Datasets:

mushroomsolutions

/

imdb_sentiment_3000_Test

like 0

Elizabeth Taylor never could act at all and she was just her usual annoying, untalented self in this film. This was before she got so fat but she still looked very short and dumpy. Rock Hudson was OK as Bick Benedict but clearly an actor with more range like William Holden would have been better. James Dean certainly proved he knew how to mumble his way through a movie. The whole film is incredibly slow and goes on for far too long. The actors were all too young and lightweight and none of them aged convincingly due to the poor make-up. Hudson looked ridiculous just being padded out and Dean and Carroll Baker were obviously the same age.<br /><br />0/10.

A funny comedy from beginning to end! There are several hilarious scenes but it's also loaded with many subtle comedic moments which is what made the movie for me. Creative story line with a very talented cast. I thoroughly enjoyed it!

There is somewhere in here the makings of a decent if routine SF story. It is thwarted by several factors. First, the actor is just awful. Even the competent actors are awful. The dialog is wooden and stilted. The plot plods along predictably. This seems less like a finished movie than actors going through a walk through. Extremely disappointing.

BONJOUR, MONSIEUR SHLOMI is simply a wonderful film! Writer/Director Shemi Zarhin has created a story unlike any other and cast it with such consistently fine actors that it remains a puzzle to me that this film has not become an audience favorite throughout the world. It is intelligent, emotional, edifying, and warm, entertaining, and in all categories it is a winner.Shlomi (Oshri Cohen, in a brilliantly understated performance) is a 16-year-old lad who takes care of his highly dysfunctional family: his mother (Esti Zakheim) is about as distasteful a shrew as ever concocted and in a constant state of ill temper because of her husband cheated on her, and because she is stuck working double shifts to support her ailing father-in-law (Ariek Elias, who as Shlomi's grandfather is a bright, funny, wise, loving old man who deeply cares for Shlomi); a married sister Ziva (Rotem Abuhab)who periodically moves back in to the house because of constant spats with her husband who doesn't help her care for their infant twin sons; his brother Sasi (Assi Cohen) whose life is loud electric guitars, braggadocio about female conquests, and the favorite son of his mother. Stir this mixture and the result is the penultimate dysfunctional family unit. Shlomi cooks gourmet meals for them, shops, cleans house, runs errands, bathes and cares for this grandfather and in general leads a life of submission to a family that views him as a 'retard'.Shlomi longs for a girlfriend and practically fails his school because of his lack of time devoted to caring for his family and a lack of concentration. Serendipitously his math teacher Begin (Nisso Keavia) notes his natural mathematic genius on a discarded test, and with the aid of the headmaster (Yigal Nair) the two encourage him to be tested and discover that he is a genius (?with dyslexia?) and arrange for him to try for a special school in Haifa. Shlomi's mother will hear none of it but between fights with Shlomi's absentee father (Albert Iluz) and confrontations with the teacher and headmaster they finally consent to his testing for the school.Meanwhile Shlomi discovers a girl his age Rona (Aya Koren) who has moved in next door and gradually the two become intertwined in a physical and intellectual relationship. Always in the background is the support of Shlomi's grandfather, and when the grandfather dies, Shlomi sets off on the journey to live his life for himself, to realize his gifts, to find his happiness. The manner in which the family comes to grips with this is the peak of the movie and need not be revealed for the sake of loosing the power of the message.The film is beautifully photographed, the musical score is creatively lovely, and the final result is one of exaltation of the human spirit. Highly recommended on every level. In Hebrew with English subtitles.

This movie is a must for all people that enjoy soccer as an art. What strikes first about this movie about a soccer world cup is the way it is filmed. Besides following the play like a TV broadcast, there is generous footage dedicated to follow individual players in the games. This brings forward the emotions and situations these men go through as they attempt to reach glory. Today's TV broadcasting style, so different than that of 1986, is still inferior in quality compared to this movie.<br /><br />The players are not the only stars. The audience, the referees, the journalists covering the matches and the environment itself all play a central role in the development of what today is history. In this movie you can see how all these factors play together in a very explicit way. In that regard, today's TV broadcasting style has not yet reached this level of quality, although it is now much closer than before.<br /><br />There are several highlighted players: Maradona (Argentina), Elkjaer and Laudrup (Denmark), Francescoli (Uruguay), Platini (France), Lineker (England), Rummenigge (Germany), Butrague#o (Spain), Socrates (Brazil), and Sanchez (Mexico).<br /><br />This movie is not a collection of the best soccer moves of Mexico 1986, although most of them are well covered. Across all the movie, there is a stress for presenting several aspects of the game and the competition itself based on the progress of these players and teams, even at the cost of skipping relevant plays of the games themselves. This is what makes this movie so interesting and unique.<br /><br />Because of what happened because of referees during Mexico 1986, much of the comments about this movie and world cup are extremely Maradona-biased. Much of these comments do not take into account that there is a referee and two linesmen, that they are as human as the players, and that all of the abovementioned make mistakes one way or the other. Soccer rules do not allow referees to use TV based replays to make decisions, so for the most part referees have to decide on what they perceive. As a consequence, referees play an active part in the development of a game. Their influence can be seen in several parts of this movie.<br /><br />The sequel movie for the 1990 World Cup, compared to this one, is just a source of bitter disappointment. Much of it comes from the fact that it became too involved in the game, whereas this movie tells things from a more distant, unbiased point of view.

The performances in this movie were fantastic. The dialogue was great. Jason Patric delivered a fantastic performance as "Kid" Collins in this wonderful adaptation of the Jim Thompson novel. Far superior to "The Grifters", which was a good movie, this film really stayed true to the pulp fiction/film noir roots from which the story came. I recommend this movie to all film noir fans.

I wanted to like this film, I really did. It's got some good actors but ultimately it falls flat. It tries too hard to be funny in some places (the daughters over zealous cooking attempts), over reaches in others (the scene where they clean up someone's yard, so he agrees to join the team) and has some scenes that, while mildly interesting, are really just filler (all the work scene's). And I didn't find the "villians" intimidating, or worth hating, so much as I found them to be childishly annoying. <br /><br />I've met people like those in the film while playing church ball. And I will say the referee's are spot on, Still, in the end, I really didn't care all that much about the characters, or their quest for church ball glory. Maybe because they were all so one dimensional, which I might not have minded so much if the film were funnier or seemed to flow a little more smoothly overall. <br /><br />Kurt Hale, and Halestorm entertainment, has made some good films, but this is not one of them.

This espionage melodrama has a nice, almost promising cast, and should have been very atmospheric; there is a will, or an intention of atmosphere—and also a want, or a lack of it.<br /><br />Sheen plays a dissident who now activates as an agent, he is a loner, loved by women but haughty; Mrs. Fossey is his mistress. Neill plays the gallant, generous, chivalrous Soviet agent.<br /><br />Sheen and Neill are both essentially annoying; Finlay does a cameo, and so do other known actors. Mrs. Fossey is hot; but then again, she always is.<br /><br />I will be your true friend and break it to you—the flick is low on suspense and on excitement, it's trite and quite boring; the good thing is that you get to see Mrs. Fossey naked. Other than that, lukewarm derivative espionage exploitation.

Weak,stale, tired, cliched; wants to be Basic Instinct, but misses opportunity after opportunity for fresh perspectives, new insights. Insipid, trite, grotesque, and without the possibly-redeeming value of brevity; oh, wait...it was only 90 minutes long...it must have just *seemed* a lot longer! I'd rather clean bus station toilets with my toothbrush than have to sit through this again. I'm expressing an opinion here: I guess this means I didn't like it.

man was this hard to watch! it was not at all funny, not well made and it had no point or plot to it whatsoever. the acting was horrible. it was not well made at all. it looked like a bunch of kids my age were just screwing around and making a pointless movie. it is by far the absolute worst broken lizard movie. if you are a broken lizard movie like myself you will disappointed and bored to your death. please skip this pointless movie about ugly guys looking for chicks. you will not regret m advice. by the way, don't say you didn't find this review helpful just because you didn't agree with it. thats stupid, like this movie. the only OK scene was when the main guy was playing rugby and got beat the crap out of. i liked that cause i found his character pretty damn annoying.

Just watched this movie and it's not bad; there are a few tense moments and not a lot of long dialog strings. Comes off as fairly intelligent; fastpaced almost like 'documentary style'. This movie will evoke some nostalgia and a bit of cold war paranoia with cars,street scenes,and life in the 50's. The acting is fairly solid and at 85 minutes run time it goes by at a good pace. An atomic era film buff shouldn't miss this one.

I thought that Mukhsin has been wonderfully written. Its not just about entertainment. There's tonnes of subtle messages that i think Yasmin was trying to bring across. And yes, it might be confusing to some of you(especially if you didn't watch Sepet and/or Gubra for 76 times).<br /><br />I bet u noticed how they use characters from the two movies before right? Its really ironic how the characters relate. Like the bossy neighbour is that prostitute from Gubra. And the chick at the snooker pad turns out to be the religious and wife of the pious man in the future. <br /><br />And i absolutely love the voice-overs. Its crude yet awakeningly fresh. Like, when they took a shot of the Rumah Tumpangan Gamin signboard, then there was suddenly Mukhsin's voice saying 'Bismillahhirrahmannirrahim..' (the scene when he climbed the tree).<br /><br />It captured Malaysian's attitude(and in some mild way, sniggering at how pathetic it is) portrayed in the character. For example, even the kids can be really sharp tongued(complete with the shrill annoying voice) and simply bad mouth ppl all movie long. And how you can be such a busybody and talk about ppl, when ur own life isn't sorted out. <br /><br />All i can say is, this movie totally reached my expectation if not exceeded it. <br /><br />It kept me glued to the screen, i couldn't even take my eyes off it. Not even to make out in the cinema. Ha ha.

What Irving Thalberg did in making this film today would never be attempted again. Making a Chinese story with occidental players even if they are of the caliber of Paul Muni, Luise Rainer, Charley Grapewin, and Walter Connolly among others.<br /><br />Perhaps it's partly because the story was written by a westerner, Pearl Buck who got a Pulitzer Prize for her novel in 1932. Ms. Buck, daughter of Chinese missionaries, probably brought China closer to the consciousness of America than any other person. Not the political struggles of China, but the lives and toil of the every day people we find in The Good Earth. Unfortunately later on, Pearl Buck became an apologist for the Kuomintang China of Chiang Kai-Shek in all its virtues and excesses. The rest of her literary output never matched The Good Earth.<br /><br />In The Sundowners there is a great description of comparing China to Australia by Peter Ustinov. When asked the difference, Ustinov said China was very big and very full and Australia was very big and very empty. That's what you see in The Good Earth, China very big and very full of people, more than she can deal with at times.<br /><br />The Good Earth tells the story of Wang Lung (Paul Muni) as a young man who purchases a wife from a large house where she was a slave. The woman O-Lan (Luise Rainer) bears him two sons and sees him through all the good times and bad they have, drought, famine, revolution, and a climatic locust plague.<br /><br />Luise Rainer won the second of two consecutive Oscars for portraying O-Lan. She may have set some kind of record in that it has to be the leading player Oscar performance with the least amount of dialog. Everything she does practically is done with facial expressions, her performance could have been on a silent film with very minimal subtitles. I think only John Mills in Ryan's Daughter had fewer words and he was playing a mentally retarded man.<br /><br />Muni is not always appreciative of how supportive she is in that male dominated culture. Rainer helps in the field, bears and raises the kids, does the housework. When Muni becomes a man of property he takes a Chinese second trophy wife who causes him a lot of grief. Still Rainer stoically bears it all. Still Muni is not a bad man and it's a tribute to the film and his acting and Buck's writing that you don't hate him and the culture gap is bridged. <br /><br />We've got a group of oriental players now who do more than just Kung Fu movies. I'm surprised The Good Earth of all films has not been remade at this point. I'll bet the Chinese government would even let some American company do it on an actual location.<br /><br />Till then we've got this great classic to appreciate and enjoy.

How did this become a blockbuster? Dear God I don't know where to start why this movie sucked too much. The movie was predictable & there was no originality. The only thing I can admire is the acting of some characters. The movie was too bright, they should have done something with the lighting, eg. making the environment more darker. The make up on certain dead characters made this movie look like a 1970 horror flick. This is 2006! People don't get scared by other people wearing heavy make up. Most of the horror scenes we're taken from other Hollywood or Asian horror movies. Total rip off! This is why I don't watch tagalog movies. The only reason why so many people "screamed" while watching this movie is because of conformity. How many times do we have to copy scenes from The Ring and improvise it that instead of the girl coming out of the TV, its now coming from the window next door? No matter how you put it, ITS STILL A RIP OFF. If you want a good horror movie, go watch the 50 best horror movie listed on this website.

This was truly horrible. Bad acting, bad writing, bad effects, bad scripting, bad camera shots, bad filming, bad characters, bad music, bad editing, bad casting, bad storyline, bad ... well, you get the idea. It was just, just ... what's the word? Oh yeah ... BAD!

While I am not a woman, I can enjoy a chick flick if its good. This one however is beyond bad. You have the by the book story, girl is getting divorced, boy with issues shows up. BOOM magic happens and his demons are banished as she realizes her life has a new purpose.<br /><br />Now while I can believe that kind of thing might happen, I am not an idiot. It wouldn't happen over a weekend of geriatric rumpy-pumpy, it would take time. Yet here the producers know they only have 1 hour and 30 minutes so they force the changes of the two to happen, I suppose a night of getting hammered and a night of gramps and granny going at it like dogs in heat might be enough if you believed romance novels were the gospel... but most people don't.<br /><br />Now, if that isn't enough... the producers remembered that a chick flick needs to make the viewer cry... well they tried to make you cry with the two senior citizens getting jiggy with it by failed... so how could they hit you again? Why I know, lets kill off one of the characters for no good reason at all except that a random death will surely bring a tear to the eye.... and now lets have the teen daughter magically bond with heart broken mom for no reason besides the fact that it would be nice (completely unreal, but who cares).<br /><br />So there you have it... girl find boy, boy find love, death finds boy and mom cries.... what a movie - NOT.

I am a fan of the Nightmare series but this one is horrible. The deaths are so trendy. If you were to watch this 20 years later the whole nintendo scene is outdated. I did like the flashbacks. I think they should have just made a prequel about when he was still alive. That would have been more interesting. This is a movie you can take or leave. Depends on how much spare time you have.

It's a bit easy. That's about it.<br /><br />The graphics are clean and realistic, except for the fact that some of the fences are 2d, but that's forgiveable. The rest of the graphics are cleaner than GoldenEye and many other N64 games. The sounds are magnificant. Everything from the speaking to the SFX are pleasant and realistic.<br /><br />The camera angle is a bit frustrating at times, but it's the same for every platform game, like Banjo-Kazooie and Donkey Kong 64.<br /><br />I got this game as a Christmas present in 1997, and since then, I have dutifully gotten 120 stars over 10 times.

For me, this is another one of those films that I got to see off of the Los Angeles based "Z" Channel when it was in service. And it was another one of those movies that I saw when I was young...and learned that there was a world out there...one I did not want to accept.<br /><br />Moving to Los Angeles and getting to watch international cinema became quite the guilty pleasure hobby of mine and to date, no premiere channel programming has matched the "Z" Channel in its showing of international films. The three international films that stuck in my young head were "Spetters", "Beau Pere" and of course this one, "Pixote".<br /><br />This was the most shocking and saddest movie I ever witnessed in my life. This was also one of the first movies that made me understand that there IS a difference in cinema: to entertain, and to inform. Let me be honest..growing up in a small town on the east coast, I had no idea anything like this -- to this extent -- existed. All I knew from South America was brochures of fabulous Brazillian vacations and that Columbia had a lot of drug trafficking.<br /><br />Then comes a film like Pixote. Sad. Disturbing. Unflinching. Scary. You're watching: Children. Those that need shelter, love, understanding and all these get are a way to survive day after day through drugs, sex, robbing, stealing, sleeping on the streets and in sadistic group homes etc. Their survival is hard to watch with other street children, prostitutes, etc., and you begin to wonder HOW can things like this be allowed to happen in this world.<br /><br />Pixote is not a film for entertainment, it is a film of information. It shows shocking and disturbing images - but it shows life for these daily street children.

I found this movie to be preachy and unrealistic. It tries to be a movie showing kids fighting against the system, but it doesn't even present a positive solution. I guess I didn't feel really for the kids. I totally can understand what their gripes were and I know how poor the state of schools are, but I found their solution and the way the outside dealt with it to be a big bunch of phooey. If this comes on TV, don't waste your time. Watch Short Circuit again for the 235th time.

I want to start by stating I am a republican, even though I don't agree with a lot of the things bush has done in office. And I love the daily show and Colbert report. They have to be two of my favorite shows on TV. I enjoy the bush jokes on Conan, Letterman, Leno, because I admit that W is not the smartest guy to ever walk the earth(I do believe he's not the dumbest either.) But it comes to a point when enough is enough and it's not really that funny anymore. I see where it can be funny and it is(hey he's making fun of our authority figure he's hilarious.). Comedy central though is just trying to hard to poke fun at him. I mean maybe one special episode, but an entire series is just dumb. It seems CC is just saying the same bush jokes that we've heard WAY to many times. I really cannot see this show going past 1 season.

As always, controversial movies like this have mixed reviews. You either love it or you hate it, and not everyone will like this movie. This shows the perspective of the killers, which is something I personally feel is something important to consider. You may hate them, you may claim to understand them and feel as though you can relate, but regardless this movie will make you think about school shootings from a different perspective.<br /><br />The movie is shot entirely using a hand-held camera, something that I think works quite well as it makes it more realistic. It is told completely from the killers point of view, from their "missions" to family outings, all leading up the big day "Zero Day" in which they are planning on a massacre at their school. Zero Day does not offer answers, but merely presents a glimpse at the lives of two troubled young boys and lets the audience decide for themselves. Our feelings towards the boys are something mixed between sympathy and hatred, but yet we are left confused as to why two ordinary young boys would do such a thing. They are shown to be surprisingly normal, typical teenage boys leading ordinary lives, and if we didn't know what they were planning we wouldn't expect a thing (They make it clear throughout the whole movie that no-one else knows about their plan)<br /><br />The acting is extremely good considering the two actors are complete unknowns. We can only hope to see more work from the both of them in the future. Despite how this is a fictionalized movie, one cannot help but notice the obvious similarities to Columbine. Calvin and Andre are scarily similar to Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, (not so much in looks, but in manner) As someone who has researched Columbine very extensively, I could see the similarities and it is almost certainly based on it. <br /><br />The actual massacre is shown through surveillance cameras at the school and is one of the most chilling things I have ever seen. I was completely in shock after seeing it, and its a feeling that stays around for a while. It is very realistic and well-done, and it is very difficult to watch.<br /><br />All in all Zero Day is an excellent movie, and I think everyone should at least check it out. In the past, we have always simply branded killers "psychopaths" and assumed that either they were biologically wired for disaster or had media influence, but as Zero Day shows sometimes the motives are deeper than that, and we can never truly understand why tragedies such as school shootings happen until we have seen it from the perspective of the killers.

This is easily one of the best movies of the 1950s. Otto Preminger directed only four or five really good movies and this is one of them. Frank Sinatra gives his best performance and the music score by Elmer Bernstein is dynamite. From the opening titles (by Saul Bass) to the hysteria of drug addict Frank going cold turkey, this is a riveting movie! With Kim Novak (giving a very good performance), Eleanor Parker (giving a very bad performance) as well as Darren McGavin as the reptilian pusher and Arnold Stang as Frank's grifter pal. Beware of bad prints: this movie is in the public domain so some copies are pretty rough.

I may not be a critic, but here is what I think of this movie. Well just watched the movie on cinemax and first of all I just have to say how much I hate the storyline I mean come on what does a snowman scare besides little kids, secondly it is pretty gory but I bet since the movie is so low budget they probably used ketchup so MY CRITICAL VOTE IS BOMB!!! nice try and the sequel will suck twice as much.

In Joel Schumacher, you have one of the most inconsistent film makers of all time. But this is common knowledge; I think his main problem is the array of genres that he covers whilst at the same time, failing to develop any sort of certain style that might label him an auteur. Hitchcock liked his suspense and his horror/thriller; Chaplin liked his comedy; Scorsese likes his crime driven mafia stories amongst others and Spielberg likes his large scale, big budget adventure films that combine just enough violence for the adults and fun for the kids. Other more obscure examples include Kubrick and Welles who covered too much to write about here.<br /><br />But Schumacher is the sort of guy who makes a flawed film revolving around a great idea or a really quite enjoyable film revolving around a seemingly dull premise. Falling Down had a great idea behind it but I found it flawed and anticlimactic with too many scenes seemingly relying on comedy. Batman is a superhero; superhero films have been big hits recently so how he managed to make not one but two appalling superhero films is beyond me. Then comes 8MM; a film with a basic premise that is executed in an impressive manner before Tigerland which is Schumacher's best film from what I've so far seen, in my opinion. With the war genre, laughter isn't something you'd associate with it for most of the time. I can remember scoffing at the absurdity of the D-Day landings during Saving Private Ryan: at the time when I first saw the film, I had not much knowledge of the Second World War bar when it began and finished. My eyebrows were up, my mouth slightly open with a weak 'I can't believe it smile' on my face. Needless to say, it was because of that film I searched out learning a bit more on what that event was all about and the war as a whole. In Tigerland, you are invited to laugh at the absurdity of war through Bozz (Farrell), a tough and egotistical soldier training for the Vietnam War.<br /><br />But what's clever here is that there are no jaw dropping war scenes of fighting and death and destruction; just one man and his battle with the system for most of the time. The things he says and the audacity at which he deals with his predicament is reminiscent of a school child winding up a series of teachers at an extremely strict boarding school. Tigerland may borrow from Full Metal Jacket in the sense it is a training routine for the Vietnam War but egos and superegos play more of a part here, I think. The superegos that are the drill sergeants go up against Bozz whose ego is extremely large. There is also the third part of Freud's triangle that sneaks into Bozz: the ID. Compared to all the other soldiers who all have rather large egos, Bozz is the only one brave enough to show it in front of the sergeants thus suggesting he is allows what he shouldn't do to float to the surface and express itself: "You are all dead in this situation!" barks a sergeant. "Any Questions?" "Yeah, if I'm dead how come I can ask a question?" replies Bozz whose punishments such as push-ups and dirt eating seem to un-faze him in true ID style; that is he enjoys the punishments.<br /><br />Also regarding the superegos, Bozz at one point tries to command a group of soldiers in field training. This is something the existing captain of the squad cannot do thus suggesting he is lacking in both the superego required for the job and the confidence to tell Bozz he is in charge. What follows is an actual conversation between Bozz and an existing drill sergeant who gives him his Christian name. This is where Private Wilson's (Whigham) character steps in: His uncontrollable rage and anger at Bozz explodes at certain time all culminating in the film's only real scenes of a shootout which is in the form of a training exercise in a river. Wilson cannot control his impulses and dislike toward Bozz and acts out.<br /><br />What I also liked about Tigerland is that it's shot in such a way that is brave. While lacking in innovation, Tigerland seems to use lower grade film stock or lesser cameras to get across its gritty look. Make no mistake that this could have been a pretty looking film with lots of colour and attractiveness. But, we get a documentary approach in the final piece making everything look like it was shot on a typical everyday camera for TV; the emphasis on the hand held is also apparent but Schumacher is clever: he never allows the film to become too much like a mockumentry whilst at the same time suggesting the film's budget could've been half of what it was. It's worth saying here that Spielberg said he wanted Saving Private Ryan to look like actual reel footage or something along those lines and as if it was recorded from the war scenes.<br /><br />While being very funny and entertaining, Tigerland is still a great study of what makes people tick; not necessarily in war but in the closest possible substitute. Its study on one man and how much he hates the system that he cannot even take it seriously is fascinating as is the drive of each soldier. There are several memorable scenes and situations culminating in a happy, if not unhappy ending that'll open your mind and make you think about what it's perhaps really like in the military.

For real film people, this film is a must, since it works as a perfect little allegory for the movies themselves. Janos Rukh/Boris Karloff's science has to do with capturing and projecting light from cosmic phenomena. This light can do harm, or it can be harnessed to do good. On the one hand it blinds his mother, on the other it is used to cure blindness ("I can see!" shouts a young girl on whose eyes this light is projected). When Rukh/Karloff is himself poisoned by the uncanny power of this light, we see him actually emitting a ghostly glow on his hands and face like a badly developed negative, drawing attention to the fact that the man we are watching is a projection, an entity viewed on film (only visible, as in a movie theater, when the lights are out).<br /><br />There is a wonderful passage near the beginning where Karloff/Rukh explains his research as being informed by the fact that everything that happens is captured in light which rolls through space for millions of years, as the light from Andromeda was emitted from that Galaxy at a time when the earth was still molten rock. <br /><br />There are passages in the film when this new science is juxtaposed to older cultural vehicles: that of the writer, in the persona of Beulah Bondi/Arabella Stevens; and religion, emblemized in the sculptural figures on the local cathedral Karloff blasts with his projector/ray gun. <br /><br />One has to wonder here if this film was meant to glance at what was going on in Germany at the time, and particularly at Riefenstall's use of film the year before to promote a regime that certainly would go on to do a lot of harm:Triumph of the Will. <br /><br />Happily in the end, Mother (Violet Kemble Cooper) intervenes, reminding Janos Rukh of the first rule of science. <br /><br />If only more movies made you want to stand up in the theater and shout: "I can see!"

This movie was like "The Disney Channel after Dark." Take out the "aren't we naughty" language and themes and you are left with dialogue and plot devices that insult the intelligence of anyone who doesn't describe "Saved by the Bell" as quality television. The dialogue so laughably cliched and knowingly dirty, one might think the screenplay was the product of locking Aaron Spelling and Joe Eszterhas in a room with orders to produce an amalgam of every bad script each had ever had a hand in creating. If that was Roger Kumble's intention, mission accomplished.

When one of my friends recommended this to me, raving about how well it was filmed, the underlying themes and the general greatness of the film, I obviously expected an amazing, at least entertaining film.<br /><br />The two hours I spent watching this turned out to be a huge disappointing waste of my time.<br /><br />I understand that this movie is meant to be surreal, but even in surreal movies, there is something which anchors it down, even if it is only in the slightest. This movie, on the other hand, felt forced and fake. A lot of the shots were unnecessary and watching it made me think the director was trying to hard to be artistic.<br /><br />The acting was poor, and the relationships between characters were not nearly developed enough. Maybe that's just me missing something that others could see but I hadn't even realised there was any sort of attraction between Dae su and Migo before they started getting at it like rabbits randomly half way through the film. Then again, maybe this film was just bad.<br /><br />I am not against violence in movies, but in this one, almost all of it was just unnecessary. Throughout all the fight scenes I felt myself cringing at how painfully cliché it all was.<br /><br />And the plot? The word laughable comes to mind. I would be amused if I hadn't wasted two hours of my life following this poorly thought out and ridiculous plot. Despite all the movie's flaws, by the end of it, I was expecting something interesting to conclude it. I won't discuss the ending, because I wouldn't want to "spoil" the movie for those who haven't seen it. Just that the metaphor "Be it a rock or a grain of sand, in water they sink as the same." cannot be used as an explanation for everything.<br /><br />This entire movie was made for shock value and shock value only. I just hope sooner or later people will stop being so pretentious and recognise a bad movie for what it is. I've seen many other great Korean films and it depresses me that people have hailed Oldboy as the best.

Wow, what a bad film. Not frightening in the least, and barely comprehensible. The plot doesn't hang together at all, and the acting is absolutely appalling. What's that line from a famous critic? "She runs the emotional gamut from A to B." Yup. That about sums it up. Not even good for camp value! I wasn't expecting Oscar material, but this? And gosh, her friend's a ghost? You'd have to have the IQ of particularly stupid mollusk not to see that one coming.<br /><br />This film (and I use that word loosely) is an insult to the movie-going public. If only someone involved with it knew how to string together narrative! This gets a 1 out of 10, simply because there's nothing lower. On the bright side--at least it's not a full two hours long.

This (extremely)low-budget movie is compared to the great classic "Silent Night Deadly Night", since it is labeled as a Slasher Flick. First let me say that I think that even "Silent Night Part 2" is better than this (that one was filled with flashbacks of the original for more than half of the movie). "Christmas Evil" tries to get psychological by introducing the main character as someone who goes insane,(a strong word), slowly (very slowly). He is irritated by people who do not get the true meaning of Christmas and at work he can't stand how the fabricated toys are made with such lack of quality and love. Dressed up as Santa he finally goes on a killing spree. Also a strong word, since only 3 people are killed without the real need for special effects. No tension, no thrills, no gore, no cast. For one exception that is: Jeffrey DeMunn is in it. He is best known for playing aside Tom Hanks as one of the guards in the classic "The Green Mile". He still must be kicking himself these days for ever accepting the role. He truly is the only one who really can act, his supporting role is better than the main lead. (who also isn't that bad, but if you're overshadowed by a little supporting character, you're not great either.). And what about that strange ending ? (you have to see it, to believe it). "Christmas Evil" is downright boring, nothing happens and the artwork is just misleading. This is not a slasher. You wanna see a real Christmas slasher, check out the all time greatest: "Silent Night, Deadly Night".

Perhaps more than many films, this one is not for everyone. For some folks the idea of slowing down, reflecting and allowing things to happen in their own time is a good description of their personal hell. For others an approach like this speaks to some deep part of themselves they know exists, some part they long for contact with.<br /><br />I suppose it's a function of where I am in my own life these days, but I count myself in the camp of the latter group. I found the meditative pace of this film almost hypnotic, gently guiding me into some realm almost mythological. This is indeed a journey story, a rich portrayal of the distance many of us must travel if we are to come full circle at the end of our days.<br /><br />Much as been written of Mr Farnsworth's presentation of Alvin Straight, though I'm not sure there are words to express the exquisite balance of bemused sadness and wise innocence he conjured for us. Knowing now that he was indeed coming to terms with his own mortality as he sat on that tractor seat makes me wish I had had the opportunity to spend time with him before his departure. I hope he had a small glimmer of the satisfaction and truth he had brought to so many people, not just for "acting" but for sharing his absolute humanity with such brutal honesty.<br /><br />Given the realities of production economics, I'm not sure full credit has been given Mr Lynch for the courage he showed in allowing the story to develop so slowly. An outsider to film production, I nonetheless understand there are few areas of modern life where the expression "time is money" is so accurately descriptive. Going deep into our hearts is not an adventure that can be rushed, and to his credit Mr Lynch seems to have understood that he was not simply telling a story--he was inviting his viewers to spend some time with their own mortality. No simple task, that.<br /><br />If you'd like to experience the power of film to take introduce you to some precious part of yourself, you could do worse than spending a couple of hours with The Straight Story. And then giving yourself some time for the next little while simply listening to its echoes in the small hours of the night.

An adaption of the book 'Finding Fish'. This story is about a troubled young sailor Antwone Fisher (Derek Luke) who tells the painful story of his past to a psychiatrist Jerome Davenport (Denzel Washington). A brilliant debut performance by Derek Luke and an always stunning performance by Denzel Washington.<br /><br />This movie was incredible on so many levels and I was disappointed that it didn't win an Oscar, I think it was because it was released at a bad time that's why it was overlooked. I strongly recommend this film to everyone, you'll be touched by his story and it really does make the audience become empathetic with this young man that is Antwone Fisher.<br /><br />If you like inspirational true stories, then watch Antwone Fisher.<br /><br />Thank you

This is definitely one of the best Kung fu movies in the history of Cinema. The screenplay is really well done (which is not often the case for this type of movies) and you can see that Chuck (in one of his first role)is a great actor. The final fight with the sherif deputy in the bullring is a masterpiece!

A wonderful story that should be seen by all families. The story, acting, and production values are all first rate. I highly recommend "Checking Out!"<br /><br />Peter Falk is marvelous as an aging actor who wants to decide when he will die, so he can continue to know how things will end and not be "a member of the audience." His three children rush to New York to confront him and try to change his mind. There are, of course unresolved family issues to be addressed, and the script and actors handle them well and with great humor. <br /><br />The story is about a Jewish family, but it could easily be about any other family. Well, maybe not a WASP family. The siblings have issues with each other and also with their father. I loved the writing and directing, as well as the acting. All in all, a humorous and touching film.

Why would anyone make a film like this? Why would anybody invest in a film like this? Why would anybody in the film business work on a film like this? Why would any theatre show a film like this? Why would any TV channel program a film like this? Why would any critic bother to review a film like this? Why would anybody watch a film like this? Why would mental examinations not be made of the writers/producers/directors of a film like this? Sometimes there are movies that are so bad they're good. This is a movie that is so ghastly that it's horrible. IMDb really must institute a "0" or even a minus scale to embrace works of this appallingly pretentious awfulness.

please, future writers, producers, directors - learn from this movie!<br /><br />never before have i seen such a bold and original tale created for the big movie screen. bold, because the script constantly made a step so many fantasy movies safely avoided - a step to something new, creative and daring. just when you think 'oh, i've seen this before' or 'i am sure this is what will happen now' - StarDust would make an unexpected twist and involve you more and more into the story.<br /><br />the actors are great - even the smallest part is performed with such talent it fills me with awe for the creators of this movie. Robert De Niro is gorgeous and performs with such energy that he simply steals the show in each scene he's in. Michelle Pfeiffer is the perfect witch, and Claire Danes a wonderful choice for the innocent and loving 'star', Yvaine. Other big names make outstanding roles. I had the filling everyone is trying to give his best for this movie. But once again, the story by Neil Gaiman, all the little things he 'invented' for this universe - simply outstanding.<br /><br />I watched this movie at a pre-screening today, a day before the official release, and do hope it will have huge success. There is so much humor, but also tense moments as well as lovely tender scenes. The look in the eyes of Yvaine, the 'frivolities' of Captain Shakespeare, the passion of Lamia the witch - impressive, unforgettable<br /><br />For me this is the number one entertaining movie of 2007, watch it and enjoy it<br /><br />11/10 - Outstanding<br /><br />peace and love

From the excellent acting of an extremely impressive cast, to the intelligently written (and very quotable) script, from the lavish cinematography to the beautiful music score by Carter Burwell, Rob Roy offers a rarity in movie going experiences: one that is nigh impossible to find fault with in any area.<br /><br />There have been several comparisons made with Braveheart, which came out the same year. With all due credit to Mel Gibson, Braveheart struck me as too much of a self-conscious and preachy epic to rival Rob Roy as the kind of movie I would care to see more than once. While Braveheart works hard to be a serious epic, Rob Roy just grabs you and absorbs you into its tightly edited storytelling. Not a single scene is wasted.<br /><br />Rob Roy contains the perfect balance of dramatic tension, action and even occasional humor. The characters are well fleshed-out, perfectly conveying vernacular and mannerisms that anchor them in their authentic period setting.<br /><br />Further, they are not caricatures of good and evil as we all too often observe in even modern film.<br /><br />For example, while we hope the heroic Rob Roy prevails, we realize his predicaments are products of his own pride and sense of honor. Tim Roth plays one of the most hateful bad guys in the history of cinema, yet there are moments when we can understand how the events of his life have shaped him into becoming what he is. Rob Roy employs a level of character development that makes its story even more believable and gripping.<br /><br />Rob Roy is a delightful treasure, featuring one of the greatest sword fights ever choreographed and a climatic ending worthy of all the tense anticipation.

several years ago i saw this film, without subtitles, on television, and despite me not understanding a word of what the characters were saying i still got the general idea, and the mood of the film fascinated me no ends.<br /><br />at long last i saw it again a few weeks ago. my heart skipped when i saw the picture in the television guide, and for 8 days until the film was really shown i told everybody i knew to go and see it. the story reminded me a bit of alfred hitchcock's vertigo. a slow, brooding film about a guy who one day believes he sees the girlfriend that disappeared years before. what follows is a wild rollercoaster ride of flashbacks, changing perspectives and really inventive twists in the plot, and at the end of the film i was left breathless. i had definitely not got what i had expected (and i had actually already seen the film!). be prepared to be confused.<br /><br />9 out of 10

I only recently found out that Madeleine L'Engle's novel had been turned into a TV movie by Disney and ordered the DVD. The book was a favorite of mine when I was a child and I read it several times.<br /><br />Despite some of the child actors not resembling the characters as described in the novel, the Murry family is well cast, with a likable (if too pretty) Meg at the center and a Charles Wallace who is convincing as a child prodigy without becoming irritating. <br /><br />The first half hour is promising enough, doing a good job in establishing the relationships between the lead characters and at setting the scene. Unfortunately as soon as the non-human characters appear the adaptation starts to unravel and once the children leave earth the whole thing falls apart. Alfre Woodward is too youthful looking and much too regal as the eccentric Mrs Whatsit (think Miriam Margolis or Joan Plowright instead) and Kate Nelligan face is so mask like and inexpressive, she must have visited Faye Dunaway's plastic surgeon in recent years. For some reason they make her Mrs Which look like Glinda from The Wizard of Oz when she should have resembled a benign Wicked Witch of the West.<br /><br />In the end what lets this down most badly are the terrible special effects and art direction. I understand that this is a TV movie, but the CGI looked like something that could have been done 15 years earlier. Mrs Whatsits' centaur incarnation is a disaster as is the Chewbacca like suit for Aunt Beast, who in the novel is a velvety, elegant creature instead of the ungainly Big Foot like thing shown here. I could go on and on, nearly every artistic choice is a disaster, presumably because there wasn't a large enough budget to do this justice, but also because the design work lacks imagination and good judgement.<br /><br />This really would have needed the sense of wonder Spielberg brought to his early films. What a shame that with the current popularity of adapting children's literary fantasy series nobody thought of adapting A Wrinkle in Time and it's sequels for the big screen, giving it the scope it deserves.

I first saw this movie back in the 1980's and now in 2006 this movie still is one of the best movies I have ever seen! I would recommend anyone to look at this movie. You will not be sorry. It is well acted out, so real and never a dull moment. The acting is superb and the location makes the movie seem like you are there. From the beginning right up to the end, this movie is the type that makes you lose your attention. The actress does an excellent job of portraying the girl who survived this horrific plane crash in the Amazon and it shows how she managed to survive in the Amazon all alone. It is unbelievable that anyone could survive under such conditions. This is why this movie is so appealing. The fact that this is a true story makes the movie even more interesting and to think that a young girl could survive from this ordeal is overwhelming. I find this movie one that I can watch over and over again and one that I never get tired of. This is indeed quite a compliment as I have hundreds of movies! I would say this is probably my favorite movie and the best I have ever seen!

Naturally, along with everyone else, I was primed to expect a lot of Hollywood fantasy revisionism in THEY DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON over the legend of Custer. Just having someone like Errol Flynn play Custer is enough of a clue that the legend has precedence over the truth in this production. And for the most part my expectations were fulfilled (in an admittedly rousing and entertaining way).<br /><br />Yet even in this obviously biased (and much criticized) retelling of the Custer story, I was struck by some of the points made in this movie that, sometimes subtly but nevertheless solidly, seemed to counter the typical clichés of manifest destiny and unvarnished heroism usually found in Westerns of the early 20th century.<br /><br />For instance, even while this film attempted to whitewash it's hero, certain scenes still suggested the more flawed and foolish character of the real-life Custer: <br /><br />1) His initial entrance at the West Point front gate, in which his arrogance and pompousness is a clear aspect of his character.<br /><br />2) His miserable record at West Point, which seems to be attributed as much to Custer's cluelessness about the demands of military service as any other factor; there are moments in the way Flynn plays Custer at West Point where he seems downright stupid.<br /><br />3) Custer's promotion to General is not only presented as a ridiculous mistake, but it plays out as slapstick comedy. I half-expected to see the Marx Brothers or Abbott and Costello wander into the scene.<br /><br />4) Custer's stand against Jeb Stuart at Gettysburg is not whitewashed as brilliant military tactical leadership, but is presented as reckless and wildly lucky.<br /><br />5) Custer's drinking problem is certainly not ignored.<br /><br />And although the music and some of the ways the Indians were shown in this film were certainly reinforcements of the racist stereotype of the ignorant savage, it still came as a surprise to me that the movie actually went into some detail as to why the Indians were justified in attacking the whites who were moving into their land, and fairly explicitly laid the blame for the battles in the Black Hills squarely at the foot of the white man. In fact, no one can argue that the clear villain of the piece is not Anthony Quinn as Sitting Bull, but Arthur Kennedy & Co. as the white devils making the false claim of gold in the Black Hills. Sure, that part of the story is true, but I didn't expect to see it portrayed quite so unequivically in a movie like this.<br /><br />And one other thing: usually in these films it is the Indians who are portrayed en masse as drunken animals seemingly incapable of the basic common sense to avoid getting falling down drunk any time they get near alcohol. In this movie, it is actually the troops of the 7th Cavalry, and not the Indians, who in at least two scenes are portrayed this way.<br /><br />All in all, this movie slips in some surprising moments in the midst of the Hollywood bunk.

An excellent "sleeper" of a movie about the search for Carlos the international assassin. Am surprised this film didn't rake in $100-million-plus because it's much better than most films that do so. Rent it NOW.

Encouraged by the positive comments about this film on here I was looking forward to watching this film. Bad mistake. I've seen 950+ films and this is truly one of the worst of them - it's awful in almost every way: editing, pacing, storyline, 'acting,' soundtrack (the film's only song - a lame country tune - is played no less than four times). The film looks cheap and nasty and is boring in the extreme. Rarely have I been so happy to see the end credits of a film. <br /><br />The only thing that prevents me giving this a 1-score is Harvey Keitel - while this is far from his best performance he at least seems to be making a bit of an effort. One for Keitel obsessives only.

Well...there were some great, creamy-smooth facial shots of Marlene, along with her "shocking", gender-bender outfit (plus her not-to-be-missed "transmogrification" from ape into human being); but, overall, the generally unconvincing plot and dated acting -- not to mention the less than engaging tunes coming from Miss Dietrich's "baritone" voice --did little to ensure Blonde Venus a permanent place in my mind's Pantheon of Memorable Films. Cary Grant -- still in the throes of cinematic infancy -- seemed as though he was forever looking to "find himself", while Herbert Marshall was probably never anything BUT Herbert Marshall from the day he was born, until the day he died. Naturally, from an historical point of view, Blonde Venus was fun to watch, so long as one was able to put aside..."great expectations".

In 1904 Tangier, a wealthy American woman and her two children are kidnapped by Berbers, murderous desert pirates who scorn the Moroccan government and, by doing so, kidnap "American pestilence", which attracts the attention of U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt. Fictitious historical epic is less a grand adventure than it is a peculiar, somewhat exhaustive throwback to the desert-sheik films of the 1940s (with a bit of "The King and I" interjected, besides). Portraying the cloaked, mustachioed, bloodthirsty leader and his snippy, haughty captive, Sean Connery and Candice Bergen could be acting in two entirely different movies (neither one seems to know how far to carry the camp-elements of their characters and dialogue, and both seem singularly without proper direction). The various (and anonymous) slashings and beheadings which occur are arbitrary: we don't know any of these victims, and the big action scenes become blurry, noisy montages of sand-swept violence on horseback. The pluses: a much-lauded music score by Jerry Goldsmith (Oscar-nominated, but a loser to John Williams' "Jaws"), fine location shooting and cinematography. *1/2 from ****

Milo is a complete rip off of the 1992 slasher flick Mikey, if you actually check it up both films have the same tagline!But if you want to watch an incredibly funny film with absolutely no plot whatsoever......well then this is the film for you.The acting is terrible and the flashback scenes are overwhelmingly confusing. The story behind this atrocity is simple Milo Jeeder is a kid with serious family problems,his father is an abortion doctor who keeps unborn feoutus's in a jar (NICE!) and was desperate for a child of his own, he figured out a way to bring one of these aborted children to life and he named him............. MILO!!!!!<br /><br />Aside from all the Bad Acting,Terrible directing,annoying sound of Milo's voice and the ear piercing sound of the bell on his bike ,if you take away all that badness its still a bad but funny attempt at a film.<br /><br />I'll give it a bank busting 1 out of 10

To make a good movie you either need excellent actors or an excellent director. You need at least one of the two. In this Eye of the Needle we have none.<br /><br />I don't even remember the name of the director. He mustn't have done much in his career. I like very much Donald Sutherland but he absolutely cannot be the main actor in a movie. He falls short. Sutherland is excellent in a movie when he appears for not more than 15 minutes. I would say for instance that Sutherland was excellent in JFK of Oliver Stone when he talked to Kevin Costner on the bench of a park for 10 minutes non-stop without even taking a breath. Wonderful. But Sutherland being the principal actor in a movie is no good.<br /><br />Kate Nelligan? She is probably good for TV series. The DVD is awful. Terrible colors. Terrible light. I couldn't even appreciate the scenery of Storm Island for how lousy the photography was.<br /><br />This Ken Follett story was good but it's a pity they turned it into an uninteresting movie.

Okay, I'll admit right up front that the Inki cartoons made by Loony Tunes are pretty offensive and I can understand why Warner Brothers has pulled them off the market. Seen today, the huge-lipped and very stereotypical Inki is not politically correct. However, the cartoons were well-made and it's a shame they aren't released with some sort of explanatory prologue (such as the one with Leonard Maltin they included with some recent politically incorrect Donald Duck cartoons that were recently released on DVD). In other words, throwing out the cartoons completely is to forget our history. Plus, Inki, Little Black Sambo and other racist cartoons are out there--especially on the internet.<br /><br />This Inki cartoon has our little hero out hunting. At first, he's chasing a cute little caterpillar but later accidentally happens upon a lion--a lion that is more than happy to make Inki his dinner. However, through all this, a weird Minah appears again and again...and eventually you'll see why this bird is so important to the story.<br /><br />Cute, well made and clever. I like the Inki cartoons. Plus, I take pleasure in showing them to extremely thin-skinned liberal friends just to watch them have apoplectic fits or even heart attacks. Loads of fun, folks!

I'm a huge fan of the Dukes of Hazzard TV show. And I really enjoyed this flick. I enjoyed myself here a lot more than I did with other summer blockbusters.<br /><br />It's funny hearing people rail against this movie with excuses like "lame plot" and "it's much cruder than the show." Does ANYONE remember the crudeness of the humor in the pilot episode? Daisy makes incest jokes and Bo says that Luke had probably fathered half the kids in the orphanage. The only reason it was cleaned up is because it changed to and earlier time slot.<br /><br />And as far as the plot goes. It was the perfect Dukes plot. In fact as a remake it probably stays truer to the source material than any TV show that has migrated to the big screen.<br /><br />While Sean William Scott and Johnny Knoxville aren't EXACTLY like their small screen versions, they do a great job and work very well together. I wasn't too keen on Burt's Boss Hogg though. And I would have like a little bit more incompetence from Sheriff Roscoe. In the movie Roscoe is a little... scary.<br /><br />And who didn't have a smile on their face as the General Lee is racing through the streets of Atlanta and the back roads of Hazzard?<br /><br />Folks, allow yourself to enjoy a movie that is just an excuse for nostalgia, bikinis and car chases, you won't be sorry. It's just a great dumb movie!

Chan Wook Park is nothing if not inventive. I'M A CYBORG BUT THAT'S OK is chock full of amusing little technical flourishes with some ingenious ideas sprinkled in between. Attempting to walk in the footsteps of the likes of Marc Caro and Jeunet (CITY OF LOST CHILDREN, DELICATESSEN), Park embarks on a fanciful, lighthearted tale which is a radical departure from his usual morbid fare. Hardly one to be faulted for his ambition or his vision, it is genuinely unexpected, then, to see all Park's effort add up to so very little.<br /><br />I'M A CYBORG BUT THAT'S OK seems astonishingly to subtract from itself as it goes along, with the the end result being a fraction of the sum of its parts. The premise is promising, gags are copious and offbeat humour abounds but it all fails miserably to create any meaningful connection with the audience. The characters are cute and quirky and played with gusto by the cast, but, try as i might, i could not bring myself to care for any.<br /><br />SYMPATHY FOR LADY VENGEANCE was a misstep, indicating perhaps that Park was overindulging himself a little bit, but it still managed to showcase some of the director's unique flare and in the wake of an impressive filmography, was readily forgiven. None of the assured confidence that commanded JOINT SECURITY AREA or SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE is evident here. I'M A CYBORG BUT THAT'S OK left me so utterly unengaged i caught myself instinctively fast forwarding from time to time (more regularly as the film progressed). I gave LADY a 5/10, and by that measure, this probably deserves no more than a 3. For old time's sake, i'll be generous: 4/10

I was rooting for this film as it's a remake of a 1970s children's TV series "Escape into Night" which, though chaotic and stilted at times was definitely odd, fascinating and disturbing. The acting in "Paperhouse" is wooden, unintentionally a joke. The overdubs didn't add tension they only reinforced that I was sat watching a botch. Casting exasperated the dreary dialogue which resulted in relationships lacking warmth, chemistry or conviction. As in most lacklustre films there are a few good supporting acts these people should be comforted, consoled and reassured that they will not be held responsible. Out of all the possible endings the most unexpected was chosen ... lamer than I could have dreamt.<br /><br />"Escape into Night" deserves a proper remake, written by someone with life experience and directed with a subtle mind.

Holy crap! What a terrible, terrible Spanish thriller! I've had it for about four years and finally started it the other night. I watched an hour or so before heading to bed. I was pretty intrigued by the whole thing. I finished it last night and couldn't believe where I stopped it the night before. Literally, I stopped it the second before the movie went completely downhill.<br /><br />Like I said, I was pretty intrigued and curious as to where this mystery was going but stopped it right when Simon receives the package in the bar. I picked up when he opens up the package to reveal a laser gun and then plays a "menacing" game of laser tag. Whew! Then the big reveal is that the whole thing is a terrorist plot by role playing game nerds. WHEW! You can tell the Spanish industry was definitely behind director Mateo Gil (co-writer of Amenabar's two big previous hits). There is an excellent score and great photography. But this scenario reeks of silliness. How anyone sat through the last 40 minutes with a straight face is beyond me.

Spoilers ahead -- proceed at your own caution.<br /><br />My main problem with this movie is that once Harry learns the identities of the three blackmailers -- with relative ease -- he continues to cave into their demands. And then the whole scene with his wife being kidnapped, he decides to wire his classic car up to explode (with the money in it), which makes us take a pretty tall leap of logic.<br /><br />Okay, so he wanted to keep his affair with Cini out of the public eye due to his wife's involvement with the DA campaign. This I can see, but why not hire someone to slap these turds around a bit, or even kill them once he'd determined there was no actual blackmail evidence (e.g, Cini's body?) This was a pretty interesting movie for the first 2/3 of it. After that, it sort of falls apart.

Just got back from seeing Black Snake Moan. I had spent time reading reviews ... most seemed to focus on the obvious ... "skinny white girl chained to a black man's radiator" ... I hate when "critics" miss the point of a film. Now I suppose it helps that I live in Memphis ... and have lived in Mississippi a couple of times too. It may also help that I am the former Director of the Delta Blues Museum in Clarksdale ... but I get this movie. Brewer's simple "redemption tale" is easy to follow and could have had various themes to tell the story ... but I believe it is highly effect as a "blues". It would be my hope that people don't read all the hype ... and/or various reviews ... and miss a really good movie. Get past the various things like skinny girls in white panties ... get past Justin Timberlake, accept his character Ronnis (which he plays very well) ... get past "Snakes on a Plane" and see how mercuricul Samuel L. Jackson is ... as he has transformed himself into a very believable Mid-South blues man. If you know little about Mid-South culture a lot of what goes on may strike some as cartoonish ... but accept the fact that Craig Brewer KNOWS how to paint the canvas and let the actors tell the story and you will enjoy this film. Not one to tell endings ... so go see this movie ... and yes I will agree with one thing the critics got right ... the music is wonderful!

Theo Robertson has commented that WAW didn't adequately cover the conditions after WWI which lead to Hitler's rise and WWII.<br /><br />Perhaps he missed the first ONE and a quarter HOURS of volume 8? Covers this period, and together with the earlier volumes in the series, shows clearly the existing conditions, I feel. A friend of mine grew up in Germany during this period, joined the Hitler Youth even, and his experiences were very similar to that mentioned in WAW.<br /><br />This documentary is SO far above the History Channel's documentaries I also own, that there is no comparison.<br /><br />The ONLY fault, and it is a small one, that I have with WAW is this: the numbers are not included, many times. For instance, if you're talking about lend-lease, then how much war material was lent/leased? How much to Russia, how much to Britian? How many merchant ships did the U-Boats sink, and when? How many ships did the German or Japanese Navy have, total, in 1941? What type were they? How many troops? How many troops did the allies have, in total, and by country? Lots of numbers could have made a lot of viewers nod off, but I would have preferred MORE! And naturally, I always want to see more military analysis. Like WHY didn't Patton & Clark trap the German army that was at Cassini, after they had it surrounded, instead of racing Monty to Rome, and letting it escape? I don't think you can begin to understand war until you've seen some of these video segments on "total war", like the fire bombing of Dresden. It's like trying to understand Auschwitz, etc., before you see the clips of the death camps: you just can't wrap your head around it - it's too unbelievable.<br /><br />Unknown at that time, and of course, unfilmed, were the most egregious cruelties and inhumanities of the Japanese, including cannibalism, (read "Flyboys"), and some LIVE vivisection of medical "experimentation" prisoners, w/o any anesthetic! <br /><br />Dave

Dull, predictable and uninteresting story of a man contaminated by a chemical substance (Weller) who goes on across the country just to find his ex-wife and children; meanwhile, he kills everyone in his way only by a single touch of his hands. In his dangerous track, a doctor (Hurt) and a young reporter (Natasha) try to stop the man. The movie has a not original premise but even though could be much better. The final result is just a movie without suspense or gritting moments. Even the good cast is completely waste. I give this a 4 (four).

It's not easy making a movie with 18 different stories in it. Although 18 different international directors took the challenge, not everyone of them is good, some of them even boring. But in his entity, "Paris, je t'aime" is breathtaking, showing that, as "Love Actually" put it, 'love is all around', especially in the city of love. Here's a resumé (I'll try to make at as spoiler-free as possible) of the 18 different stories.<br /><br />MONTMARTRE - kind of a dull opening sequence, nothing really special about it. A man finds a parking spot, and sees a lot of odd couples walking by, wondering why he can't find a girl. And than, suddenly, a woman faints next to his car...<br /><br />QUAIS DE SEINE - another dull sequence, about three teenage boys who are searching for some 'piece of ass', when suddenly a Muslim girl trips right in front of them, receiving help from one of the boys. Really basic, but with a sweet heart to it.<br /><br />LES MARAIS - this was a huge disappointment! Although a love story between two boys with an artsy background could have been interesting by the great Van Sant. Eventually, everything that comes AFTER the monologue by Ulliel is good, everything before it is just annoying.<br /><br />TUILERIES - an entertaining sequence by the Coen brothers. Buscemi - without even saying one word - is mesmerizing and the whole sequence is just hilarious. This one kept me hooked until the very end, and this one also gets you truly hooked to the movie.<br /><br />LOIN DU 16IEME - a beautiful story too, even if the execution is poor, the heart is there. It's the story of an Hispanic woman who drops her child off, early in the morning, to take care of another suburban baby. Beautiful.<br /><br />PORTE DE CHOISY - this segment has got to be the strangest and weirdest from the whole movie. Some kind of shampoo salesman arrives in a Chinatown-lookalike place in Paris. If I understood it correctly, the story is about inner beauty, but I think I'm wrong.<br /><br />BASTILLE - a truly wonderful sequence. A man meets with his wife at a restaurant, to break up with her, so that he can run off with his mistress. But the wife has some devastating news. Pretty basic, but truly sad and beautiful! PLACE DES VICTOIRES - a sad sequence as well. Juliette Binoche plays a grieving mother. One night, she wakes up hearing her dead child. When she arrives at the location, a cowboy tells her she can give one last good-bye to her child. One of the best segments! TOUR EIFFEL - two mimes who fall in love could have been great, but, even though it has some nice cinematic tricks, the story isn't intriguing and not funny at all.<br /><br />PARC MONCEAU - a truly original and great sequence, one of the best of the movie! A young girl and an older man discuss their future and her fear for a certain man... Cuaron does a great directing job, and the actors are amazing! QUARTIER DES ENFANTS ROUGES - an American actress (Gyllenhaal) falls in love with her drug dealer. a beautiful segment again, with a very sad ending PLACE DES FETES - a woman comes to a homeless man, he starts talking romantic to her... because she is the love of his life. Beautiful, sad, shocking, romantic,... Place des Fêtes will make everyone cry.<br /><br />PIGALLE - a boring sequence between Ardant and Hoskins, who are looking for new thrills in their relationship... very unfunny and unromantic, Pigalle is a let-down.<br /><br />QUARTIER DE LA MADELEINE - bringing some diversity in the movie, QdlM is a relief. A young guy (Wood) finds a vampire killing a victim... The tourist and the vampire... fall in love! Dark, scary and oddly romantic, Madeleine is superb.<br /><br />PERE-LACHAISE - another let-down segment. Directed by Wes Craven and with stars as Mortimer and Sewell, it could have been great, but Père-Lachaise is just ordinary, not original at all.<br /><br />FAUBOURG SAINT-DENIS - the rumors are TRUE, Twyker's short film is beautiful, stunning and well done. A blind man picks up the phone, and hears from his girlfriend (Portman - truly stunning) that she breaks up with him. He reflects on their relationship.<br /><br />QUARTIER Latin - even though this segment has been co-directed by Depardieu and has such stars as Rowlands, Gazzara and Depardieu, this segment is a let-down too. Nothing happens, lack of chemistry between the actors.<br /><br />14TH ARRONDISSEMENT - the last sequence is hilarious and sad at the same time. An American tells in her French class about her trip to Paris. Her French is truly terrible, but at the end of the segment, she realizes that Paris is so much more than meets the eye.<br /><br />With Feist on the background, "Paris, je t'aime" ends in a sweet tone, not letting me down at all, even though some segments bored the hell out of me, the entity of the movie is great! A true cinematic experience for young and old. Paris, je t'aime vraiment!

This series premiered on the cable TV station "Comedy Central" in the United States. It was chopped to death, and shown out of sequence. This was sad for the audience it should have attracted, it didn't and fell by the wayside. Luckily, at the same time my cable company went digital and I got the BBC. Thank goodness because I got to see "The League of Gentlemen" in order, complete and uncut. <br /><br />"The League of Gentlemen" troupe is right up there with England's "Monty Python's Flying Circus" and Canada's "The Kids in the Hall". But..a warning.<br /><br />"The League of Gentlemen" though are one step beyond. It's not only about dressing in drag and lampooning the cultural ills, it goes deeper and much, much, darker. I can tell many of you now -- it will offend certain groups of people, it will enrage others. But remember, its only comedy..dark, dark comedy. If that is not your thing, don't watch. If you think you KNOW dark comedy, watch this -- if you get angry and upset, then you don't quite know DARK COMEDY. <br /><br />These guys got it right, and right on the button. They are brilliant, they are excellent and I enjoyed each and every character creation. There's a COMPLETE story that is told here from episode one to the end. You cannot watch this one episode at a time, willy nilly, that is one of the charms of this series. Watch it in order. See how creative and stylish and deeply disturbed these guys are. No one and nothing is out of bounds. That, my dears, is "dark humor". Bravo!

Saw this at the Hawaii Film Festival where the director and his wife (who produced it) took a Q&A afterwards.<br /><br />I found it hard to believe this is a first time director and all kudos to Harvey Keitel for once again taking a risk and going out on a limb for a script he liked.<br /><br />Certainly reminiscent of Cinema Paradiso, it tells the story of the young director on the turning of the revolution in Cuba. However, don't expect this to be a movie about the revolution, it's political stance is wonderfully ambiguous. Many references to the directors obvious love of film history (a great "Bicycle Thief" homage") and some whimsical scenes which work with out being pretentious.<br /><br />Enjoy!

This is a sprawling (4 hours) remake of the Rider Haggard story, with the usual added female and an extraneous subplot with Russian soldiers seeking a "Stone of Power" buried along with the treasure of King Solomon. It's very well shot, giving a vivid sense of the wide open spaces of Africa, and very well acted. Patrick Swayze is an excellent Alan Quatermain, and Allison Doody is attractive as Elizabeth Maitland, who hires Quatermain to help rescue her father. Sidede Onyulo as Umbopa, Gavin Hood as McNabb and the leader of the Russian soldiers (not named in IMDb's listing) are also memorable. For all that Hollywood can't leave a good story alone when they adapt it, this one is well told and, except that it's too long, I enjoyed it. 6/10.

I saw "Myra Breckinridge" when it first came out in 1970. I was a healthy 20-year-old at the time, who loved movies and really liked Raquel Welsh. On top of that, I had read the Gore Vidal novel it was based on and thought it was very funny. I saw the movie at a local drive-in and about half way through I was sorely tempted to turn the motor of my car on so that maybe I'd die of monoxide poisoning and not have to see the rest of this shipwreck of a movie. It wasn't "smart" or "trendy", it was gross and sloppy. All the actors were tone deaf and the director didn't have the slightest idea what he was doing. The casting of Mae West was one of the worst casting choices in movie history. As one reviewer here said, her role had nothing to do with the movie or book. Her character in the book is sexually beaten up by the young stud, which would never do for the legendary Ms. West. Oh no, the plot is changed so she sexually beats HIM up, very believable from a 77-year-old woman who looks every DAY of her age. I could go on, but why? It was an awful movie.<br /><br />Bluto

I turned this on to see the incredible Ethel Waters, whose autobiography I am now reading. I'll admit my jaw dropped when the pork chops and watermelon references started rolling in, but people cannot look at this movie as a stereotypical or racist piece. It's pretty much a short film made by blacks, for blacks at a time when the entertainment industry was quite segregated and the stereotypes to the people involved were the jokes of their time, old trends exaggerated for humor. We see modern black movies do the same thing, but with the new trends (stereotypes), "ho's" and the "hood" and such. I think if you look back in eighty years, you would find today's movies will look just as racist. What viewers should appreciate about this film is the talent of Waters and the pint-sized Sammy Davis Jr., who out taps his contemporary, Shirley Temple, and looks remarkably the same facially as he did as an adult. Everyone involved in this film clearly had a lot of fun making it. Why not enjoy it for what it is, instead of what you think it should have been?

When Melville's "Pierre; or The Ambiguities" hit bookstores in 1852, his first publication since "Moby Dick" a year earlier, the public response was similar to that found among the IMDB reviews of "POLA X". Newspapers even published headlines like: "Melville Insane!" which, of course, he wasn't. But, when one compares the writing styles found in "Moby Dick" and "Pierre," one finds in the latter a sharp departure from the simple and often declamatory style found in the former. Clearly, he was mimicking the overly florid style of the now-forgotten Victorian Romances that were easily outselling his immortal "Moby Dick." He was not content, however, to turn out the sort of product that his publishers wanted, and that surely would have sold. His version of a Victorian romance was a twisted, cynical one, perhaps, but brilliant in its synthesis. The alternate title: "The ambiguities" is quite appropriate. As Pierre searches for, and thinks he finds, truth, we become more and more uncertain what and whom to believe. As he searches for happiness, he becomes more and more miserable.<br /><br />"POLA X" is a fascinating adaptation of this novel, set in modern or nearly modern France. Though, in some ways, it leaves little to the imagination, and shows us graphically the incestuous relations that Melville could only hint at, the ambiguities which make the novel and its message so alluring are perfectly in tact. The questions it raises are ones that few films have thought to ask, yet the answers are left to the viewer.<br /><br />I recommend a reading of the novel, which is much shorter than "Moby Dick," before seeing this movie. I hope more people discover this tantalizing film.

This film is mediocre at best. Angie Harmon is as funny as a bag of hammers. Her bitchy demeanor from "Law and Order" carries over in a failed attempt at comedy. Charlie Sheen is the only one to come out unscathed in this horrible anti-comedy. The only positive thing to come out of this mess is Charlie and Denise's marriage. Hopefully that effort produces better results.

This movie was an embarrassment. Ulma Thurman looked like she had some kind of disease and John Travolta looked like he was walking in his sleep. I was expecting this to be a so-so sequel to Get Shorty not a half-baked remake of the exact same movie (except that some of the character's have different names and clothes)<br /><br />I would not recommend this to movie to my worst enemy. I feel like I was ripped off and Hollywood has once again tricked me into seeing another horrible sequel ( I also suffered through Alien Vs. Predator).<br /><br />The best thing that I can say about this movie is that it has my vote for the worst movie of 2005!

This totally odd-ball feature is a typical and prime example of satanically shocking 70's horror. The events are thoroughly confusing and it takes up quite a while before you figure out what the hell is going on, but the brooding atmosphere sucks you in immediately. Right from the indescribably bizarre intro, showing a couple of eerie children turning toys into real-life war machinery, you just know this become an uncompromising and gritty shocker. "Brotherhood of Satan" soon appears to be another installment in the alleged & unofficial "creepy little town hiding a dark secret" sub genre. A young widower, traveling with his new yummy girlfriend and 8-year-old daughter, stops in a remote little town to report a car accident they witnessed on a nearby highway. The villagers behave very hostile and insist the visitors on leaving right away. The town clearly bathes in an ambiance of fear and panic, as local children vanish inexplicably vanished and unnatural forces maintain everyone within the boundaries of town. Hillsboro is in the grip of a satanic cult, apparently ruled by the elderly members of the community. I really liked "Brotherhood of Satan" a lot. The story reminded me of a novel written by John Saul, but I can't remember the title. It also dealt with a cult of elderly people abusing youthful villagers for their own greedy merits. The film mainly relies on creepy scenery (like dolls and witchcraft relics) but a slightly more involving and coherent screenplay would have been nice. The subject matter often raises a lot of issues and questions, and director Bernard McEveety can't always provide us with answers. The climax is terrific, very seventies (meaning shocking) and unforgettable. Beautifully shot film, too.

I really can't believe this movie is not in the IMDB worst 250, it is absolutely terrible. When I originally saw it I remember talking about it in a college class and two other people had also seen it. We were all telling other class members not to see it because it was so horrible. By the time we were done some others wanted to see it just because they could not believe anything was as bad as we were saying it was. Don't be like them, just pass this by. I'm sure everyone involved with this movie would also prefer you never see them in this movie.

Well, I have not much to say about this film except that it was a truly wonderful film. Natalie Portman is absolutely fantastic as the daughter in this lovely mother-daughter relationship film. <br /><br />Beautiful film.

Directed by Jacques Tourneur (Cat People, Out of the Past, Night of the Demon) and written by Phillip Dunne (How Green was My Valley) Anne of the Indies is a quite interesting adventure pirate movie. Its main character of captain Anne Providence is based on a real woman-pirate Anne Boney who actually lived and sailed through 18th century's Atlantic.<br /><br />The film begins with the sea battle where Anne's (Jean Peters) pirate ship attacks a trade ship that was on its way to Europe from the South America. As a result a treasure of great value is captured along with a handsome French officer Pierre La Rochelle (Louis Jourdan), who is taken prisoner. Anne ends up falling in love with him and apparently her feelings are reciprocated but it's only till she sets him free when she discovers that he has a beautiful young wife Molly (Debra Paget) with whom he pretty much in love with. Anne begins planning revenge on both of them but in an unexpected twist of fate ends up making a great sacrifice in order to save them instead. The pirate movie cliché figure of `Black Beard' also makes his appearance here, this time played by Thomas Gomez.<br /><br />Though Anne of the Indies probably appears to be no more nor less than a revisiting of pirate movie clichés, it still has its classical moments in beautiful visuals and sea battle sequences filmed in Technicolor as well as in some aspects of the story and most of all in personal touches in directing of all of it by Jacques Tourneur. 7/10

Simon West's remake of the 1979 horror classic is a pathetic attempt to bring old school thrills to a contemporary audience. Starring talented teen Camilla Belle, When a Stanger Calls fails to even elicit a shocked, or even surprised face. Poor attempts at scaring the audience range from blurred coats that look like people to building the tense music up for a cat running out of the shadows. The plot follows Jill Johnson (Belle), a teenage girl that has to pay off a bill to her father via babysitting. She is invited to work for the night at a house by the river, and thinks it a perfectly easy way to make cash. But little does she know, a stranger lurks in the house, and constantly harasses Johnson via the phone. A pathetic excuse for a film.

for my opinion, the middle of the film, specially the love scene is a bit too long, but the whole time you can imagine this desert feeling. but the best, what made this film unforgettable are the great explosion pictures, their color, slowmotion and the pink floyd music are unique in filmhistory!<br /><br />destruction in its propper and popular form.

I usually really enjoy Steven Seagal movies. They are usually highly entertaining and being somewhat of an adept of Aikido, I usually like the way Steven incorporates these martial art techniques in the fight sequences.<br /><br />However this film is a really bad movie making effort and it seems obvious to me that the blame lies with the director and the producers who obviously have no idea how to make an action movie, let alone direct someone like Steven Seagal and to take advantage of his knowledge and competence.<br /><br />I never saw the end of this movie. I walked out before the end simply because I couldn't stand watching anymore of this bad movie. I am sure that many people also share my feelings.

I don't know what the Oscar voters saw in this movie, but they must of seen some pretty hard stuff to see in it to be able to award it with the best picture Oscar. All I know is that fortunately there was Gene Kelly to play in it or this would have been twice as bad as I believe it is. First of all, I don't think Leslie Caron was really fit to play such a role. She isn't that talented, she isn't a great dancer and she's not good looking at all. It's a shame that one actor or actress may ruin a movie just like by playing in it because if Leslie Caron hadn't been in this, it might have made a terrific movie. The story was intelligent, the directing wasn't bad, and, as I said, Gene Kelly was pretty good. Now I'm not saying all this stuff about Leslie Caron just to criticize her, I'm just saying it because I think that's what the worse part of the movie is. She's probably a good actress but I can't tell because I haven't seen her in anything else but I think she was pretty bad in "An American in Paris". So if you want to see it, go ahead but I'm telling you, you're way better off watching "Singin' in the rain".

The End of Suburbia is an important documentary about modern dependence on cheap energy and the coming peak in world oil production. The film is an excellent introduction to the peak oil phenomenon, and includes interviews with experts like adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney's 2001 Energy Task Force. Mathew Simmons, author Richard Heinberg, "Powerdown - Options and Actions for a Post-Carbon World" and author Michael T. Klare, "Blood and Oil - The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum.<br /><br />"Economic growth is predicated upon more electricity. Electricity is predicated on hydro-carbon energy. Period. And Mathew Simmons made a very clear statement, he said: "Future growth is not possible". And for a guy from his background to say that was one of the most.. that's like the catholic church saying the earth is round before Galileo" - Michael C. Ruppert <br /><br />"The peak has happened. And now, instead of being prophets, we're now historians." - Kenneth Deffeyes

I liked this movie because it told a very interesting story about living in a totally different world at the south pole. Susan Sarandon is such a good actor, that she made an interesting, strong character out of mediocre writing. The true story displays a devastating situation for her character to overcome.

Kurt Russell is at his best as the man who lives off his past glories, Reno Hightower. Robin Williams is his polar opposite in a rare low key performance as Jack Dundee. He dropped the Big Pass in more ways than one.<br /><br />You'll see some of the most quotable scenes ever put into one film, as Jack hisses at a rat, Reno poses, and the call of the caribou goes out.<br /><br />Don't miss this classic that isn't scared to show football in the mud the way it should be played.

Another Asian horror movie packed with intense, and creepy moments. Another Asian horror trademark is the complexity of the plot, which is here as well. MAJOR SPOILER WARNING!<br /><br />The movie starts pretty simple - two sisters go to live with their dad and stepmother after being put in a mental institution after their mother hanged herself. The sisters seem very hostile towards their mother - especially the elder one - and they seem to ignore their father. All goes smoothly until the mother locks the young sister in the wardrobe and the elder sister tells her father. Then it hits you, "your sister has been dead for years now" It turns out the older sister is still not recovered from the death of her mother and what we didn't know is that the wardrobe the mother was hanged in fell on the younger sister and killed her as well.As for the stepmother she is the alter ego of the older sister - revealed when the stepmother (actually the sister's alter ego) is sitting on a couch when the real stepmother walks in! I hope it has been made clearer for confused Asian horror fans out there.<br /><br />Finally - my favourite scene is the scene where the father invites friends over for dinner and one of the friends starts to choke which erupts into a panic attack. Very creepy! 7 out of 10

Ok so I was bored and I watched it all the way through.<br /><br />This film is mild, inoffensive and lacklustre. The story is so sugary it rots your teeth on the opening titles. A tail of two 'traumatised' children learning about 'God' the fairy story way which frankly left me rather traumatised. It uses the Irish 'blarney' in such a stereotypical way one hopes no true Irish ever see it. Aimed at children who frankly would switch off after the first attempt at an 'OIRISH' accent. All in all why do they pump these out.

I hated the first movie is really boring and we only get see the Octopus at the end. <br /><br />The plot Dead bodies are being found in the New York harbor. The police have no clues nor suspects until Nick and his colleague realize the killer is a giant octopus. Everybody, especially the police captain, refuses to believe Nick's story, and soon the harbor will be filled with boats for the 4th of July celebrations...<br /><br />In this movie we get to see more of the Giant Octopus and Special effects for this movie are really good for it's time.<br /><br />The acting is this movie not bad but not great too but okay and watch able. <br /><br />The are some really cheese scenes to movie but if can get past that, You should enjoy the rest of movie. <br /><br />5/10

"Oh, you pilots are such men." "They don't call it the cockpit for nothing, honey." Dialogue like that is just one of many reasons why The Concorde… Airport '79 (or, if you saw it in the UK where it dragged its heels getting released there, Airport '80: The Concorde) was the last and by far the least of the series. The disaster movie was in dire straits in the late70s, what with The Swarm having offered much unintentional hilarity and Beyond the Poseidon Adventure, When Time Ran Out and City on Fire simply offering much boredom, and the desperation to find a new spin on the genre is all too apparent here. This time it's a conspiracy plot, with Susan Blakely's news anchorwoman discovering billionaire boyfriend Robert Wagner has been selling arms to terrorists and the North Vietnamese. Naturally, she decides to tell him everything rather than make the story public, but, he fobs her off by explaining "I'm a very rich man. I have everything in life I could ever want. Why would I jeopardise that by doing something so incredibly stupid?" Just in case she doesn't buy that line, rather than, say hire a hit-man to kill her on the ground, he decides to do things the smart way by planning to destroy the Concorde while she's flying to Moscow via Paris. "I've done a lot of things I've been ashamed of, but I am not a murderer," he insists indignantly on his way to reprogramme a guided missile to destroy the plane. So, nothing incredibly stupid there. And when that fails, he sends a jet fighter after it. And when that fails… <br /><br />Don't even think of looking for anything resembling logic here: this is real bottom-of-the-barrel stuff that even the studio gave up on and marketed as a comedy in the US after critics laughed it off the screen. Where the previous three entries all had the look of glossy big-budget entertainments, this small-screen friendly effort (the only one not to be shot in 2.35:1 widescreen) doesn't even manage to make the Concorde look good, which is quite a feat. TV veteran David Lowell Rich presumably got the directing gig because he was fast, cheap and had previously directed TV movie SST: Disaster in the Sky where Peter Graves' supersonic airplane found itself unable to land due to sabotage and Senegalese flu (which was not, intentionally at least, a comedy despite the presence of a young Billy Crystal in the cast) and seemed like the natural choice for what looks like a $14m TV movie that somehow escaped into theatres when no-one was looking.<br /><br />Cast like a bad episode of Hollywood Squares, stars are in very short supply this time round, and most of the few vaguely familiar faces seem to have been rounded up from rehab clinics and busted sitcoms. Alain Delon gives the Hollywood career that one last shot as the pilot, "Happy Fish" (don't ask) George Kennedy moves from the executive suite to the co-pilot's seat in the hope of reminding people of the other movies, while the rest of the ensemble includes a couple of veterans of The Towering Inferno (Wagner and Blakely), a soft-porn star (Sylvia Kristel, trying to go respectable), an Ingmar Bergman regular (Bibi Andersson – and she's the one playing the hooker!), David Warner's navigator on a diet having nightmares about being chased by bananas, the voice of the Devil (Mercedes McCambridge), Charo and her Seeing Eye Chihuahua ("Dohn miscon-screw me"), Martha Raye and her weak bladder, Jimmie Walker playing the sax in his seat and smoking weed in the john (in the few moments its not occupied by Martha Raye), Cicely Tyson kissing her credibility goodbye as the obligatory mother with critically ill child and a frozen heart in the overhead locker, airline owner Eddie Albert and trophy wife Sybil Danning occupying the best seat in the house, Ed Begley Jr in goggles, and the Russian Olympic team and their lovable coach Val Avery and his deaf daughter (ahhhh!) on a goodwill tour of the States (who knew about the boycott?). Just to add a touch of The Simpsons to proceedings, Harry Shearer voices one news report in the same tones he'd later use for Smithers.<br /><br />Highlight? Despite the impromptu wedding ceremony during a crash landing, it just has to be George Kennedy diverting a heat-seeking missile by opening the window, sticking his arm out (at nearly twice the speed of sound!) and firing a flare – while the plane is upside down! And then Alain Delon turns off the engines so there won't be a "heat source" for the missiles to home in on… Yes, someone actually got paid for writing this, and that someone was future Oscar winner and screenwriter of Munich and The Insider Eric Roth (hey, everybody has to start somewhere), although in his defence it was producer Jennings Lang who came up with the plot. Still, what do you expect from a film that credits stunt balloonists and ends with a shot of the Concorde flying off into the sunset? Amazingly, in one of those won't admit defeat moments studios used to be prone to, Universal shot another 20 minutes or so of footage a couple of years later to include in the network TV showings (not included on the DVD). Sadly its box-office failure led to the fifth entry in the series, the laugh-riot that would have been Airport 1984: UFO, never getting off the ground. Even more genuinely tragically, it was the Concorde used in this film that crashed in France 21 years later.<br /><br />(Oh, and if you're wondering what Charo says to her Chihuahua in unsubtitled Spanish when it's not allowed on board, it's "What do you think? Don't worry. When the revolution comes, I promise you will fly on anything you want. I promise. What a shame, my love. What do they think they are?")

If you were ever a fan of MTV"s "The State," then these three guys will be familiar to you. But even if you only stumbled upon them via the internet like I did, you will soon come to appreciate their unique brand of comedy.<br /><br />Born out of their stand up comedy trio, 'Stella', Michael Ian Black, Michael Showalter and David Wain produced these brilliant vignettes of surreal comedy to display at their shows, and now after being available only to download from two websites, they appear in pristine glory on one DVD.<br /><br />Think comedy sketch show sans censorship, and you'd be halfway there. No stone of decency is left unturned. But for those who like their comedy rude, self-indulgent and bordering on puerile, (and I mean that in the most flattering way) this is the DVD for you!<br /><br />I think it's worth the money for the commentary from the two Michaels and David alone, you can't help but take a liking to them as they explain their actions, cringe at their own antics with sex toys and by turn pat each other on the back and hurl abuse.<br /><br />Fantastic.<br /><br />It must say something for the appeal of Stella that the likes of Julie Bowen and Paul Rudd are willing to throw themselves into the action so fearlessly. And you should follow their fine example, throw preconceptions to the wind, and prepare to laugh yourself sick.

I'm a fan of the horror movie, regardless of which hemisphere it comes from. I know what to expect from the West, the East and most horrors in the middle. So I received the DVD of 'Acacia' in the post and looked forward to a slow build of ever increasing tension and scary children with odd, disjointed movements hiding under duvets.<br /><br />The major selling point for this film was that it has a far more linear story line than many of this ilk - you get who the characters are, where they are from and what they do. You get the baseline information (nice couple, can't have children) and realise that the premise is just too normal for something freaky NOT to happen.<br /><br />And then comes the bad. The number one complaint is that the story is OBVIOUS. I got it pretty much the moment the kid hugged the tree. I knew where the film was going and was even able to predict the order of death and for what reason.<br /><br />The editing is shocking and unfortunately, not to the benefit of the film. Even were I still pondering the events, tension isn't allowed to build because the director seems to have gotten a new editing suite for his birthday and wanted to use it as much as possible.<br /><br />And my final gripe is this....the tree was unnecessary. This would have been a perfectly good tale of subtle horror with just the couple breaking down over the death of the child - the titular tree bought nothing new or exciting to the film. So I'll finish where I started - my overall impression was 'Oh.'

I've noticed that a lot of people who post on the "Kerching!" board seem to hate this show, which I actually find very surprising. I think it's one of the best British kids' shows there is. It's a shame it's ending because it's very funny (if a bit cheesy sometimes) and has great characters. The main character is a little like Del Boy, although quite a lot smarter. With his 2 best friends he tried to make a million pounds for his mum by starting an online business and adopting a pseudonym of "Rudeboy". His friends are Seymour (who likes to cook) and Danny (who is simple minded and the comic relief character). Throughout the show, some characters have left and new ones have come in, but it's always been entertaining and improving.

And believe me that's a pretty stunning accomplishment. Take "Jolly Roger: Massacre at Cutter's Cove," change the killer from a pirate to a prospector, change his obsession from buried treasure to old gold, and his color from puke green to deep blue. You now have "Miner's Massacre." The problem is, at least "Jolly Roger" was entertaining enough -- albeit in a so-bad-it's-good way -- to keep you watching it for the whole two hours. There's no strip-joint-murder scene or any bizarre killings. I can't tell you how many times I lost interest in "Miner's Massacre" and started doing dishes or cleaning around the condo. And, the ending is absolutely silly. The 49er dude just randomly re-appears out of nowhere to kill the local sheriff, while the lead actor and actress are sitting in the sheriff's cruiser, screaming. A truly horrible movie.

Pegg has had a few hits in the past few years, starting with "Shaun Of The Dead" in 2004, movie on to "Hot Fuzz 2007", early 2008 he came out with "Run Fat Boy Run" and now comes this, "How To Lose Friends And Alienate People" which is in many ways one of my favourite comedy's of the year.<br /><br />The film is about Sidney Yound, a man who writes a failing magazine who makes fun of celebrity's mostly because he is not one of them. Anyway, one of the most successful magazine owners (Played By Jeff Bridges) invites him (Out of nostalgia) to work at his magazine. Sidney is of course excited and moves to America, there he meets a girl currently writing a book, and hilarity ensues.<br /><br />This film is great and I hope more come out like it in the near future. Pegg has once again given people everywhere another good film and I cant wait to the see the third part of the blood and ice cream trilogy "Paul". I Rate this film 81%.

I saw this film much like Skywalker02 did, but when I could manage to see it again and with formal film training, psychology, and life has had the time to really take me by the hand and start beating me about,..I really click with the film. I remember the pay for service cable channels played this thing almost to death, much like poltergeist when it first came out, and many other popular films. I felt back then it wasn't worth the fuss and constant "airtime" (I know cable isn't really on air) given it, but I was very young and adult situation drama wouldn't have and shouldn't have worked. However, recent viewing of the film has enlightened me on the film. I think that Susan Surandon and Molly Ringwald were likely studying the script together, and I would be a bit surprised if Surandon had coached Ringwald during this project. Ringwald's other projects, while good, do not have her exhibiting the potential depth as this role. Surandon nailed hers, as Raul Julia did also. Cassavettes and wife delivered acceptable performances, but I will admit at times first class acting turns to mediocre. A steady ebb and flow to the acting does take place during many scenes, but overall I can see why the story might call for the dynamic to become more subtle.<br /><br />All in all, I don't find this film to be the "take me out and drown me" kind of boredom fest as Skywalker02 would have you believe. I think that perhaps with the right psychological training and a bit more hardship in one's domestic life strategically placed, coupled with some film courses perhaps this film would appear different. I would say if you are feeling a bit melancholy and yearn for a simpler life, and you have had your share of marital discord amongst dysfunctional family units, then perhaps this film might provide more insight and entertainment than you might think. I do feel it is a classic and find it much more entertaining than mainstream films that are supposed to share many of the same elements, such as Terms of Endearment which as far as I am concerned could be stripped of a few extraordinary performances by Jack Nicholson, then ceremoniously burned until nothing is left. (How could a film like that get more attention than this one. Talk about boredom.)Best thing, don't take my word or anyone else's, see the film and support our industry.

The plot of this movie is set against the most terrible war in history of mankind: the violent clash between Adolf Hitler's Germany and Soviet Russia, from 1941-'45.<br /><br />With the western areas of their country thoroughly devastated, and 20 to 30 million Russian people killed, the vibes of this conflict can be felt in Russia up to the present day. Let alone back in 1957, when memories were still very fresh and painful.<br /><br />This very black setting strongly contrasts with the fine and coherent style of 'Letjat zhuravli's' beautiful shots. Its simple story deals with human behaviour in times of war: bravery, love, patriotism, weakness, cowardice and corruption. All beautifully tied together by a toy-squirrel.<br /><br />Add to this the truly magnificent acting, and it's easy to understand why this movie is so famous. Really, one of the very best ever made. <br /><br />

Certainly this film is not for everybody---but for anyone with a sense of humor and love of period film Ð buy this immediately! Where else can you get a run down of 70Õs fashion, a period vocabulary primer, karate trained hookers, crime, a rap about the TitanicÕs sinking, shoot outs, and a co-star named Queen Bee (watch for her moving crying scene early on in the wardens office!) With a filming style thatÕs a cross between a porno movie/Dawn of The Dead/ and Car Wash, you cannot go wrong. This is one to watch over and over againÉafter you put the kids to bed.

I agree with what so many others have said about the shallow and offensive nature of this film's examination of racism. It is baffling to me that so many people seem to have been fooled by its pretentiousness. I want to comment on the Matt Dillon character as an example of what's most infuriating about this movie. Here we have a man who -- contrasted with the film's underlying message that "we're all a LITTLE racist" -- effectively rapes a woman in public, cruelly humiliating her husband and deliberately goading him to make a move that, as he well knows, will lead to his arrest or even death. He does all this after pulling the couple over without any legal cause but because, as we come to understand, they are black and wealthy and he is a hurt little boy who is now the police and can therefore do as he pleases. This behavior is not a LITTLE racist. This behavior is evil. It is disturbing to me that this extreme of racism is held up next to another character's behavior -- spouting her paranoid stereotypes about gang violence -- to illustrate that everybody's a LITTLE racist. Later, we're spoon-fed some tripe about Dillon's poor old dad and how black folks drove him into the poor house. Is this supposed to explain, or worse, excuse this behavior? And is Dillon's character meant to redeem himself by committing the utterly unmotivated and unbelievable, laughably coincidental act of saving the woman he sexually assaulted the very night before? Please. The fact that so many people seem to feel some kind of self-congratulatory admiration for this film makes me feel sad about the shallowness of our understanding of racism, and our apparent lack of commitment to condemning and ending it.

The concept of having Laurel & Hardy this time in the role of chimney sweepers works out surprisingly hilarious. It guarantees some funny situations and silly antics, from especially Stan Laurel of course as usual.<br /><br />The movie also has a subplot with a nutty professor who is working on a rejuvenation formula. It doesn't really sound like a logical mix of story lines and incoherent but both plot lines blend in perfectly toward the memorable ending. It's still a bit weird but its funny nevertheless, so it works for the movie.<br /><br />The supporting cast of the movie is surprising good. Sam Adams is great as the stereotypical butler and Lucien Littlefield goes deliciously over-the-top as the nutty professor.<br /><br />The movie is filled with some excellent timed and hilarious constructed sequences, which are all quite predictable but become hilarious to watch nevertheless thanks to the way they are all executed. It all helps to make "Dirty Work" to be one of the better Laurel & Hardy shorts.<br /><br />8/10

Pokemon 3 is little more than three or four episodes of the TV series, strung together without the usual commercials. The story is typical of Pokemon (conflict, fighting, and a resolution where all are happy in the end), and there is nothing original or unusual in the animation. Some of the holes in the plot are filled in (over the closing credits!) without explanation, and everything is just a bit too sweet.<br /><br />Why see it on the big screen? The only reason is to be a part of your child's world. Both of my sons enjoy Pokemon, and by my showing an interest in what they like, we are closer. Seeing a film in a theatre is still different than seeing it on the tube, and my sons enjoy the full movie-going experience. I gave the movie a 4, mostly from my children's point of view.<br /><br />

This representation of the popular children's story on film is pretty pathetic to watch. I know it is one of the earliest efforts at moviemaking, but this 15-minute picture is unimaginative and poorly shot. "The Great Train Robbery" (1903), which I also commented on, is much more creative and exciting to watch.<br /><br />We see little long-haired Jack trade a cow (2 men in a cow-suit) for a hatful of beans from a merchant and later a beanstalk grows from where his mom throws them in the yard (I guess poor Jack attained the wrong kind). Jack dreams of a goose (actually it seems to be a chicken) and golden egg and the next day climbs the stalk into heaven.<br /><br />There is no effort made to be creative in this film. The stalk looks like a rope with leaves on it, the giant is just a tall bearded guy in a home with nothing abnormally large in comparison to Jack and the climax to the film where Jack makes his escape with the goose-chicken and its golden egg is miserable as a stuffed dummy falls from out of screenshot in place of the giant and then the actor takes its place - rising up on his feet in a exaggerated death dance like in most early films. The beanstalk (leaf-covered rope) comes trailing down from above and coils neatly on the giants forehead.<br /><br />Watch something else.

This movie made me think....of how I could write something about it without personally dissing the director and all the actors, who, as an Australian, I am proud of for actually getting out there and making a film.<br /><br />But the movie itself? Let me tell you a story....<br /><br />Found this DVD in my local rental shop yesterday and had vague recollections of the reviews at the time of cinema release here, so I thought I would give it a go.<br /><br />For some reason, I decided to watch the 'special features' before I watched the actual movie, not something that I usually do. Turned the 'making of' off halfway through, as I'd had enough cringing at the 'aren't we so wonderful for putting together such a hard hitting film with such a raw script' attitude.<br /><br />The movie? Ugh. Full of clichés and pathetic character development. The actors? Well done guys, you are Aussies and I applaud you. And, just like a footy team is only as good as the coach that directs them, you unfortunately did NOT have a great script to work with.<br /><br />I felt that the movie actually trivialised so many of the subjects that it seemed to want to cover. I have seen many reviews here that refer to it as nothing more than a soap. Agreed.<br /><br />Finally (and forgive me if I don't phrase this correctly), I was extremely disappointed that there were no optimistic overtones at all. Yes, we all know that life is full of hard stuff, and yes we know that things such as incest DO occur, but I really find it hard to applaud a movie that has not one piece of joy in it. I believe that a director has a responsibility to put it in there SOMEWHERE. Otherwise, the movie is all about THEM and THEIR feelings, they have created it for themselves, not for an audience.<br /><br />Which I think is the basis of why this movie isn't so great. The special features mention that the director wrote the screenplay in a 36 hour sitting, the day after he himself tried to end his own life. Well, it may have been cathartic for him to do this, however the movie reeks of self-indulgence when you know the story behind why it was written. "I feel horrid, I'm going to write a movie about feeling horrid". (Note: I have read the interview with Andrew Urban, and understand WHY Thalluri needed to write something to help him through his own issues, but I believe there is a line in film that cannot be crossed - the line of making a movie purely for your own emotional needs, and I feel that this is what has unintentionally happened here)<br /><br />By his own admission, the director had no technical experience at all, and sadly, this makes the movie come off looking like nothing more than a year twelve media project.<br /><br />As for any recommendations that this movie should be studied at school, or that all teenagers should watch it - not sure there either. Because there is a VERY dangerous line at the end. I too have been in a place where I have thought that someone who no longer has to 'face life' is 'lucky', but as an adult, I do worry that this line could be influential on a young viewer that was in a vulnerable frame of mind. Might be in there to promote discussion, but again, it reflects no possibility of redemption or joy in this story as a whole. In fact, it almost indicates that there is more sadness to come.<br /><br />I haven't seen Elephant, but I just might go find it, given all the comparisons here.<br /><br />Nothing personal here guys, I do hope you can make another movie someday, and we all have to start out somewhere, so forgive me if I've been too harsh. I am glad that you are proud of what you created, which in the end is what life is all about. It's not a movie I would recommend though.<br /><br />Oh, I DID like the way the time-frames often collided, thought that was an interesting way to film. <br /><br />But the whole "Its the quiet ones you have to watch" - we already know that.

Pure schlock from beginning to end. The average 12 year old might find that it has an interesting take on discrimination. Otherwise, it's a pure camp-fest endurance test. Like one of those so-so episodes of Star Trek The Next Generation that thinks it has Something Important To Say.<br /><br />You'll see every plot twist a mile off in this by-the-numbers romp. However, it's worth seeing for its portrayal of drag-king prostitutes, a brothel where young women pay old men to have sex with them (how's that for role reversal), and lesbian soap operas. The ghost of Valerie Solanis lives!

I wasn't even born when this series was released in the USA. It took about another decade before British TV networks laid hold of it.<br /><br />In fact, I was fortunate enough to see the very first episode, in which The Lone Ranger was one of a posse who ran into an ambush and got slaughtered. TLR was the only survivor. Although badly wounded, he was saved by a passing Indian called Tonto. I believe he took to wearing a mask in order to hide his true identity for fear of reprisal. But instead he made himself all the more recognisable. Dunno if he wore it in his sleep.<br /><br />This was Saturday teatime staple. The fanfare bugles of William Tell's overture presaged a dash to the telly, food still in hand. Though it very quickly became repetitive, predictable hokum. Nobody ever unmasked him. Nobody ever landed a punch, nobody ever out-shot him. He was a little too good, and just a little too camp in his dress for most kids. Poor Tonto, on the other hand, became his Aunt Sally. He was always getting slugged and tied-up and kidnapped and stuff.<br /><br />And what did he keep calling The Lone Ranger? 'King Savvy' was the general consensus where I lived. It seemed to imply 'the big know-all' in Indian-speak. But is sounded like something else, as if Mr Silverheels had a speech defect. 'Kemosabe'; what the hell's that? <br /><br />A later, and less well-merchandised duo called 'The Range Rider' and 'Dick West' eventually won my vote. This featured a naked-faced Jock Mahoney who got beat-up pretty thoroughly in each episode and was altogether less camp, less super, and more believable.<br /><br />Still; even today I can't hear William Tell's overture without expecting the gallop of hooves and a hearty Hi-Oh Silver.<br /><br />Devine daftness.

it MIGHT have been a good movie if it had explored something more interesting rather than just the surface of a lesbian relationship if this was the meaning of the movie...it is quite predictable not mentioning that the two girls resemble the Russian group t.A.T.u....coincidence? i don't think so. There is nothing original in this movie to support it so they had to use something which is already famous.You know the recipe. The other actors...well,i just don't know what their role is supposed to be. Most of them are well - known people in Romania and i must mention some of them are not even actors(e.g.Mihaela Radulescu).SO to summarize it: "girl band tatty"+desperate/publicity needing "actors"+ a non-existing plot+ the occasion to use bad language in order to shock= Love sick....too bad...the idea was good,though...and i am seriously holding myself from commenting the title...

Prix de Beauté was made on the cusp of the changeover from silence to sound, which came a little later in Europe than in Hollywood. Originally conceived as a silent, it was released with a dubbed soundtrack in France, with a French actress speaking Louise Brooks' lines, but was released as a silent in Italy and other parts of Europe. I was lucky enough to see the Cineteca di Bologna's flawless new restoration of an Italian silent print at the Tribeca Film Festival. I haven't seen the talkie version yet, but I think it's safe to assume the silent version is much more satisfying, since by all reports the dubbing is poorly done (Louise Brooks is clearly speaking English, so there's no way her lips could be matched.) Also, the film is made entirely in the silent style, with few titles and little need for dialogue. Prix de Beauté tells its story visually, with exciting, imaginative camera-work. The opening is instantly kinetic, with rapidly-cut scenes of urban life and swimmers splashing at a public beach. Throughout the film there is an emphasis on visual detail, on clothing, machinery, decoration, and symbolic images such as a caged bird, a heap of torn photographs, a diamond bracelet. This is silent film technique at its pinnacle.<br /><br />Louise Brooks, of course, is responsible for saving the film from obscurity. Seeing this makes it only more heartbreaking to reflect that this was her last starring role. Lustrously beautiful, she dominates the film with her charisma and also gives a perfectly natural yet highly charged performance. Her role here, more than in the Pabst films for which she's best known, is a woman we can fully understand and sympathize with. She plays Lucienne Garnier, a typist with a possessive fiancé, who yearns to get more out of life and secretly enters a beauty contest, with immediate success. She is then torn between the excitement of her glamorous new life and her love for the man who insists she give it all up or lose him. All of the characters are drawn with nuance. The fiancé inspires pity and is not merely a brute: he loves Lucienne, but is a limited man who can't cope with her having a life apart from him or attracting the attentions of other men. Even the "other man" in the story is not the simple slimeball we first take him for, though his intentions may be just as possessive as the fiancé's.<br /><br />*************************WARNING: SPOILERS BELOW***************** <br /><br />The film has many fine set pieces, including Lucienne's triumph in the "Miss Europe" contest, shown through the comic reactions of assorted audience members, who wind up pelting the heroine with flowers; her misery as a housewife, peeling potatoes while the pendulum of the cuckoo clock marks time behind her; a nightmarish trip to a fun-fair (in the silent version, this occurs late in the film, after her marriage) at which Lucienne, crushed among the low-lifes and depressed by her husband's macho antics, decides that she can't go on with her present existence; and especially the final scene in the projection room where she views her talkie screen test. Louise Brooks may never have looked more beautiful than she does here, with the projector's beam flickering on her alabaster profile, her shoulders swathed in white fur, her face incandescent under the black helmet of hair as she watches herself singing on screen. The double shot of her exquisite corpse and her still-living image on the screen is particularly poignant: Louise Brooks' image, like Lucienne's, remains immortal despite her frustratingly aborted film career.

"War is in your blood" Rambo says early in the film, "don't fight it". Say, what? Is the scriptwriter taking the Mickey out of Sly? It is impossible for any person with a primary school education to miss the joke here. Yet, Stallone utters it without a hint of irony.<br /><br />The same lack of humour applies to the movie. Rambo IV is an over-the-top, idiotic actioner that would have been funny without intention if it weren't sickeningly violent. A redneck fantasy of the basest kind where villains are so villainous, it is not enough just to kill them – you have to dismember them with relish. Stallone stops at no blue-collar cliché to make his point. It is not enough for the chief villain to be feed-them-to-the-pigs, throw-babies-into-fire kind of sadist. He is also a pedophile homosexual.<br /><br />What is happening to IMDb? Is it taken over by the Rifle Society? How can this loathsome excuse for gross exploitation rate that high? I like a good action movie as much as the next man, but this is not entertainment – this is pornography of violence that trivializes and ultimately denigrates the real tragedy of Myanmar. The only good thing about the movie is that Sly doesn't take his shirt off. For this I will give it one star...

I went in to this thinking another gross movie with gross humor. Telling from my first sentence I don't like that humor and this movie had it's moments but I loved it. Justin Long has really never done comedy like this, where he's sarcastic and clever and I loved it. Lewis Black....enough said. The ending I really did love because It had to take itself seriously I mean how else would you end it? Yes it's another underdog story but not in your typical format and the movie wasn't their ups and downs, it was people coming together for one common goal, To go to college where they were accepted. The cast was amazing and yes I did laugh at loud when I didn't think I would and the laughter lasted longer then I thought to. The parents and sister played their roles well but their characters are put in when necessary. The movie was not focused around them but at the same time they showed up when you expect and not expect them to. They played in to the story very well, and I loved the familiar faces Anthony Heald(Boston Public), Jeremy Howard (I) (Galaxy Quest with Justin Long) Ross Patterson (The New Guy)and Sam Horrigan (Brink). Blake Lively added her certain something to the movie which made it even more enjoyable, as well as B's Friends. I recommend this movie to whoever hated those gross comedies of the last 4 years and really want something with humor and an actually story line!~!

It may be difficult to believe, but the basic plot of this abysmal flick has been lifted from Hitchcock's perennial classic, "Vertigo". To see Edward James Olmos in the part once played by James Stewart is heart-breaking; Sean Young is better, but still a poor substitute for Kim Novak.