialogue -- partially because of the accents, but also because words are mumbled.

I love this film. There is something for everyone. It if funny, saddening, passionate and dramatic. The mixture of two completely different cultures creates a whole new world that the viewer cannot help but want to be a part of. I must admit that I am slightly biased, as Colin Firth is my favourite actor and so nothing that he does is wrong in my eyes (!), but in this film his tremendous acting talent is apparent and it is furthered even more by the beautiful acting of his co-star Nia Long. The problems that their love affair suffers makes it, ironically, more believable and the simple features like the contrast between the colours of Matthew's and Nimi's clothes alone, makes this film all the more enchanting. I defy anyone that cannot be moved by this story. I find it enchanting and have watched it at least ten times since I bought the film a week ago!

The promise of Martin Donovan playing Jesus was, quite honestly, enough to get me to see the film. Definitely worthwhile; clever and funny without overdoing it. The low-quality filming was probably an appropriate effect but ended up being a little too jarring, and the ending sounded more like a PBS program than Hartley. Still, too many memorable lines and great moments for me to judge it harshly.

I really enjoyed "Candid camera" with Dom DeLuise and I was surprised to see that after the years Suzanne Somers have becomed the co-star of the show. But that was the only positive side of the show - the whole studio, the intro, the hosts - all that give the new meaning to the word "pompous".<br /><br />Well, that would be OK if the materials weren't so cr*ppy - I mean come on, the best you can do is show few men that have problem with getting ketchup out of the bottle, Suzanne Somers walking with Halloween basket in July, ice cream place that sells only vanilla...? I've seen few episodes and each time it was horrible. They were posing like it's the greatest show ever and then fill the time with scenes so dull that I really felt embarrassed to watch. Even the people in them looked bored and that just can't be good.

This movie was well done but it also made me feel very down at times as well. For anyone that is considering show business this is a must see as it shows the raw deal in what goes on for these struggling workers. The soundtrack was definitely cool and the acting and dancing complimented it nicely. Some of the student's attitudes might have been a little far-fetched like Leroy's especially because I'm sure someone like that would've been kicked out immediately for refusing to read and such if this was the real High School For Performing Arts. The Coco screen test is hard to watch for any people out there with weak stomachs, please heed my warning. While it's very gritty I know it's the truth on what happens so in this respect the movie is right on. Overall it's entertaining and even though some parts drag on the majority goes by really quickly.<br /><br />Final Grouping:<br /><br />Movies: Probably would've skipped this one.<br /><br />DVD Purchase: Not something I'd need to see again and again.<br /><br />Rental: Worth renting at least once in your life!

From watching the trailer, the movie looked pretty interesting. The production of the movie is also pretty good--it looks like they had a good budget and doesn't look like a cheaply made movie. The acting ranges from good (Joe Morton as Professor Simon) to OK (Kelly Overton as Eve) to bad (James Haven as Don).<br /><br />The actual content and plot of the movie is weak. The movie starts out like it could become interesting and ends with a poorly executed, disappointingly boring, twist. Watching the first 10 minutes and last 5 minutes of the movie would have made this movie OK but everything in between makes this an absolutely boring movie to watch. It's as though they made a short movie then tried to force it to be over an hour long by stuffing the middle with an hour of filler material.<br /><br />If you want to waste a good hour and half of your life, watch this movie. Otherwise, stay away from this extremely boring movie.

IMDb lists this as 1972 for some reason, but the other sources I've seen including the excellent program notes mark it as '68. Doesn't really matter, except that it's quite interesting to watch this abstract collage of film and video (one of the first art works to merge the two apparently) in the context of the Star Gate sequence in 2001, released the same year. Pure abstraction isn't really my thing, but I can take it in small doses and the super-saturated optically printed colors and psychedelic feel of this series of flowers, Rohrschach blots, birds, etc is pretty compelling and quite beautiful. Certainly helped paved the way for many other nascent video artists in the 70s, and deserves to be better known.

So tell me - what serious boozer drinks Budweiser? How many suicidally-obsessed drinkers house a fully stocked and barely touched range of drinks in their lonely motel room that a millionaire playboy's bachelor-pad bar would be proud to boast? And what kind of an alcoholic tends to drink with the bottle held about 8 inches from his hungry mouth so that the contents generally spill all over his face? Not to mention wasting good whisky by dousing your girlfriend's tits with it, just so the cinema audience can get a good eyeful of Elisabeth Shue's assets.<br /><br />Cage seems to be portraying the most attention-seeking look-at-me alcoholic ever to have graced the screen while Shue looks more like a Berkely preppy slumming it for a summer than some seasoned street-walker. She is humiliated and subjugated as often as possible in this revolting movie with beatings, skin lacerations, anal rape and graphic verbal abuse - all of it completely implausible and included apparently only to convey a sense of her horribly demeaned state and offer the male viewers an astonishingly clichéd sentimental sexual fantasy of the 'tart-with-a-heart'.<br /><br />Still - I did watch it to the end, by which time I was actually laughing out loud as Shue's tough street hooker chopped carrots in the kitchen wanly, pathetically smiling while Cage - all eyes popping and shaking like like a man operating a road drill in an earthquake - grimaced and mugged his way through the final half-hour...

This is, ostensibly, a movie about multiple grief. As such, it ought to move viewers and make them empathetic with the plight of the main characters. However, its irritatingly postmodern style makes it almost incomprehensible. The camera continually switches from one scene to another, from one personal crisis to the next, creating a choppy, disjointed effect. Most characters appear to live aimless, unstructured lives, held together by their professional commitments. (It also stretches credibility that a man who has just been given what amounts to a likely death sentence, would cheerfully indulge in a sex romp with a woman he has just met). The storyline (if there is a storyline) is difficult to follow. In sum, the overall effect is rather disappointing. In spite of all that, the acting is generally good and some of the scenes are quite powerful.

Speed which I believe is direct copy of the Hollywood movie Cellular (I haven't watched this one) gives an impression of a test match which is very exciting in first four days, but then gets in a very boring draw at the end. I have watched this movie today on 12th January 2008 on rented VCD. It's release date is 19th Oct 2007. But still fortunately for me I didn't know or heard much of this movie before except that it is a flop at box office. So in this situation when I watch the movie, I feel that this movie could have been a very good movie, but then the director again falls in the trap for Bollywood traditions and has wasted a very good chance.<br /><br />Off course as a Bhatt movie it must be copied from somewhere else. But now days it doesn't matter for me, if I haven't seen the original movie. I just found the main theme much similar to 'Nick of Time' and 'Badshah'. In the movie Sanjay Suri is shown an intelligence agent, but his wife thinks that he is a chef. This brings back the memory of 'True-Lies'. The only new part was the use if the phone. But that too I found out now is taken from movie Cellular. So when a movie is made with the mixture of so many other movies it's future is quite clear.<br /><br />The things I like about the movie is its pace. As the name suggest the things really happens fast, and there is not much time to think about in between the scenes. But this breaks in the last 20 minutes of so where the movie goes in traditional Bollywood style of Dhishum dhishum.<br /><br />The plot of the movie is also quite interesting. Three stories going parallel, one after the other. One of the kidnapping of Urmila, the other of the Zayed trying to help Urmila, and then the plan of murder of prime minister. These three stories gets mixed up naturally with each other as the movie continues.<br /><br />But then the very ordinary acting and unnecessary extra style has killed the spirit of the movie. Except Sanjay Suri, none other makes any impression. This goes even for Urmila, who is always promising in RGVs movies. Due to this ordinary acting some scenes doesn't really convey the feelings that director wanted. E.g. the scene at the end where Urmila leaves all hope and cut the phone, should have made a good impact. But instead we just wait for the end of that scene.<br /><br />Other than acting, some unnecessary love for style demoralizes the movie. Showing so cool villains is good for Hollywood movies not for Bollywood The background of London is also only for making style and not much intelligent advantage of this background can be seen. Especially at the end, all those dhishhum- dhishhum were utterly unnecessary. May be director has an impression that the climax in Hindi movies must have such fights. They look unrealistic, increase the length of the movie and make sure that the people are leaving theater before the movie ends.<br /><br />Over and all, I find the movie once watchable. If it is coming on TV or you can get it on rent its OK. But then again make sure that you have the remote and forward button handy. Next time, when the movie is on TV, you can safely watch other channels.

As other viewers have mentioned, this film was an interesting experiment in photography. The colors are comic book bold. I think the director got carried away with his "artistic vision" over the look of the film instead o badly needed attention to content. Despite its stellar cast, the performances are lackluster and the story nearly incoherent. Madonna was likely cast purely as a stunt to get pre-release press. A good thing as her appearance here lent some credence to her album "I'm Breathless (Music inspired by the film Dick Tracy)" which was a stratospheric hit (due in large part to the inclusion of dance-hit "Vogue" - which is not in, nor has the slightest relation to this film). I'd guess the major portion of money from this film came from tie-ins to Madonna's "I'm Breathless" album.<br /><br />If you watch it at home, by end-titles, you'll think "there's two hours out of my life I'd like to have back." Save yourself the wasted time - do not bother with this.

Why do I like DISORGANIZED CRIME so much? Why do I chuckle or laugh out loud any time I think of a dozen or more scenes from this movie? It's kind of hard to explain, but I'll give it a try. First of all, it's very funny indeed - in contrast to what lots of "official" reviews want you to believe. But then again, that depends entirely on your sense of humour, so there is no sense in arguing about that. Often the humour is in the dialogue, and often it is situational comedy. There is for instance this very hilarious scene in which the 4 gang members have been given a lift in the back of a truck. When the farmer drops them, they just stand there by the road, covered all over with cow s*** or whatever. They are totally unnerved; then, realizing the humour of the scene, they one by one start laughing about themselves, and Ruben Blades (as Carlos), looking (and certainly smelling) terrible, nonchalantly takes out some mouth spray to at least do something about his breath (simply describing the scene here makes me chuckle again!). Which leads to the second point: the acting. Fred Gwynne, Lou Diamond Phillips, William Russ, Ruben Blades and Corbin Bernsen (okay, the latter overdoes it a bit at times) all fit and play their parts beautifully - in fact, you get the feeling they must have been enjoying themselves too when shooting the film. Thirdly, there is the plot . Jim Kouf, the director and screenwriter, is very laid-back; he takes his time to let the plot unfold and have the individual characters establish themselves. More often than not, there is no real action, and yet you enjoy these 4 very different people - who attempt to rob a bank although their boss (Bernsen) does not seem to turn up - grumble about each other and even-tually, grudgingly, like each other. The movie is a fantastic parody of the typical bank robbery plot - totally impossible with all its twists and coincidences, yet utterly convincing in its love for ironic details. Incidentally, the title of the film is one of the best I have ever come across, because it per-fectly summarizes the plot in a very ironic way. Therefore, take my advice: watch this film, but if you don't chuckle, grin or smile during the first 10 minutes, forget it - it's not your type of film. PS. The only negative thing about this movie is that there seems to be no way to get hold of the screenplay - if you happen to know how, do tell me.

After sitting through the trainwreck that was the first Dark Harvest movie, I couldn't leave bad enough alone. Upon seeing that there was a sequel (or rather what I believed to be a sequel)I had to increase my pain level. Seeing that this had nothing to do with Dark Harvest, that should have been a good thing. We didn't get any killer scarecrows in this one, instead we got a jackass walking around a cornfield screaming out little things like, "Girls!" and "Can you hear me?" every so often. Plus we got two (four if you include the two girls that the director wanted the same effect as the twins in The Shining) obnoxious little girls who couldn't act. And the cherry on top of this mess would have to be the Corn Cop. I should have known this movie was going to be terrible when the dog got an opening credit. How I managed to stay awake through this movie, I'll never know.

I am amazed with some of the reviews of this film. The only place that seems to tell the truth is RottenTomatoes.com. This film is awful. The plot is extremely lazy. It is not scary either. People out there who think that because it stars Sarah Michelle Geller it is somehow like The Grudge should forget about it. This film is more like Dark Water, except it is even more predictable and slow moving than it. I was extremely disappointed with this film. It didn't scare me nor interest me either. Let's face it , this type of plot has been flogged to death at this stage e.g. the dead trying to contact the living - Dragonfly, What Lies Beneath, Ghost Story, Dark Water, Darkness, The Changeling etc.etc. It seems to me that the only ones writing original horror films nowadays are the Japanese and the Koreans. The films that are coming out of Hollywood, like this, are cynical exercises in money making without a shred of respect for the viewer. They're just being churned out

With all the "Adult" innuendos in todays family movies its nice to see one where you don't have to worry about that and can just sit back and enjoy a family with your kids. Yes, this movie might have a few swear-words (there's that time where Knox swears, but they don't let you hear the full words), but for the most part this movie is truly as clean as they come (and that's including movies from back in the day). Not only that, its very enjoyable, one of my favorites, and just a great clean and fun movie to watch with the family.<br /><br />The only thing I have against this movie is that it is too short and I wish there could be more of some of the memorable parts that are in it, I'm not going to mention them because I don't want any spoilers here.<br /><br />All in all nicely done and a great movie to watch; so go out and get the kids, make some cookies, and watch this movie!

Yes, this bizarre feature was written by John Sayles. Shot in Toronto, it's yet another '80s era feature about the dangers of the urban jungle, where the police fear to go and the homeless and the criminal classes are the only inhabitants. Into this mix comes the myth of Wild Thing, a feral young man raised by a bag lady after his parents were murdered by a dirty cop on the take (Maury Chaykin) and Chopper, the local crime lord (Robert Davi). Stir in the local do-gooders (priest Sean Hewitt and clueless social worker Kathleen Quinlan), and you have a recipe for some rather unexciting action sequences. Davi is the standout amongst the cast, and cinematographer Rene Verzier does a pretty good job. Otherwise this is a rather lumpen action pic that won't satisfy action fans and will leaves Sayles' admirers slack-jawed.

Brando plays the ace jet pilot, just back from shooting MiGs down in the Korean War. On leave, he discovers his Madame Butterfly, falls in love. The lovers both see the folly of racism and the cruelty which conservative cultural norms can bring to human relations.<br /><br />This film is an excellent romance with a nice twist which rejects the racist, conservative standards, dominant at the time it was made in 1957. "Sayonara" will make you laugh and cry. Beware though, sometimes the musical background will make you wish it was not there, although, Irving Berlin's title song will entice your memory for a very long time after your theatre lights come on again.

The film is based on Kipling's heroic lines that inspire Hollywood's biggest movie 1939.Out of the drumbeat rhythm of Kipling's most famous 85 lines rises a picture that will become known as the one great movie of the year.Big on the score of its armies in battle,its war elephants,its bandit hordes,its terror temples Thugs and mystic mountains of India .The picture is bigger still in its scope and sweep,is thrill and action but biggest biggest of all in the life breathes through three(Gary Grant,Victor McLagen and Douglas Fairbanks Jr) roaring,reckless,swaggering sons of the thundering gunfighters men who stride its mighty scenes in the flesh and blood of high adventure,it's a honest film of it all that makes Gunga Din a new experience in entertainment .Joan Fontaine gambled her against the valiant sergeants three.The romance between Fontaine and Fairbanks Jr aflame through dangerous days and nights of terror in a land where anything can happen. The motion picture has thrills for a thousand movies plundered for one mighty show.It's a fabulous,furious and far-flung adventure with the red-blood and gunpowder heroes who rise from the storied mystery of India and storm the screen with the lusty,rousing,robust life-thunder of men who fight for the love of it and love for the fun of it.The pictures is interpreted for the brave and roguish Gary Grant who rounded hundred villains Thugs and the mean Guru(Eduardo Ciannelli), Grant shouts : You're under arrest!.Besides is the heroic water man,Sam Jaffe,who regiment colonel(Montagu Love) says of him : You're a better man than I am,Gunga Din!

There's nothing I hate more than self-congratulating pretentiousness. Kevin Smith deserves to be hung up by his toenails for inspiring every white middle-class whiner to make a movie about why they can't get laid. I don't really mind inexperience and low-budget productions but when the writing is this obvious and cloying it really burns my potatoes. The money put into this could've gone to a real struggling filmmaker who actually has a chance like John Gulager. If you watch Project Greenlight you'll immediately recognize a talented visionary who is fighting against the system. Anybody could grab a camera and make a talkative picture that doesn't manage to say anything really, at all. When will we be saved from the Smithonites and Whedonettes of the world? The revolution can't come soon enough. Go watch a real first time effort by buying Desperado or searching out Friends With Benefits. Thank you and good day.

"Murder Over New York" is an entertaining entry in the Charlie Chan series of films, but if you're paying attention, a lot of plot holes reveal themselves to the observant eye. While traveling to New York City for an annual police convention, Chan (Sidney Toler) meets former Scotland Yard investigator Hugh Drake (Frederick Worlock) on the same flight. Now employed by military intelligence, Drake is tracking Paul Narvo and his Hindu servant, suspected for acts of sabotage around the world. Drake believes that by contacting Narvo's elusive wife, he'll be able to pin down the whereabouts of the master criminal.<br /><br />When Drake winds up dead in the library of George Kirby, president of the Metropolitan Aircraft Corporation, Charlie theorizes that he was killed by a recently discovered poisonous gas called "tetrogene", administered via a glass pellet that releases the poison when broken. Summoning Kirby to bring all of his dinner party guests together, Chan and Police Inspector Vance (Donald MacBride) question those in attendance, as one of them may be the killer. Among them are Herbert Fenton (Melville Cooper), a fellow Oxford student of Drake's, actress June Preston (Joan Valerie), unknown to Drake but requested by him to attend, Ralph Percy (Kane Richmond), the chief designer at Kirby's aircraft company, and Keith Jeffrey (John Sutton), Kirby's stock broker. Kirby butler Boggs (Leyland Hodgson) is also a suspect, especially after Number #2 Son Jimmy (Victor Sen Yung) catches him steaming open a cablegram, the contents of which concern Boggs himself.<br /><br />There are some other cleverly planted characters in the proceedings as well. Mrs. Narvo turns up as Patricia West (Marjorie Weaver), and contrary to Drake's suspicion that she might lead him to Narvo, is actually on the run away from her former husband and a disastrous marriage. She's involved with David Elliott (Robert Lowery), principal of a chemical research firm, and thereby a suspect in the tetrogene angle.<br /><br />As with many Chan films, racial comments must be taken in stride with the proceedings. This one offers two glaring ones. When Kirby's black servant is brought in for questioning, he states that he doesn't know anything about Drake's murder, that he's completely "in the dark". Chan's response: "Condition appear contagious".<br /><br />Later, following Inspector Vance's order to round up all the Hindu's in New York, Jimmy Chan comments on their arrival with "They're all beginning to look alike to me." Actually, the scene provides one of the elements of comic relief in the movie, as Shemp Howard impersonates Hindu mystic "The Great Rashid", but is actually uncovered by the police to be con artist Shorty McCoy.<br /><br />Before the movie's over, two more victims fall to the clever Narvo - his confederate Ramullah, and aircraft magnate Kirby himself. To uncover the killer, Chan, in concert with Elliott, arranges for a test flight aboard a newly developed TR4 Bomber after discovering a poisoned capsule planted by mechanics on the plane the day before. Before it can release it's deadly poison, the Brit Fenton catches the falling capsule in mid-air, revealing that he knew about the plant. Arrested and brought in for questioning, Chan asserts that Fenton is not Narvo. The real Narvo reveals himself when he offers a poisoned cup of water to the nervous Fenton, anxious to maintain Narvo's secret. But Chan was clever enough to be wary of such an attempt, and reveals the real murderer - Narvo now in the guise of stock broker Jeffrey, having undergone reconstructive surgery following a car accident.<br /><br />Now for the plot holes. When first investigating Hugh Drake's murder, it was maintained by the police that fingerprints found in the library did not match those of any of the dinner guests. However Jeffrey/Narvo was present at the dinner party. It had already been established that Drake had one non party visitor in the library, chemist Elliott. If the fingerprints really did not belong to Narvo, then making them an issue was pointless.<br /><br />Also, at the end of the film when Narvo offers Fenton the poisoned water, how did he think he would get away with it with everyone there as a witness? But going even one better than that, how would a world traveling saboteur like Narvo have the time and wherewithal to establish himself as a New York City stockbroker, it just doesn't make sense. <br /><br />For trivia fans, a few more points bear mentioning. In the film, Number #2 Son Jimmy is a college student studying chemistry as he comes to "Pop's" aid to solve the case. In the prior Chan film - "Charlie Chan at the Wax Museum" - Jimmy was a law student.<br /><br />The poison gas formula would get reworked in a later Chan film, this time by Monogram with Roland Winters in the Chan role in "Docks of New Orleans". In that story, poison gas is released from shattered radio tubes in similar fashion to claim its' victims.

I admit to a secret admiration of the original Love Thy Neighbour TV shows - mostly because they exhibit the kind of exuberant brashness and bad taste synonymous with so many programmes of their era - but I'd be lying through my teeth (very uncomfortable position) if I pretended that this big-screen spin-off is anything other than an abomination. The opening scenes of wanton vandalism are not only pointless but baffling as well - it's never explained why the film opens with a tracking shot of people trashing each other's houses - and nothing improves from there. By the time the film unearths the oldest joke in the book - the horrible dragon of a mother-in-law turns up unexpectedly to stay - is followed by the crashingly obvious revelation that she's developing a soft spot for the black neighbour's father, moving her bigoted son to ever greater depths of self-righteous, ignorant rage, most discerning viewers will have switched off. Take that as a warning, unless you're keen on cheapskate spin-offs with terrible acting, static direction and the overall comic flair of a burning orphanage.

If you're in the mood for a really bad porno with no good porn combined with a really bad horror movie, this movie is perfect for you. However, if you breathe air, make sure you spend your time watching anything but this. The acting is crappy. The "plot" is crappy. They try too hard, and the whole time I was waiting for the one good redeeming scene that might make the movie worth watching. Nope. Stick with the scrambled cable.

I was really disappointed with this film. The first Waters movie I saw was Serial Mom and I loved it. Then I saw Pecker and I loved it. Then I watched Polyester and really sort of hated it. The only thing I liked about that movie was DIVINE. She/He had a hell of a lot of talent. I was truly surprised. As a whole, I wouldn't recommend this film...

In recent times I have been subjected to both this movie and "King Arthur", on DVDs chosen by others for an evening's "entertainment" and together they achieve nothing more than bearing out a growing notion I have that the modern movie-watching public totally lacks discrimination, and is content as long as they get "action". Both movies were utter rubbish.<br /><br />Whatever happened to character development? Whatever happened to meaningful dialogue? Whatever happened to ACTING? And, when watching something that vaguely purports to be "historical", whatever happened to attempting to capture some measure of accuracy, some realistic idea of the "political map" of the time, even some slight flavour of the era, especially in its social attitudes. Why do they all have to display the value set of 21st century America? I have read on the message boards of disclaimers that "little was known" of the dark ages. Not so. Considerable amounts are known, with much learned scholarship on the era, but these jokers simply couldn't be bothered to do any homework.<br /><br />I only wish I could vote 0/10

In an early scene, Luca (David Pasquesi) and James (Jeff Garlin) are walking down a neighborhood street in Chicago, admiring the bucolic architecture, when a woman, angrily arguing in French on a cell phone, passes by them, prompting James to remark, "There's nothing hotter than an angry French woman." A few blocks later, they pass an old Filipino woman, also angry, also arguing on a cell phone, and Luca remarks, for referential effect, "There's nothing hotter than an angry, elderly Filipino woman."<br /><br />The humor in Jeff Garlin's I Want Someone to Eat Cheese With is best characterized by the word quotidian. The film is a conversation. We might as well be eavesdropping. Rather than go for antics, the film relies on character flaws and human curiosity to deliver laughs. While it's not innovative, it is far from banal, and even if James views himself as being rather jejune, we know that he is fairly average, and this endears him.<br /><br />Self-betterment is the primary theme of the movie. Sarah Silverman, who plays Beth, is excellent as the catalyst of change; she revitalizes James, and so reminds him to live a better life. Even so, achieving some idyllic dream is not the end of these characters, but rather something simpler: that they might pick up what pieces there are of the life they love, just to keep for themselves at least enough to carry on.<br /><br />A movie about life lessons can be overwrought, as it can forget to connect with its audience. I Want Someone to Eat Cheese With is subtle and winsome, and while its moral may not be inspiring, it is still resonant. This is low-key comedy, but it will stick with you.

Like its near contemporaries "The Great Race" and "Those Magnificent Men In Their Flying Machines", I always associate this film with my childhood especially at New Year. On New Year's Day we'd visit my granny and after lunch, while the adults talked, the kids would watch TV where invariably one of these three crazy race films would be on.<br /><br />For that reason alone, I really wanted to mark "Monte Carlo Or Bust" well but I fear I can't, the child not being father to the man on this occasion. By which I mean I can see all too clearly its faults and while I was tempted to smile occasionally, in truth I really wanted all the competitors to get to the end of the race long before they actually do.<br /><br />Of course it's dated by its stereotyping of nationalities and woman as the weaker sex and I also didn't much care for one or two stray, admittedly mild vulgarities which occasionally surfaced. More than that though, the cast, despite hamming it up outrageously just don't sell the film enough. Tony Curtis, in a trial run for his "Yank Abroad" turn in the TV series "The Persuaders", seems too old to be playing the young gallant, Terry Thomas just isn't dastardly enough, Eric Sykes is unbelievable as a dirty-minded Lothario while Gert Frobe as an overdone Teuton, is just weird doing camp comedy when you remember he was Bond's best villain Goldfinger. If anything the Englishers come off best - Susan Hampshire is at least engaging as a "bright young thing", suitably gamine as a posh flapper and although chained to the leash of the script Pete and Dud offer the most amusement as stiff upper lip army types, although even then the "Carry On" team did this so much better in "Carry On Up The Khyber Pass".<br /><br />Director Annakin tries everything to evoke the "Golden Silents", with lashings of slapstick, mistaken identity capers, speeded up camera shots, would-be dramatic stunts and some light romance, but there's no real tension for such a famous race and anyway the race-off at the end seems like another swizz.<br /><br />Actually I'd have given it another mark if they'd stuck to the alternative title "Those Magnificent Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies" but in truth the animated series "Wacky Races" did this so much better.

Such a long awaited movie.. But it has disappointed me and my friends who had gone to see the movie on the first day.. From the trailers it looked like a action movie, but it turned out to be a out & out comedy(a bad comedy). But one thing that deserves appreciation is the acting by these professional actors, they've done their part of the movie very well. Good acting, but i don't think that can save the movie.. India has been shot beautifully. Kerala, Rajasthan, (Ladakh?) were all saturated with color, alright. Nevertheless the way the intrinsic beauty of these places was shot made me want to find out exactly where those places were and when I could go there ;-)<br /><br />Action sequences were shot very shabbily, no one could make out head & tail of the stunts, they've used Akki(akshay kumar) very well but could've been done much much better..<br /><br />Animation is the worst i've seen in recent movies(90's movies had better animation scenes i guess(initial scene where the car is falling off 'flying should be better word' the road into lake).<br /><br />And the movies name has been mentioned nearly every 20 to 30 mins, just to make sure audiences don't forget the movie name i guess..

I thought Hedy Burress (who managed to escape from the watery grave of part one) was going to be in part 2 Guess not. I just think they should of killed her off like in Friday The 13th Part 2 (you know what I mean).<br /><br />This movie like Scream 3, and Urban Legend 2 followed movies within a movie.<br /><br />This was PURE CRAP! The whole Movie within a Movie crap.<br /><br />BAD STAY AWAY!

This film tackles the subjects of loss, personal struggle and transformation in such a smart, artful, sensitive, and visually stunning way that I was completely transported. It is a rare gem of a film in the way it honors beauty and women. You'll have to see for yourself. Dreya Weber (Jane) masterfully portrays the subtleties of a remarkable if not somewhat broken personality, in a way that every woman will relate to. I found the honesty of the emotional interactions among characters to be very refreshing and profoundly engaging. There was nothing in this film that said to me "low budget" as far as quality is concerned. Nothing. The fact that it is a low-budget film is a tribute to the film's creators. The final sequence during the credits will also knock your socks off. It is a brilliant celebration of Jane's choice. Unexpected and inspiring.

After stopping by the movie store to find something to watch, we stumbled on this. It looked appealing from the summary, at least, so we gave it a try. And here's the kicker: the first 20 minutes are interesting! It's actually enjoyable! Oh, wait, spoke too soon.<br /><br />Somewhere in there, the movie took a disgusting turn into fundamental, right-wing Christian brain-washing. Not entirely sure what happens, but I think the screenplay writer found God somewhere in there, finished writing this script, and had no time to edit it because he had a KKK meeting to get to with his friends from the Westboro Church and his hood wasn't clean.<br /><br />Can they put warnings on this? I refuse to support this religious idiocy. Much like video games have rating systems, movies need some sort of symbol: maybe a small cross in the bottom corner to show us that a movie is going to take a turn for the worse.<br /><br />Unless you share sentiments with whatever moron came up with this story, and will have your Bible open in your lap while you watch this and plan on how you'll convert your neighbors, don't waste your time. It's some of the worst junk that's come out in a very long time, and the radical religious nuts don't need anymore funding.

THE CAT O'NINE TAILS (Il Gatto a Nove Code) <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 2.35:1 (Cromoscope)<br /><br />Sound format: Mono<br /><br />(35mm and 70mm release prints)<br /><br />A blind ex-journalist (Karl Malden) overhears a blackmail plot outside a genetics research laboratory and later teams up with a fellow reporter (James Franciscus) to investigate a series of murders at the lab, unwittingly placing their own loved ones at the mercy of a psychopathic killer.<br /><br />Rushed into production following the unexpected worldwide success of his directorial debut THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE (1969), Dario Argento conceived THE CAT O'NINE TAILS as a giallo-thriller in much the same vein as its forerunner, toplining celebrated Hollywood actor Karl Malden - fresh from his appearance in PATTON (1969) - and rising star Franciscus (THE VALLEY OF GWANGI). Sadly, the resulting film - which the ads claimed was 'nine times more suspenseful' than "Bird" - is a disappointing follow-up, impeccably photographed and stylishly executed, but too plodding and aimless for general consumption.<br /><br />Malden and Franciscus are eminently watchable in sympathetic roles, and cinematographer Enrico Menczer (THE DEAD ARE ALIVE) uses the wide Cromoscope frame to convey the hi-tech world in which Argento's dark-hearted scenario unfolds, but the subplot involving Euro starlet Catherine Spaak (THE LIBERTINE) as Franciscus' romantic interest amounts to little more than unnecessary padding. Highlights include an unforgettable encounter with the black-gloved assassin in a crowded railway station (edited with sleek assurance by cult movie stalwart Franco Fraticelli), and a nocturnal episode in which Malden and Franciscus seek an important clue inside a mouldering tomb and fall prey to the killer's devious machinations. But despite these flashes of brilliance, the film rambles aimlessly from one scene to the next, simmering gently without ever really coming to the boil. It's no surprise that "Cat" failed to emulate the runaway success of "Bird" when released in 1971.<br /><br />(English version)

"Yes, Georgio" is a light-hearted and enjoyable movie/comedy that contains beautiful settings and beautiful music. It's not my favorite movie but it is a movie I have enjoyed seeing more than once. Some reviewers suggested if one wished to enjoy Pavarotti, they would likely be better served by picking up an opera DVD. Although, a full opera might be a better representation of Pavarotti's operatic talents, oftentimes, an opera requires costumes and has story lines that completely hide the appearance and nature of the person. "Yes, Georgio" permits Pavarotti to use his speaking voice and to exhibit a personality and character in ways an opera would not.<br /><br />Many reviewers seemed to find the story unbelievable; I don't agree. Enormously talented people can be both self-centered and charming - charming enough to captivate intelligent and beautiful people. Additionally, people who are very different from one other often gain insights about themselves and grow in positive ways from interacting with people who stretch them or take them in directions they might not have chosen on their own. Both Georgio and Pamela become more open to unexplored parts of themselves in relationship with the other.<br /><br />Relax and let yourself go into a visually and aurally rewarding film with Pavarotti at the peak of his vocal abilities. The ending scenes from Puccini's Turandot alone are worth the time to get there.

This series would have been a lot better if they had just done one simple thing: Made Ian McShane Code Name: Diamond Head instead of Code Name: Tree. Diamond Head the character needs someone who could handle the role of the lovable rogue, which McShane proved he could do with the Lovejoy series. Roy Thinnes, the actual Diamond Head, is really only so-so in the role. McShane is not really that good as the bad guy Tree. France Nuyen's character, Tso-Tsing, can't seem to make up her mind as to whether she's the hapless victim or the tough-and-ready-to-fight woman. She really earned her pay at the end when she had to play the role of Diamond Head's lover. After viewing an episode or two, I ended up not caring what happened to anyone. Tree gives us a lot to hate him, but Diamond Head gives us nothing to like him. Unfortunately, the spy genre in the 1970s was not quite as it was in the 1960's.

Before Last Call w/ Carson Daly, my local NBC affiliate aired much more worthwhile programming after Late Night w/ Conan such as second city TV, 3rd Rock From the Sun & Carline in the City reruns, and some stand up comedy. These days there is nothing worthwhile to watch because all I get to see is Carson Daly and his awful show. He is not a comedian, he is not an actor, he does not deserve to be famous because he isn't a good speaker nor comedian.<br /><br />On his June 21st show, he tried to use an internet meme called the "Rickroll" on his show. He failed hard. That event confirms that Carson Daly is awful.

"Atoll K" aka "Utopia" is one of Hollywood's saddest swan songs. Filmed in France, "The Land That Loves Lewis (Jerry)" in 1950 and released the following year after a five-year layoff, the boys are in truly terrible shape physically. However, they aren't in nearly as bad a shape as the script.<br /><br />This movie is one of the un-funniest "comedies" ever filmed.<br /><br />It's painful to see this legendary team, the funniest duo in the history of motion pictures, the twosome that made "The Devil's Brother" (1933), "The Music Box," (1932),"Pack Up Your Troubles" (also 1932), "Babes In Toyland" (1934), "Bonnie Scotland" (1935), "Flying Deuces" (1939) and so many more gut-wrenching, laugh-til-you-choke classic comedies, in a film such as this.<br /><br />But fighters and ballplayers do it all the time. They stay in the game one season or one fight too many. In this case, while is morbidly fascinating to see Laurel & Hardy at this late stage in their legendary careers, they, too, stuck around for one too many.

This oddity contains Bunuel-like touches, but doesn't sustain one's interest. A 10 year old roams a bizarro America in a stolen Mustang, while the usual cult movie suspects (Dick Miller, Mary Woronov, Susie Tyrell) commit malicious acts in the name of comedy. Like his AFTER HOURS and VAMPIRE'S KISS, the screenwriter delights in making you squirm. I remained unaffected, due to the broad acting. You know you're in for it when Meat Loaf and Flea give the most appealing perfs. (And what did this kid's screen test look like? He's insufferable.) Recommended to the dozen or so fans of SONNY BOY ('87).

For romantic comedies, I often judge the quality of the film based upon the mistiness of my eyes by the end of the experience. Unfortunately for "The Wedding Date," I can only rate the film with 4 out of 10 possible tears.<br /><br />My apologies to fans of Debra Messing and Dermot Mulroney, but I did not see much chemistry between their two characters. The premise of the film is a reverse "Pretty Woman," with Dermot playing the role of Nick, a high-priced male escort hired by Debra's character Kat to accompany her to England for her sister's wedding. A romantic relationship presumably develops between patron and client. But the dialogue seemed forced and artificial. And there weren't enough romantic sparks flying in the relationship of Nick and Kat.<br /><br />In a supporting role, Amy Adams was a standout as Kat's sister. Whenever Amy came on screen, she served as a spark plug and catalyst for the film's energy. Perhaps if Amy Adams had been cast in the role of Kat, the film might have had more dynamism. But as it turned out, instead of reaching for Kleenex, I was looking for the Visine in attempt to at least pretend that this film had some genuine sentiment and romance.

Hitchcock once gave an interview where he said he like to direct screenplays that had an ordinary person minding their own business, who's accidentally caught up in an awful chain of events that they can't get out of until the dastardly plot that's behind their troubles is resolved. That way, the audience can feel more sympathy for the hero. We certainly do in this fine film. Barry Kane is only trying to help his fellow-man out by performing acts of kindness and consideration, like helping Fry pick up the letters he dropped at the factory. Barry even returns a lost $100 bill to Fry later on...that was BIG money in 1943!! It's Barry's acts of Christian kindness that get him into trouble and soon, he's wrongly accused of sabotage and murder and will likely hang if he can't clear himself. Similar to The 39 Steps in plot, the hero travels cross-country where he discovers plans for further acts of terrorism by fascisistic cells, an arch-villain who nobody could believe to be a closet-Nazi, and a beautiful blonde, Patricia Martin, who first suspects and hates then eventually falls in love with Barry Kane. Hitch's trademark touches of humor are here, too. Patricia is a billboard model who's various roadside ads are a help and comfort to Barry as he hitches a ride with the bad guys, all the way from Las Vegas to NYC. We meet a trucker who's a one-man comedy act "Someone convinced my wife it was stylish to eat three meals a day." Field employees of the fascist spy ring grouse about being forgotten or ignored by the "suits" just as if they were working for some legit enterprise. During a chase scene into a cinema, audience members laugh at the action of a schlocky comedy/gangster flick as the saboteur cell shoots it out for real with the good guys and accidentially kills a guffawing movie-patron. Awful for the dead old man, but funny! Hitch liked to use famous monuments in his movies and this is the best instance, with the Statue of Liberty as backdrop and ironic icon! It works even better than the Mt Rushmore scene in NBNW.

It is easy for a movie that tries to be suspenseful to wind up being merely uninteresting. It happens quite often. Not only is Dark Harbor uninteresting, but it is very poorly done. Scene after scene is tacked on to an otherwise overdone premise. A troubled couple picks up a troubled stranger only to find more trouble.<br /><br />Some movies build tension by building the story. Dark Harbor keeps adding on to its story but never building upon it. I was hoping that like other movies, the suspense would finally explode. It never does. Also, the characters have no continuity from scene to scene. They may act one way in one scene, but then act a completely different way in another scene. At first, you think that they are merely out of character, but by the end you realize that they are not really characters at all. They are just props for the final twist. The final ten minutes try to be shocking. Instead, it's rather lame and uninteresting. The only thing that was shocking to me was that the movie finally ended. At less than ninety minutes the movie still feels way too long.<br /><br />This isn't one of those low-budget gems. It's more like a counterfeit watch that breaks as soon as you take it home.

I love to see a female protagonist, in this movie her name was Rose. Rose brought out a lot of interesting questions in her journey of fulfillment.Is is possible to attain peace and internal fulfillment through external means? Does our society teach this? Can one be a victim of memory which may lead to victimizing others? Is one responsible for being a product of one's environment? To what extent can one control or take control of one's environment? How is a "typical" human alike or different than Rose? Lastly, would the outcome or story change if it were from another country like France or Italy? I loved that this movie provoked all of these questions in me, while it entertained, stimulated, and kept me guessing to the end! Every time I've watched it, I have learned more about the film and myself.

One of the best western movies ever made. Unfortunately, it never got the recognition it deserved. The storyline, the action and the music was in my mind, one of the best. I give it a double A+. Randolph Scott gave a terrific performance along with the other members of the cast. The ending was one of the best of any western made.

THANK GOD YOU'RE HERE is painful, positively painful. The title is apt, in a sense, if aimed at the large studio audience paid to laugh like they were watching the second coming of the Marx Brothers. And trust me, they are paid.<br /><br />As creatively barren as the entertainment industry has become, I refuse to believe that NBC brass really have faith in this turkey. Rather, I think THANK GOD YOU'RE HERE is what all of you get who didn't watch, or didn't appreciate STUDIO 60, which previously graced the peacock network's Monday night lineup. You want to turn your nose up at caviar, fine. Here's some lovely Alpo direct from Menu Foods for you to slop around in.

Spoilers! Classic 70's sex trash! The Swedish gal (Helga) was what made this movie so great. She was beautiful, but what really got to me was how sexual she was. She exuded massive quantities of sexuality throughout the film. Her best scenes were when she was, er, stimulating herself. Whenever she was on screen, I became transfixed.<br /><br />Also, the Doctor Julia (sister of the dimwitted male focus of the film) was very interesting visually. Although most 12 year old girls have bigger breasts than Julia, she knew how to use what little she had and her scenes (especially the scenes with the silk blouse and black skirt) also grabbed my attention unmercilessly. You also got to love the major hoaky scene where the bats stripped her nekkid; I don't know if I've ever seen anything more ludicrous yet sexy at the same time. Classic stuff!

I had completely forgotten about "Midnight Madness" until just now when I found it while surfing the IMDB. Now, it's all coming back to me....<br /><br />It was one of Naughton's first movies (as well as Fox's) and sharp-eyed connoisseurs will also pick out Kaplan (Henry from TV's "Alice"), Fiedler (he does the voice of Piglet in the "Winnie the Pooh" cartoons) and Blocker (son of Dan "Hoss" Blocker from TV's "Bonanza").<br /><br />But the two that stand out in my mind are Furst (from "Animal House") and the superdude himself - Eddie Deezen. Furst plays a baddie this time out and has one of the best scenes when he asks his dad, "Why can't you just accept me for who I am?" His dad looks over his obese, slovenly frame and gives a simple, one-word response - "Yuck!"<br /><br />And Deezen... well, he's a show in himself. As a latter-day Jerry Lewis he stumbles around, wades through mini-golf ponds, puts melon halves on his ears and ends up having Maggie Roswell fall for him. My hero.<br /><br />As for the film, it's typical early-'80s stupidity with college kids staying up after curfew and going on a city-wide scavenger hunt to prove which division of students is the best on campus: the jocks, the nerds, the rich kids, the feminists or the group made up of a little of each. <br /><br />Who wins? Who cares, you'll have a lot of fun watching Disney Pictures' first foray into PG territory before creating Touchstone Pictures.<br /><br />Seven stars. Catch "Midnight Madness" any way you can!<br /><br />Long live Leon!

I can't say how closely the film follows the novel, never having read the book, but since this clocks in at some six and a half hours it's a good bet that most of the base are covered or, at least, we can say with some certainty that this isn't a Reader's Digest condensed version.<br /><br />The production values are high, well up to the standards of other BBC classic series like Inspector Morse and Sherlock Holmes. We can believe Dickens' London looked, sounded, and thought a lot like this. There are some occasional minor lapses -- some sportsman firing a pistol with a percussion cap in 1840 or 1820 or whenever this took place.<br /><br />The acting too is to be applauded. Suzanne Burden is the polite and honest heroine who quietly goes about doing good. She's cute too, in a mature way, her beauty in her compassionate nature not in any flirtatiousness. Denholm Elliott is her guardian (and more than that, as it turns out). Burden and Elliott are two of the very few characters who are good in an unalloyed way. Another is a former sergeant forced to do evil by evil people. Another is a poor and helpless young boy.<br /><br />I don't think anyone else could have written this. It's got all the earmarks of Dickens -- poverty, tragic deaths, capitalism in the raw, the generous rich guy in his gated home, hidden parentage, shadowy motives, and the impotence or outright maliciousness of the justice system. Well, not the justice system as a whole but the chancery, which was evidently a court that decided matters having to do with the distribution of property. (So I gather from Wikipedia.) It became so notoriously rigid and dilatory that it was thoroughly revamped in England in 1973. Twice, Elliott's character describes it as "a curse." The most impressive scene involves a money-scrounging creditor hounding a retired soldier in the latter's gymnasium during a fencing lesson. The sergeant is more masculine in the traditional sense than any other male character I remember from Dickens. The apoplectic money lender and renter is screaming threats from his seat and the sergeant turns towards him and does one delicate exercise with the saber after another, each advancement bringing him closer to his tormentor, while the scarlet-faced old creditor shrinks back into his seat.<br /><br />A couple of things are missing. Often Dickens will stick in at least one or two amusing lines of dialog. ("Humbug!" or "The law is a ass.") Not here. "Bleak" house is the right title. Second, there are practically no Weberian "ideal types" -- no Mr. Micawbers or Artful Dodgers or Scrooges. Third, the atmosphere, the whole ethos, is relentlessly dismal. One tribulation follows another, usually having to do with money or some shameful peccadillo out of the past.<br /><br />My God, it's depressing. It's as if the author were venting his spleen on everything he hated in the world he knew. Poverty, okay. He KNEW poverty. But one wonders what the chancery did to Dickens to deserve this kind of treatment.<br /><br />Maybe I should add that I've just watched the first episode of the 2005 series -- and it's better in two ways. There is more zip in the direction, so the pace is a little faster. And the business of Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce is explained satisfactorily right up front, instead of lurking about in the shadows as that mysterious "curse," so the plot is easier to follow.

Greenaway's films pose as clever, erudite and innovative. Yet his style and grammar originate and remind viewers of films made in the World War 1 era of film-making: the frame composition, use of mid-shot, the static camera. It may be well to rub against mainstream movies with this style but it is not new. Perhaps like that other "innovator", TS Eliot, he draws more from the past than in looking forward as an authentic innovator would or could.<br /><br />Yet Greenaway's biggest failing is that he cannot write. His dialog and even plot structure is mechanical and logical but without the vitality of another dramatic logician, Brecht. Where this weakness is most apparent is in his humor, which is poised and logical, so the joke is dead before it's delivered. The result is tedium: if it's not funny, it has failed: ask a stand-up comedian to justify their act if the audience doesn't respond. Perhaps the well-read director could learn something from Freud on humor.<br /><br />Finally, like Woody Allen, Greenaway has manipulated his actors over the years to work like clones. They speak the lines with a bored, smug air like narcissistic adolescents.<br /><br />This film, despite its design and lighting, is meretricious.

Who actually created this piece of crap this is the worst movie i have ever seen in my life it is such a waste of time and money. I hate it how they create low budget sequels featuring D-Lister actors and a storyline so similar to the 1st one.<br /><br />I found this movie in the bargain bin sitting right next to Wild Things 2 and Death To The Supermodels for $2.99 what a fool i was to actually think that this could be good instead i watched in disgust as poor acting stereotypes ripped of the storyline and script from the 1st one.<br /><br />Whoever thought that this straight-to-video production was actually even a half decent film you must be on crackd or something because I think what pretty much most of the people who've seen this film thinks WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!!!!

Mention Bollywood to anyone with a slight familiarity with the genre and the images usually conjured up are of tacky, over the top musical numbers peopled with costuming that makes Vegas seem a bastion of conservatism. This perception is not helped by the whiff of condescension that permeates most movies that have approached Bollywood from an outsider's perspective. Willard Carroll's romantic comedy Marigold, however takes a different tack. It is not a nudge-nudge wink-wink look at those silly people and their clueless antics but a sincere appreciation of Bollywood for its vitality, its lack of irony and self-consciousness.<br /><br />It is obvious that the director has a tremendous affection and respect for Bollywood while at the same time is bemused by its kitschier aspects. And if you have a familiarity with Bollywood, you can appreciate what he does here in making a true hybrid of Bollywood and Hollywood movie conventions. From one of the opening shots, a flashback of the Salman character as a child by the sea, talking with his grandmother (played by Helen! - how many Salman movies start with this same premise?) to the flashback sequence that is incorporated into the movie that Marigold and Prem has been filming, anyone who has seen enough Bollywood movies will recognize these references. The story itself incorporates tried and true conventions from both Hollywood and Bollywood as well – the fish out of water meets duty-to-one's-family-at the expense of personal fulfillment. The structure of the film follows the typical Bollywood plot line of the more comical set up of the first half giving way to a more dramatic resolution of the second. Yet ultimately the sensibility of the film is that of Hollywood, with its understated, wry humor and its story of a woman learning to believe in herself, to reach self-affirmation.<br /><br />You couldn't have a movie inspired by Bollywood if there weren't any musical numbers and this movie does not disappoint with seven of them. Unlike Bollywood, however, the songs do not pop out of nowhere and transport its characters to a European locale or Goan beach; they exist as musical numbers that are part of the film that is being made, reminiscent of how musical numbers were justified in Busby Berkeley movies as being part of a stage show. Or they come out of a situation where music already has a reason to be there – a sexy nightclub scene where Prem teaches Marigold to dance or a beach scene where there are musicians (including a cameo from the playback singer Shaan) performing. All reflect the emotional state of the protagonists at that point in the movie. Often the music will take a conventional song from one genre and put a twist on it from the other. So in one of the highlights of the film where Marigold comes into her own, the song picturazation is fairly typical of its genre – the female star singing and dancing among a line of women – but in this case it's blond Ali Larter looking like a total natural Bollywood film star, emoting and lip synching to the Hindi lyrics with no subtitles.<br /><br />Also synonymous with Bollywood are sumptuous visuals and Marigold fulfills that aspect beautifully thanks to some of the top talent working in Bollywood today. The cinematographer is Anil Mehta who was also the cinematographer for Lagaan and Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam. The choreographer is Vaibhavi Merchant and production designer is Nitin Desai, both from Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam and Devdas. You can really see the influence of Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam on this film – in fact, the illuminated floor in one of the numbers was originally from Dholi Taro Dhol, which coincidentally has an embedded Marigold pattern.<br /><br />As for the cast, Carroll obviously has a penchant for spotting acting talent as evidenced by Playing by Heart – one of the first movies for both Angelina Jolie and Ryanne Phillippe. And in this film he again hits the mark with Ali Larter. One of the main reasons the film works is because of Larter. She makes a bitchy, unappealing character sympathetic and her subsequent transformation believable and she is smart, funny, and sexy because she is smart and funny. She and Salman share excellent chemistry and that is one of the film's biggest strengths.<br /><br />Salman Khan plays the role of Prince Charming here as filtered through his iconic role as Prem. This is old school Prem, however, so expect a quiet, subdued Salman - those used to him in his usual stripping avatar may be disappointed – or relieved! It's a sincere and sensitive performance from him marred only by poor enunciation of his English lines.<br /><br />With a refreshing lack of cynicism and unabashed embrace of romantic love, the film is a love letter to Bollywood and Hollywood movies of yore.

I got this movie from Netflix after a long waiting time, so I was anticipating it greatly when it arrived. My worst fears were that it would be plodding, as well as... well, you know what all the screaming fan girls were babbling about? GACKTnHYDE=hawt yaoi love? That sort of thing? Dreading it. I was very, very pleasantly surprised. The movie was surprisingly watchable, even if the filming and music did make it feel like someone was going to bust out a pair of nun-chucks every two scenes, and the acting on Gackt's part was quite good. Hyde, being, um, Hyde, acted as a quasi-romantic friend/gang member character that anyone who saw him on stage would hardly be surprised by. He's one of my two major beefs with the film itself. But the rest of the cast (including the child actors in the opening scene) were very good at doing what they did- which was, mostly, get shot at and yelled at. But my second problem was very minor, having to do with the goriness. It seemed way too suspense-horror to me- like every scene where someone is shot they either slump over, really most sincerely dead, or lay there burbling for a rather long time. But Sho just... takes the shots, repeatedly, keels over, bubbles a LOT while he talks, and makes Hyde cry. All in all, if you're a fan of any of the actors or just a j-film fan, it's definitely worth a watch.

I can't quite say that "Jerry Springer:Ringmaster" is the worst film I have ever seen. The film would be better off if it were, because at least the worst film I've ever seen, (Prom Night II) interested me enough for me to hate it. My only reaction after leaving the theatre happened when I looked up at the clock and discovered that only 90 minutes had passed. It had seemed much more like years. It is an endless repetition of poor people, (or what Jerry Springer seems to believe poor people are), screwing each other, hitting each other, insulting each other, and then repeating the process with the same attention to duty the rest of us use when shampooing. The plot, which covers how a group of stupid people mangle their lives badly enough to provide grist for the Jerry Springer mill, advances solely because of the idiocy of the characters. This makes it impossible to care what happens to them. It never mattered to me whether they got on the show, or what they said, or who slept with whom. Maybe I'm not supposed to care about them. Maybe I'm supposed to look at them as some kind of comic type-- to see their outrageous behavior as inherently funny. Too bad it isn't. The humor is not outrageous. It's innocuous. It's predictable. Humor has to have something behind it, some kind of painful irony or life experience, in order to function. Scatology is not wit. An example. A mother catches her daughter and her husband in bed. To take revenge she marches across the trailer park and gives oral sex to her daughter's boyfriend. Since I was over the shock of Jerry Springer's show a long time ago, I had the same reaction I had to Andrew Dice Clay's obscene nursery rhymes; not laughter, just yawning. Lastly, I found Springer's pose as a populist tiresome and unconvincing. If he really were an advocate of the poor, he would bring on a single mom from Bed-Sty to talk about trying to raise her kids in New York City on $12,000 a year. Or, failing that, he would at least give the participants of his shows a cut of his profits. Jerry Springer gets millions for his shows, his movie, his book and videos. His guests just get round trip air fare, hotel accommodations, and a chance to humiliate themselves. If he liked poor people so much, he'd give them at least some of the money they earn for him. It appears that Springer wanted to make this movie to grab some legitimacy for himself. Jeez, with all his fine work, you'd think he'd have earned our respect already. Anyway, the film is weak and boring. It doesn't even succeed at being offensive. If you want to have a better evening, videotape a bug zapper for a night and then watch that.

Once I heard that the greatest and oldest preserved Germanic heroic poem was transformed into a film it almost became my obsession to see it. The first glints of its appearance I caught never disappointed me. A futuristic interpretation With Lambert our favourite highlander and Mitra, tomb raider to be,in leading roles seamed appealing, though some doubts came to life (an important female character in Beowulf?)... Two hours ago I saw the film. After I had read the director's name my world fell apart. As I said - from that point on, there was not many surprises. First and foremost, the film has NOTHING to do with the original Beowulf if we disregard a couple of violently and pointlessly stolen names. If they had not stolen the names and declared it to be a new story, it might have passed as an f-class action stupidity with nice costumes and scenography. This way it is simply a crime! An attack on a legend and its ideology as well as on common sense. Ok let me be positive for a second... apart from the general electro-goth atmosphere which is nice it also has good music. That was it for both the positive part and this comment.

Young spinster, who doesn't associate with women her own age and is eyed by gentleman from the retirement set, invites an apparently mute young man into her apartment on a rainy day. Nervous and overly-polite to hide her own sexual insecurities, she is most pleased when the boy makes himself to home in her guest bedroom...but not so happy when he begins sneaking out the window at night. Sandy Dennis is not a hapless actress, but why she was attracted to these sad-sack roles I guess we'll never know. Based on a book by Richard Miles, and about as far removed from a commercial drama as one could get, this lurid material not only attracted Dennis but also director Robert Altman (whose work is static, at best). The narrative seems almost a sex-reversal of "The Collector", a tag which may have sold the film-rights but which doesn't turn out to be a good idea cinematically. Even the film's best sequence (Dennis shopping for a prostitute to satisfy her prisoner) doesn't quite come off, with Sandy acting both ill and indignant (whose idea was this plan?). Michael Burns is quite good as the kid who uses this frumpy, pasty-sick woman just for her comfy digs, but he's handled too bashfully by Altman, with lots of strategically-placed towels and flesh-colored undies (Altman clearly wasn't ready for a mature picture with adult themes at this point). Sandy Dennis has a handful of very good scenes; she doesn't chatter away mindlessly here, she thinks before she speaks and she's alarmingly careful in her actions. Unfortunately, the role itself is a bummer, with an apparent slide into mental deterioration which seems to happen off-screen. As such, the abrupt finale is maddening, and the overall results tepid. *1/2 from ****

It wasn't the most pointless animation film experience ever, but it certainly can't be admired as much as it tries to be good. Combining Dreamworks animation and computer graphics, this is the story of a mustang, later named Spirit (Matt Damon, providing the first person narration), and his journey through across the frontiers of the Old West. Basically he is born free amongst all the other horses in the beautiful countryside, then he is kidnapped to be used as a saddle horse, he manages to throw off all who try to ride him. However when he escapes his cage, along with Little Creek (Daniel Studi), the two of them form a friendship, oh, and he obviously has a thing for Little Creek's female horse. In the end, after a few more escapes, being chased by The Colonel (James Cromwell) and his men, and making a final big leap across a gorge, Little Creek lets Spirit go, and he also releases his female horse, and they run home to their countryside and fellow horses. Also starring Chopper Bernet as Sgt. Adams, Jeff LeBeau as Murphy/Railroad Foreman, John Rubano as Soldier, Richard McGonagle as Bill and Matthew Levin as Joe. I was expecting to see the horses talk in this film, but it turns out to be more like a Dumbo thing throughout, and the songs by Bryan Adams aren't the most engaging, but it isn't a terrible film. It was nominated the Oscar for Best Animated Feature, and it was nominated the Golden Globe for Best Song for Bryan Adams' "Here I Am". Okay!

Jason Connery is not an actor; he is the son of an actor. His Macbeth is the worst I have ever seen. Oh yes, he murders king Duncan, but he also kills William Shakespeare. His wife is even worse. Please, give me Polanski's version on DVD, so I can forget this monster. Jon Finch, Orson Welles, Laurence Olivier, there you have ACTORS!

I read about this film on-line and after seeing the generally positive reviews it has received, and viewing the trailer, I decided to check it out for myself. What a disappointment! It starts out well enough. the opening scene was actually pretty tense, but from there it's all downhill. I can see that the filmmakers were trying to do something different with this movie, but by doing so, they took all the enjoyment out of watching it. Those choices combined with the "C.S.I" editing, use of music and montage, lack of suspense, scares, or humor really drag this film down. There's too much foreshadowing and to many "subtle" clues, so when the first twist arrives early on, you already know how the movie is going to end. I gave the movie three stars because I think the cast did a good job, other than that I can't recommend this movie.

I'm no big fan of Martial Arts movies, but the video shop was nearly empty and Jet Li was in Lethal Weapon 4 and I got it free when the other films I'd rented, either way I rented it. I absolutely loved it, my flatmate and myself (22 year old Biochemistry and Accountancy students) spent the half hour after the film making strange Kung Fu noises and throwing beermat shurikens at each other. I can't explain it (well maybe a little tequila). I never enjoyed Bruce Lee, skinny bloke kicking big bloke, beating him, kicking bigger bloke etc film ends. Think Jackie Chan with a little less comedy and more action.

Return to the 36th Chamber is one of those classic Kung-Fu movies which Shaw produces back in the 70s and 80s, whose genre is equivalent to the spaghetti westerns of Hollywood, and the protagonist Gordon Liu, the counterpart to the western's Clint Eastwood. Digitally remastered and a new print made for the Fantastic Film Fest, this is "Presented in Shaw Scope", just like the good old days.<br /><br />This film is a simple story of good versus evil, told in 3 acts, which more or less sums up the narrative of martial arts films in that era.<br /><br />Act One sets up the premise. Workers in a dye-mill of a small village are unhappy with their lot, having their wages cut by 20% by incoming manchu gangsters. They can't do much about their exploitation because none of them are martial arts skilled to take on the gangsters, and their boss. At first they had a minor success in getting Liu to impersonate a highly skilled Shaolin monk (one of the best comedy sequences), but their rouse got exposed when they pushed the limit of credibility by impersonating one too many times.<br /><br />Act Two shows the protagonist wanting to get back at the mob. However, without real martial arts, he embarks on a journey to Shaolin Temple, to try and infiltrate and learn martial arts on the sly. After some slapstick moments, he finally gets accepted by the abbot (whom he impersonated!) but is disappointed at the teaching methods - kinda like Mr Miyagi's style in Karate Kid, but instead of painting fences, he gets to erect scaffoldings all around the temple. Nothing can keep a good man down, and he unwittingly builds strength, endurance and learns kung-fu the unorthodox way.<br /><br />Act Three is where the fight fest begins. With cheesy sound effects, each obvious non-contact on film is given the maximum impact treatment. But it is rather refreshing watching the fight scenes here, with its wide angled shots to highlight clarity and detail between the sparring partners, and the use of slow-motion only to showcase stunts in different angles. You may find the speed of fights a tad too slow, with some pause in between moves, but with Yuen Wo Ping and his style being used ad-nausem in Hollywood flicks, they sure don't make fight scenes like they used to! Return to the 36th chamber gets a repeat screening on Monday, so, if you're game for a nostalgic trip down memory lane, what are you waiting for?

I remember seeing this film in the mid 80's thought it a well paced and well acted piece. I now work quite often in Berkeley Square and the had to get a copy of DVD to remind myself how little the area has changed, although my office is newish it just 30 seconds away from "the bank". Even Jack Barclays car dealership is still there selling Bentleys and Rolls Royces.<br /><br />It's look like the DVD is due a Region 2 release soon. The region 1 copy I is very poor quality. Let's hope they've cleaned it up.<br /><br />Only the slightly dodgy escape sequence from the court spoils what would otherwise be a great film but I guess is in line with the caper tag the film goes with.

This movie is great. If you enjoy watching B-class movies, that is. This is a classic college 80's slasher movie, in which one song is played throughout the entire soundtrack. A horrible film, but worth renting to make fun of, or just to watch old men pop out of closets with knives. Kinda funny, if you ask me.

"ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ"! If IMDb would allow one-word reviews, that's what mine would be. This film was originally intended only for kids and it would seem to be very tough going for adults or older kids to watch the film. The singing, the story, everything is dull and washed out--just like this public domain print. Like other comedy team films with roots in traditional kids stories (such as the awful SNOW WHITE AND THE THREE STOOGES and the overrated BABES IN TOYLAND), this movie has limited appeal and just doesn't age well. Now that I think about it, I seriously doubt that many kids nowadays would even find this film enjoyable! So my advice is DON'T watch this film. If you MUST watch an Abbott and Costello film, almost any other one of their films (except for A&C GO TO MARS) would be an improvement.

This is a terrible remake of a marginal, but well liked, movie from the early 70's. I have seen the original at least 6 times. The 1997 version is a 20 minute movie 'crammed' into 2 hours or whatever the runtime is. Cheesy storyline, which by the way, is completely different than the original. The major government involvement was far-fetched. There is no flow from one scene to the next. In the original you could go get a beer or hit the bathroom and still keep up. <br /><br />It only took a few hours movie time to change the oil pan on the car. It takes many times longer than that in real life. Car guys notice this stuff. Also, the fool or fools that chose to trash a 1968 Charger and abuse a 1970 Challenger should be shot in the heel with a dull bullet. The fact they aren't 'car people' is painfully obvious, and their passing will not be grieved. <br /><br />The actors lacked any emotion, everything was cut and dried. One step above a monotone. A barmitzvah is more exciting and energetic.<br /><br />Last but surely not least, the radio DJ made the statement that the Challenger hit the bulldozers at 180 or 185 (??). That is total garbage. Can you say aerodynamics, or lack thereof?? Hahahaha!! This movie is a joke. Don't waste your time watching this one.

210 minute version (extremely hardcore, or so I hear) or the R-rated version released into theaters? Both are terribly awful, of course. Peter O'Toole and Malcolm McDowell have both claimed they wish they had never made this film (the latter of the two men reported this in an IMDb interview!), and I can see why. Nothing but a nonsensical mess of softcore porn and a half-hearted attempt at a plot.<br /><br />Not much of anything here, other than cheap tricks and stupid scenes. I liked what McDowell himself said about the film: "It was like one moment I'd be staring, admiring my mule or something, and the next scene would be two lesbians going at it."<br /><br />How true.<br /><br />What an awful movie.<br /><br />1/5 stars.

What in God's name happened here? How does one go about creating what is practically a cheap knockoff of Redneck Zombies? Was Zombie '90 ever supposed to entertain someone ...anyone, or even make a dollars profit? But mainly, what happened here? <br /><br />Zombie '90 Extreme Pestilence was directed by a lunatic by the name of Andreas Schnaas, who specializes in earth-shattering gore films, such as Goblet of Gore, and Anthropophagus 2000, and some of which contain profanity in the titles. In the gore department, this one isn't much different than the rest. Although, the level of ineptness ...well, earth-shattering.<br /><br />Zombie '90 Extreme Pestilence is as bad as Peter Jackson's Dead-Alive is gory, think about it.<br /><br />Getting too specific with the story would be a waste of time. An accident, involving chemicals causes the dead to come back, and eat the living. Never has the concept been treated in such a manner. The gore effects are a whole, new low. Just a Z-grade nightmare. I can't tell whether, or not this was originally meant to be funny, somehow, I doubt the English dubbing was being very true to the original script, but stranger things have happened. The whole thing just reminds me of a shot-on-video introduction to a Troma movie, except it lasts a hell of a lot longer.<br /><br />I've seen only one film that was worse than this, The Chooper.<br /><br />For proof that Andreas Schnaas is an actual director, I would highly recommend Nikos The Impaler If you think you have no standards in what you look for in a bad movie, give Extreme Pestilence a try, but you've been warned. It takes nerves of steel to make it all the way through. But if gore is all you're here for, then you might be able to stomach this one. Other than that, no atmosphere, no, and I mean NO budget, no entertainment value, but mostly, no pride. Show some pride, Schnaas. 1/10 <br /><br />Updated 7/5/09: After a few more viewings of Zombie '90, I've had a change of heart, or I guess I just get it now. Zombie '90 is hilarious, so nevermind the harsh words, Although, Extreme Pestilence still only deserves one star.

In one respect, it's like 'The Wizard of Oz,' with Paris in black-and-white and the Riviera in color. But it's supposedly about possessive love, destructiveness and moral decadence, while actually being about designer gowns, shots of the Riveria, lots of big expensive cars, and music-and dancing interludes that suggest Vincente Minnelli on one of his off-days. Watchable, but a remarkable example of desperate, dark plot material and glitzy style heading in opposite directions. (Was this the model for 'The Talented Mister Ripley? Does anyone sense an affinity between Jean Seberg and Matt Damon?)

"More" is yet another addition into the countless pile of 60's druggie, trippy junk. Avoid at all cost. Terrible acting, equally moribund script. The only thing to enjoy is Pink Floyd's wonderful soundtrack, which is too good for stereotypical waste like this.

WAIT until you've watched most of all other films ever released, wait a year, then watch this when you're ready for something with such low production values it that will not challenge anybody's imagination.<br /><br />I agree that whoever rated this movie as a ten-star production has to be doing it to skew the data. Anything above 8 would be odd.<br /><br />Nice to see the very young Sandy Bullock in her poofy hair for the short time she was featured, though she overdid the New Yorker accent but other times her southern (Virginia & NC) accent did sneak through. Ancient history for this accomplished actress who has grown so much since this film.<br /><br />The DVD I rented had two bonus features, a mini-bio section that only featured Sandra's bio - taken verbatim from IMDb. It also had a Trivia Quiz as a bonus - 3 questions. Hope you get them all right!

Just emailed a friend who's in film school about this flick. Something to avoid when making a film - characters blabbering senseless, overwrought, convoluted monologues on screen that are ultimately trite and unconvincing. If the film is an attempt at social realism, these verbal barrages are so over-the-top that they actually draw attention to the film constructed as film and effectively neutralize that intent. Is it the acting, or the script that is bad, or both?<br /><br />The protagonist is also highly unbelievable for social realism - ravenously consuming canonical English literature and the bible while high or hungover and able to produce such profoundly sophomoric soliloquies while intoxicated? And how is such an unattractive, unwashed and verbally noxious character able to bed most of the women he meets within minutes of encountering them? (I had to applaud when one chick finally threw him out onto the street, despite his whining and self-pitying banter).<br /><br />The viewer encounters pretentious references to Ancient Greek literature, Nostradamus and the Book of Revelations. The impending doom of mankind, in the form of bar codes imprinted on our foreheads or right hands in spooky biblical fashion, is presented to a character who is oh-so-cleverly exposed in his role as a guardian of empty space. <br /><br />This flick is over-scripted and over the top - a melodrama clumsily infused with pedestrian "philosophy" about the meaning of mankind, life, etc. It is trite, overwrought and tedious.<br /><br />There are some very fine English films available with content similar to this film. "Nil by Mouth" is an excellent, far more interesting excursion into the lives of individuals in a similar social milieu. Ditto for "In the Warzone." And although the comparison is not even warranted, check out anything by Peter Greenaway, who far more deftly handles dialogue, wit and absurd characters and situations.

it's a great movie for the whole family. i don't think many people have seen it cause i ask people and they say that they've never heard of it before. Sophie Heyman is my aunt's sister in law. my favorite scene is the whole movie i can't even pick a favorite scene. my favorite character is Hubert because he is a funny yet smart dog. if someone hasn't seen it they are missing out on a great adventure. i've only seen it cause my aunt is related to Sophie and she got a copy from her. if someone is reading this i suggest buy the movie and i guaranteed it won't be a bad decision. i've seen this movie about five times and every time it gives me the same message, dogs are as smart as people just give them a chance.

This is one of the worst films I've seen in years!! You could randomly pluck 5 people off the streets and they could act better than anyone in this film. Absolute waste of time watching it. I only gave it a 2 as I like gory films but this is just plain rubbish. The acting (and I use that term VERY loosely) is abysmal, someone please tell me that the 5 main actors in this were making their first ever film?? Don't waste your time watching this. Hostel was a better film by some way. I cannot believe that someone has spent money making this, I hope for the producers sake it only cost $50,000 to make - it looks like a school project, made by kids who haven't got a clue. Did this even make it to the cinema??

I love Meatballs! Terrific characters and poignant situations make this one dearly loved. Bill Murray is hysterical and you gotta love that 4-mile trail race at the end! A total classic and one of my favorites now for about 20 years. It brings back fond memories of camp and deals nicely with the experience of being rejected by foolish peers and the empowerment brought one by being rescued by a sympathetic adult. Tons of great one-liners and quite an assortment of wacko counselors. This is the kind of movie where you repeat key phrases among friends for years afterward. Also nothing overtly crude and what a sweet late '70's soundtrack to bring on just the right amount of nostalgia. I can't say enough about Meatballs; it's a classic. Be forewarned! All the sequels are putrid stink bombs that simply bought the name rights for marketing. They have no connection to Ivan Reitman's masterpiece.

you will likely be sorely disappointed by this sequel that's not a sequel.AWIL is a classic.but this movie is about as far from being a classic as you can get.what a joke.special effects that aren't very special,horrible dialogue,non acting.and a laughably ridiculous subplot quickly and unconvincingly,(not to mention fleeting)tacked on with about a third of the movie left.did i mention the story is less then lame.there's no way this was supposed to be serious horror movie,yet it's to stupid to be funny in any good way.the rating it currently has(4.8/10)is too generous if you ask me.my rating for An American Werewolf in Paris:a 3.5/10

I normally do not take the time to make comments that few people will read, about movies few will see. However, in this case, I feel I must warn all those who might consider wasting time on it. I just finished watching it only five minutes ago. This is, quite simply, one of the worst movies that I have ever seen in my life. The acting is horrible, a plot is nonexistent, and production values are poverty level at best. I know that even a low budget movie can be great, but not this one. There is only thing that could have saved this movie for any horror fan's purposes--more on-screen gore and slashing! The grand total of three times that this occurs is off-screen. While it is effective and reasonably disturbing when it happens--especially the end scene--there is simply not enough of it. The movie is just too long for it's minimal content, too dialogue heavy, and consequently almost impossible to watch. What happens? To put it all in a nutshell with room to spare, three teenage girls irresponsibly and knowingly go out driving through an isolated area where over 20 girls have previously been abducted and murdered. Their car, of course, breaks down, and they are taken to an old boring house inhabited by three crazy people--one of whom is the psychotic killer. All three are eventually murdered, one by one, off-screen, after what seems like an eternity of boring, slow-paced nonsense. As I said, the only things worth watching even once are the murders. Please don't buy it or rent it just for that, and don't be fooled like I was by the misleading box art and movie description. Save your money and your time.

... for Paris is a moveable feast." Ernest Hemingway<br /><br />It is impossible to count how many great talents have immortalized Paris in paintings, novels, songs, poems, short but unforgettable quotes, and yes - movies. The celebrated film director Max Ophüls said about Paris, <br /><br />"It offered the shining wet boulevards under the street lights, breakfast in Montmartre with cognac in your glass, coffee and lukewarm brioche, gigolos and prostitutes at night. Everyone in the world has two fatherlands: his own and Paris." <br /><br />Paris is always associated with love and romance, and "Paris, Je T'Aime" which is subtitled "Petite romances," is a collection of short films, often sketches from 18 talented directors from all over the world. In each, we become familiar with one of the City of Light 20 arrondissements and with the Parisians of all ages, genders, colors, and backgrounds who all deal in love in its many variations and stages. In some of the "petite romances" we are the witnesses of the unexpected encounters of the strangers that lead to instant interest, closeness, and perhaps relationship: like for Podalydès and Florence Muller in the street of Montmartre in the opening film or for Cyril Descours and Leïla Bekhti as a white boy and a Muslim girl whose cross-cultural romance directed by Gurinder Chadha begins on Quais de Seine. I would include into this category the humorous short film by Gus Van Sant. In "Le Marais" one boy pours his heart out to another boy confessing of sudden unexpected closeness, asking permission to call - never realizing that the object of his interest does not understand French.<br /><br />Some of the vignettes are poignant and even dark. In Walter Salles and Daniela Thomas' Loin du 16ème, Catalina Sandino Mareno (amazing Oscar nominated debut for Maria full of Grace) is single, working-class mother who has to work as a nanny in a wealthy neighborhood to pay for daycare where she drops her baby every morning before she goes to work. One of most memorable and truly heartbreaking films is "Place des Fêtes" by Oliver Schmitz. Aïssa Maïga and Seydou Boro co-star as two young people for who love could have happened. There were the promises of it but it was cut short due to hatred and intolerance that are present everywhere, and the City of Love and Light is no exception. Another one that really got to me was "Bastille", written and directed by Isabel Coixet, starring Sergio Castellitto, Miranda Richardson, and Leonor Watling. Castellitto has fallen out of love with his wife, Richardson but when he is ready to leave with the beautiful mistress, the devastating news from his wife's doctor arrives...<br /><br />I can go on reflecting on all 18 small gems. I like some of them very much. The others felt weak and perhaps will be forgotten soon but overall, I am very glad that I bought the DVD and I know that I will return to my favorite films again and again. They are "Place des Fêtes" that I've mentioned already, "Père-Lachaise" directed by Wes Craven that involves the ghost of one of the wittiest and cleverest men ever, Oscar Wilde (Alexander Payne, the director of "Sideways") who would save one troubled relationship. Payne also directed "14th Arrondissement" in which a lonely middle-aged post-worker from Denver, CO explores the city on her own providing the voice over in French with the heavy accent. Payne's entry is one of the most moving and along with hilarious "Tuileries" by Joel and Ethan Coen with (who else? :)) Steve Buschemi is my absolute favorite. In both shorts, American tourists sit on the benches (Margo in the park, and Steve in Paris Metro after visiting Louvers) observing the life around them with the different results. While Margo may say, "My feeling's sad and light; my sorrow is bright..." Steve's character will find out that sometimes, even the most comprehensive and useful tourist guide would not help a tourist avoiding doing the wrong things in a foreign country.