Datasets:

mushroomsolutions

/

imdb_sentiment_3000_Test

like 0

Susan Seidelman seems to have had a decent career with a few top notch credits under her belt. I'm certainly glad she bounced back from this film which seems to have its admirers. I'm not one of them.<br /><br />I've seen better acting in high school plays than I did in Smithereens. The plot such as it is involved young Susan Berman who is ambitious to make it in the world of music and is willing to do just about anything to get there. She even rejects the sincere advances of a young artist who is living out of his van off the East River played by Brad Rijn.<br /><br />Young Mr. Rijn contributes the worst performance in the film, in fact one of the worst acting jobs I've seen in a long time. No wonder he's not gone anywhere.<br /><br />I will say that Seidelman's eye for the camera is a good one in capturing the familiar East Village locations where the film was mostly shot. But her work with her live performers didn't measure up. I'm not sure she had that much raw material to work with.<br /><br />Look fast and you'll see a very young Christopher Noth before Law and Order and Sex in the City as a street hustler.<br /><br />If you like punk rock, you might sit through this for the soundtrack. I'll stick to Bing Crosby.

Being an Elvis fan, I can't understand how this proyect could be done. Is by far the worst Elvis related movie of all time, totally unfunny, silly and plenty of mistakes about The King. Come on, Elvis' grave in a public park? A mention about Suspicious Minds in 1958?...and these are just two examples. Some people in the cast tries to do their best, Mike Starr is funny (specially as an impersonator), the Tom Hanks cameo is a surprise, but the guy playing the young Elvis sucks.Overall the movie lacks fun and becomes more boring minute after minute. If you want to see an ultra cheap, insane but absolutely funny little film related to Elvis, I truly recommend you "Bubba Ho-Tep" instead of this mess.

I don't think a movie like this would be released today. It takes it's time to present the depth of the characters and the plot isn't full of twists and turns to keep you on the edge of your seat.<br /><br />But, what this film does have: an interesting study in how families' deal with grief. How when the language for healing and over-coming tremendous loss leaves us mute, and we rely on raw emotions instead. Grief without reason and patience is anger, even hate. And unfortunately, the lead character (a young boy who accidently shoots and kills his brother while hunting) in the film is given more than his fair share of it. He eventually leaves and moves in with his grandfather (Wilford Brimley) who makes it clear to him that it WAS an accident. I got the impression that this young man knew that in his heart, but needed to hear those words from his parents, and to receive their forgiveness.<br /><br />What I loved about this film: the lack of dialog. There was a tremendous emphasis on physical reaction, facial expressions. And the slower pace of the film allows you to really watch the reactions of the actors. Something we don't get to do alot of with today's films.<br /><br />

I was a teenager when this first appeared in theaters, and I saw it in Japan. The film's plot wasn't my cup of tea as a high school sophomore, but I went to see it for the 3-D process. It had been ballyhooed in the press so that even service personnel overseas had heard of it, though it never screened at the Post theater.<br /><br />The film started the trend of throwing objects at the audience, which was taken to absurd levels with later 3-D films.<br /><br />I don't know whether this qualifies as a spoiler, but you've been warned if it is. In many films of the time, actors would often work in front of a "rear projection screen," where backgrounds could be projected to make it appear that they were in a different environment, such as a jungle background when the actors were actually on a sound stage. This works well on regular films, but when seen in 3-D, they look like a flat scene behind the actors. There were several scenes in the film where rear projection was used, and it didn't work well in the theaters. If seen in 3-D, it will constitute another disappointment.<br /><br />The film's only importance is historical, since it was the first of its kind.

I supposed I was actually expecting a Bollywood remake of "The Fog", from the title, but this is actually more of a Bollywood remake of "I Know What You Did Last Summer", with some elements of "Scream", kind of, sort of, and not a very good one either. Apart from a couple very entertaining song & dance numbers, this is pretty terrible. It's obviously got a decent budget & yet it's wasted on reheated leftovers that weren't that tasty to begin with. A young woman is threatened by a creepy guy to not enter a beauty contest, because he wants his sister to win (she, thankfully, doesn't look as creepy as her brother), but she enters anyway and wins, and of course the creepy guy comes after her, and is killed, after which comes a rousing game of "hide the body". Of course, the body disappears and no one seems to know why, but someone knows, and they're waiting for the end to reveal a ridiculous plot twist. Interspersed with all this tired rehash are a few nifty dance numbers, especially the celebratory dance number at the party for Simran, the girl who won the beauty contest...it's highly colorful, it's well done & downright fun, and utterly wasted in this terrible film. I would much rather watch an old Ramsay brothers movie than this piece of crap, although someone has deemed that these don't need to be made available, for the most part, which is a crime in itself. But not as big of a crime as this film. I took one for the team watching this one, so take my advice, don't bother. 2 out of 10.

I absolutely LOVED this movie as a child. I can't seem to find it anywhere! I was mentioning it to some friends just the other day, and not a single one of them remembers it! Can anyone help me out? My older sister vaguely remembers it. There was also another movie I remember that was half live action and half animation, but I can't remember the name of it. The characters were animated and the background was real...I seem to remember it being about a kangaroo, and I believe the setting of the film was in Australia. I'm going out of my mind trying to obtain copies of these films that were such a memorable part of my very enjoyable childhood. Edit: I searched IMDb for this other movie and found out it's called Dot and the Kangaroo! All I had to do was type in "kangaroo" in the search bar under characters, and the name of the movie in the list was like a bell going off! MAN, I love IMDb! Thanks!

It could have been a better film. It does drag at points, and the central story shifts from Boyer completing his mission to Boyer avenging Wanda Hendrix's death, but Graham Greene is an author who is really hard to spoil. His stories are all morality tales, due to his own considerations of Catholicism, guilt and innocence (very relative terms in his world view), and the human condition.<br /><br />Boyer is Luis Denard, a well-known concert pianist, who has sided with the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War. He has been sent to England to try to carry through an arms purchase deal that is desperately needed. Unfortunately for Denard he is literally on his own - everyone of his contacts turns out to be a willing turncoat for the Falagists of Spain. In particular Katina Paxinou (Mrs. Melendez) a grim boarding house keeper, and Peter Lorre (Mr. Contreras) a teacher of an "esperanto" type international language. Wanda Hendrix is the drudge of a girl (Else) who works for Mrs. Melendez. The local diplomat, Licata (Victor Francken) is already a willing associate of the Falangists.<br /><br />The Brits (Holmes Herbert, Miles Mander, and best - if not worst - of the lot, George Coulouris) don't give much hope to Boyer's cause (which he soon grasps may be Britain's before long). Herbert and Mander just retreat behind the official policy of neutrality ordered by the Ramsay MacDonald's and Stanley Baldwin's governments during the Civil War. Coulouris here is a typical Col. Blimp type - always impeccable in his native English diction, he is sharp in showing his dislike for foreigners in general.<br /><br />The one ray of hope is Lauren Bacall (Rose Cullen), here trying to play her role as well as she can - but she can't really. She's an aristocrat - the daughter of a Press lord. It was Bacall's second film, and (sad to say) almost sank her long career. She does act well, but the spark she showed in her first film was due to the dual effect of starring with Humphrey Bogart and being directed by Howard Hawks. Boyer is a fine actor, but he's not Bogie, and Herman Shumlin is not Hawks. Her next film returned her to Bogie and Hawks again, and her star resumed it's ascendancy.<br /><br />It's a bleak film (as was the novel). Boyer's mission never succeeds, as he has too many hidden foes all over the place. But the villains are likewise also losers - frequently with their lives.<br /><br />With Dan Seymour as a suspicious foreign tenant of Katina Paxinou (and the man who destroys her). It is well worth watching to catch the Warner's lot of character actors doing their best given the weakness in direction.

When I first read Armistead Maupins story I was taken in by the human drama displayed by Gabriel No one and those he cares about and loves. That being said, we have now been given the film version of an excellent story and are expected to see past the gloss of Hollywood...<br /><br />Writer Armistead Maupin and director Patrick Stettner have truly succeeded! <br /><br />With just the right amount of restraint Robin Williams captures the fragile essence of Gabriel and lets us see his struggle with issues of trust both in his personnel life(Jess) and the world around him(Donna).<br /><br />As we are introduced to the players in this drama we are reminded that nothing is ever as it seems and that the smallest event can change our lives irrevocably. The request to review a book written by a young man turns into a life changing event that helps Gabriel find the strength within himself to carry on and move forward.<br /><br />It's to bad that most people will avoid this film. I only say that because the average American will probably think "Robin Williams in a serious role? That didn't work before!" PLEASE GIVE THIS MOVIE A CHANCE! Robin Williams touches the darkness we all must find and go through in ourselves to be better people. Like his movie One Hour Photo he has stepped up as an actor and made another quality piece of art.<br /><br />Oh and before I forget, I believe Bobby Cannavale as Jess steals every scene he is in. He has the 1940's leading man looks and screen presence. It's this hacks opinion he could carry his own movie right now!!<br /><br />S~

I was pleasantly surprised with this one. It's actually quite interesting and engaging. The cast is strong, even Dan Cortese. Brooke Shields has come into her own as an actress. Black and White must have really set her free, 'cause I have never seen her in this much command playing a conventional character. If marketed right, could be a medium-size hit.

"Mame" is a disgrace to many things--to Lucille Ball, to a story which has been told better many times over, and to the musical genre altogether. Ms. Ball does not understand her character at all and she seems to be heavily sedated. Bea Arthur is good, but it is not enough. The production is very shoddy and cheap looking, the songs are sub-par, and nearly every joke misfires. Also, Lucy couldn't dance well, so the music had to be slowed down to a funerial pace. Avoid at all costs, but DO see the delightful "Auntie Mame."

It begins with a couple of disgusting sex-comedy gags, but soon it reveals its true colors: it wants to be a "Death Wish" clone. I say "wants to" because the script gets so increasingly laughable by the minute that it ends up looking like an absurdist "Death Wish" spoof! From a love scene in a room inexplicably filled with candles, to "heroes" who dress up as commandoes and wave their machine guns because they don't want to attract attention to themselves(!), to bad guys who drive around the city in a black van long after it has been recognized as their vehicle, this film has too many ludicrous points to fit in a list. The other major problem is that you can't tell most of the characters apart; of course, you know who Borgnine and Roundtree and even James Van Patten are, but all the other roles could have been played by different actors in various scenes, and you wouldn't know the difference. (*1/2)

"North & South" the television mini-series is to the 80's what "Rich Man, Poor Man" (the first-ever TV mini-series) was to the 70's.<br /><br />It's a fabulous adaptation of the first classic novel in the trilogy from author John Jakes. The story itself covers the two decades leading up to the years of the election of President Abraham Lincoln and the imminent proclamation of the Civil War - North versus South. The intertwining stories evolve around the families of the Hazards (the 'North' in the title) and the Mains and their two central figures of George and Orry who form a friendship whilst embarking on their West Point training in 1842.<br /><br />"North & South" is a wonderful historic timeline and as I have grown older (and wiser!) it very much interests me to learn about the contrasting attitudes to such controversial aspects as 'Slavery' and 'Abolitionists', and how these attitudes originated.<br /><br />The series also portrays some great characterisation development as we get to know about the friends and enemies in George and Orry's lives, and also the women that stole their hearts as young men. This aspect of the story also uncovers a romantic tale that is set to the turbulent backdrop of the American Civil War.<br /><br />"North & South", along with "Rich Man, Poor Man" is overshadowed by 1977's "Roots" as the greatest mini-series of all-time. However, it does come a close second/third and also shares the same kind of timeline and themes as "Roots". But, don't let this one get away, even if it's just to see the great scenery, costumes, and brilliant all-star cast including Gene Kelly, Johnny Cash, Elizabeth Taylor, James Stewart, Olivia De Havilland, Lesley-Anne Down et al. <br /><br />The series is beautifully crafted and is firmly tied to actual historic events and it's a pity the Emmys and Golden Globes didn't honour a lot more of the actors and actresses for their portrayals. Patrick Swayze and James Read, the two virtual unknown lead actors at the time, turn in compelling performances as Orry Main and George Hazard respectively. However, it's Kirstie Alley's riveting performance as George's 'Abolitionist' sister Virgilia that steals the show many times. Plus, Terri Garber, David Carradine and Philip Casnoff as Elkanah Bent are the delicious villains of the piece you just love to hate.<br /><br />"North & South" Books 1 & 2 are now available on two DVD sets.

My husband brought this home from the video store, so I could watch something while stuck home sick. The sort of sick where you could never concentrate on a book, but a sorta silly, light, romantic flick sounds just right (that, and a bowl of chicken soup). Well, he meant well.<br /><br />My first thought (as some others post here also) was that the house MUST be fake...it's not only isolated alone on the beach, but set on moorings into the loose sand, and so close to the ocean that the surf waves go directly under the house! This looks so obviously dangerous (in hurricane country, in THE FALL), so potentially disastrous that I was sure filmmakers had simply CGI'd the whole thing (or used movie magic to plunk a cute B&B into the surf).<br /><br />But I have to tell you guys, thanks to "teh interwebs", I can say that the house, "Serendipity" is very real, is indeed near Rodanthe and except for some window dressing and shrubs, appears mostly as it does in the film. You can rent it yourself, off season, for $1710 a week (or about $3850 in summer)! Go for it! But...interestingly, the house has severe problems. The second thing that struck me after "would be washed away" was "what about the plumbing/electrical? in that surf?", and sure enough, "Serendipity" was condemned for a break in the sanitation, caused by overwash from the ocean. (They are rebuilding.)<br /><br />And the house isn't from the "Civil War". Not to mention that Viola Davis, playing "cliché black best friend" (thankless role for a fine actress, last seen in "Doubt"), is not remotely old enough that her GRANDMOTHER could have built anything in the Civil War! HELLO! that was 150 years ago! Try great-great-GREAT! (In reality, "Serendipity" was built in 1988, laughably recently.) <br /><br />The basic film is built on a typical Nicholas Sparks weeper, which means a lot of coincidence and trite predictable happenstance. It is also aimed in a very pandering way towards "women" -- you know, us women who love B&Bs, fusty antiques and knick-knacks...who dream of romance and guys who look like Richard Gere and dancing in the moonlight. Don't give us plot, or thoughtful character development; just set up some mechanisms and bring on the love scenes!<br /><br />Gere plays a plastic surgeon, who lost a female patient during a routine surgery for a benign cyst on her cheek. Of course, she died of an overdose of ANESTHESIA, so you wonder right away why the surgeon is guilted up and not the anesthesiologist! HELLO! where is that guy? Why is the wrong doctor feeling guilty?<br /><br />Gere has come to pout and confront the woman's husband, and is staying at the remote B&B...who should be there, why the ONLY OTHER PERSON IN THE INN...Diane Lane! She's a lonely divorcée, with rotten kids, and an ex-hubby who wants her back. While she's trying to decide about that, the cliché best black friend has her subbing as hostess at the B&B.<br /><br />Now, in the real world, if this set up ever even happened, the doctor would look like Ernest Borgnine...and the lonely divorcée, like Rosie O'Donnell. He'd spend his vacation horndogging 22 year old girls on the beach, while she sulked and thought about going on a diet. But this isn't the real world; I digress.<br /><br />The couple confess all, fall in love, a hurricane hits...they make love, fall in love, he has to go away, he dies and she cries a lot about that. The end.<br /><br />There, I've saved you from it; now you don't have to torture yourself or any male acquaintances (husbands, sons, boyfriends) from sitting through this tripe. Very wearying.<br /><br />Someone else asked why Diane Lane, a perfect tiny woman (whom filmmakers seem to love to cast, because she's just pretty and thin enough that most women would like to look like her, but she's 45ish and not over-the-top, so she isn't threatening) is constantly covered in big tarp-like shawls. This would make sense if she was chubby, but she isn't.<br /><br />Anyways, someone throw a pretty, paisley shawl over this film. So we don't have to watch it. Conclusion: read a book, unless you are too sick. If too sick, go to sleep.

The best thing about the movie is the name, as it both describes the plot and the acting. At least they cannot say they didn't warn you... Kind of like the button labeled, "Don't push this".<br /><br />Segal must have run out of things that move like planes, trains, and ships but the plot remains the same. Under cover guy who fights slowly, but still beats like 40 mercenary types and doesn't even blink when doing so. What amazes me is that Segal is now as big as a barn and the bad guys still cannot hit him in a hallway with a machine gun and 50 clips of ammo. Where do all these bullets actually go to? The only redeeming feature of this movie is watching Nia Peeples pound Ja Rule (real name Jeffrey Atkins doesn't quite sound so punk) into the floor. I could spend days watching that woman kick her foot over her shoulder like that... especially wearing an outfit like that! It was just a bonus watching Jeffy get is *ss kicked, and fun hoping one of those kicks actually landed. Sorry, it's just time we get stupid wannabe tough guy can't act rappers out of the movies. PLEEEEEASE! Who came up with idea anyway? I'd lay odds it was the person who decided that Cameron Diaz and Drew Barrymore would pass as witty athletic Angels.<br /><br />The only surprising twist in this movie is that they don't do the politically correct thing and have Jeffy come in and save the day. No doubt if Snoop (otherwise known by his momma as Calvin Broadus which again doesn't sound so cool when you refer to him as Cal) had been in the movie, he'd throw some signs down on her and probably saved Segal's life or something.

The precise text of an ad (except the word Chinese, as in Grauman's Chinese, at the end, should appear in caps but IMDb's racially sensitive formatting won't let it), as published in the Los Angeles Times of October 2nd 1930, reads as follows (with " / " denoting the break between each line in the ad):<br /><br />GALA WORLD PREMIERE / Tonight / 8:30 PROMPTLY / TONIGHT all Hollywood and Los Angeles boulevards become THE BIG TRAIL to Grauman's Chinese Theatre...the rendezvous of all that is beautiful and brilliant...the gathering place of stars...celebrities...the great and the famous!<br /><br />Thousands will fill every seat...many thousands will line Hollywood Boulevard to watch the gala festivities attending this world premiere!<br /><br />Tonight all Southern California pays homage to the great American Epic, which faithfully depicts the thrilling, soul-stirring romance of the American Pioneers..who won the West and left us a heritage of Peace..Liberty..and Happiness.<br /><br />Raoul Walsh's / The BIG / TRAIL / Story by HAL G. EVARTS / FOX MOVIETONE PRODUCTION / SHOWN ENTIRELY IN / GRANDEUR / Cast of 20,000 featuring / JOHN WAYNE MARGUERITE CHURCHILL / EL BRENDEL / Tully Marshall Tyrone Power / David Rollins / Frederick Burton, Charles Stevens, Russ Powell, Louise Carter / William V. Mong, Dodo Newton, Ward Bond, Marcia Harris / Marjorie Leet, Emelie Emerson, Fran Rainboth / Andy Shufford, Helen Parrish / Production Manager Archibald Buchanan / Settings by Harold Miles, Fred Serren / Chief Grandeur Cameraman Arthur Edeson / Sound Engineer George Leverett / Chief Film Cutter Jack Dennis / ADDED FEATURE: / Fox Movietone News Exclusive Interview with / GEORGE BERNARD SHAW / Direction Carli Elinor / GRAUMAN'S / Chinese / Direction of Fox West Coast Theatres / Twice Daily Thereafter / 2:30 --- 8:30 P.M.

Note to all mad scientists everywhere: if you're going to turn your son into a genetically mutated monster, you need to give him a scarier name than "Paul." I don't care if he's a frightening hammerhead shark with a mouthful of dagger-sharp teeth and the ability to ambush people in the water as well as on dry land. Give the kid a more worthy name like, "Thor," "Rock," or "Tiburon." Because even if he eats me up I will probably just sit there laughing, "Ha! Get a load of this!!! Paul the Monster is ripping me to shreds!!!!!" That's the worst part about this movie is, this shark-thing is referred to as "Paul" throughout the entire flick. It makes what could have been a decent, scary horror movie just seem silly. Not that there aren't other campy and contrived parts of "Hammerhead: Shark Frenzy." The scientists spend the entire movie wandering along this island, and all of a sudden one of the girls starts itching madly from walking in the lush forest, and just HAS to pour water on her feet to relive the itching, which of course allows "Paul" to come out of the water and kill her. The one thing SciFI Channel did right in this movie was let the hottie live. But that's a small silver lining in an otherwise disappointing movie.

(Spoilers Ahead!) This same exact plot from this movie has been done before. It has been done in Ferris Bueller's Day Off! Marques "Bat Man" Houston plays sick. His gullible parents believe him. His sister knows that he's faking, but she still must go to school! She is mad. He has a party with his friends while his parents are away. By the time his parents get home, he is sick again and his parents never found out about the party. I like Immature better when they were in House Party 3 and still immature!

Why on earth is Colin Firth in this pointless film? Has he really been that strapped for cash?<br /><br />The film isn't clear on what it wants to be about, grief?, exotic places?, ghosts?, a vehicle for Mr Darcy? It's a muddled, muddy mess.<br /><br />There seems to be some sort of idea that Italy must be good, in itself, and that Italian has something to offer as a language - but in the end the girls just want to go back to yankland.<br /><br />There are pointless episodes on the beach, in churches, on busy roads - but what it is all about, or why anybody should care simply isn't clear.<br /><br />There was also a yank woman in the film. It wasn't clear what here job was, but she seemed only to be there to make vapid, inappropriate and maudlin comments to the girl. Was it supposed to be about paedophillia??<br /><br />A pretty dreadful mess, all in all. I gave it 2 rather than 1 because it doesn't have the charm of an utterly ghastly film.

This is even worse than the original Game of Death. A jumbled, incoherent storyline leads to "Billy Lo" falling from a helicopter to the ground below, killing him, as we're left to follow his younger brother, Bobby Lo. So not only do we start out following some Bruce Lee clone, the film kills that one off and has us follow another one thirty minutes into the story. The main reason to watch this one is when Bobby Lo fights a lion, which is quite obviously a guy in a lion costume. Jang Lee Hwang is also the villain, who is usually pretty awesome but his screen time is significantly small. Mainly watched this and the original Game of Death because they're a part of the Bruce Lee boxed set. It's no wonder they're included with Lee's finished works. No one would buy them otherwise.

Another fantastic offering from the Monkey Island team and though it was a long time coming and had to survive the departure of Ron Gilbert it's another worthy installment. My only gripe is that it was a little short seeming in comparison to the previous two, though that might be because of a glorious lack of disk-swapping. Roll on MI4.

This movie is probably one of 3 worst movies made in history. I rented this by chance, without reading reviews, and wow, do I regret it. Really has no plot, doesn't really follow the vampire genre. Just plain god awful. Watching this movie will taint your enthusiasm for vampire movies. I felt like the writer/director/producer went on this drug binge and had hallucinations and tried to recreate it on film. Whole time I wanted the movie to end.. but the ending was even more whacked. <br /><br />If this review can save just one person from watching this crap, I felt my time spent on registration and writing this review was well worth it.

I've always thought that most huge box-office flops usually have something to recommend them, but after the remake of Around the World in 80 Days and Thunderbirds, I'm beginning to doubt it. For those not familiar, it's based on a puppet show about a family of astronauts who use state of the art rockets, spaceships and subs to rescue people from various disasters (falling bridges, stricken planes, burning buildings, etc) each week. Well, the puppets are gone (replaced by far more lifeless teenagers), and so is the premise - only one ineptly staged rescue and a plot shamelessly ripped off from Spy Kids without any signs of imagination, wit or entertainment. Young Alan Tracey feels left out of all the rescuing we never see the other Traceys do because dad won't let him play with a real rocket until he passes his exams. Grounded on a beautiful tropical island (some punishment!), his chance to shine comes when the rest of the family - a bunch of identikit bleach-blondes who look like a gay neo-Nazi boy band without a single bit of characterisation between them - are stranded in space and he has to have the day by, er, running around the jungle, making a phone call, firing a hose at the inept comedy relief villains and dousing them in gunk for bad measure.<br /><br />The good points are few and far between. One of them is that the film is mostly in focus. The other is they all got to go to the Seychelles, which looks nice.<br /><br />The bad points: where to start? Ben Kingsley's career lowpoint performance? The aforementioned inept comedy relief sidekicks who would disgrace the Children's Film Foundation at its worst? The almost complete lack of action or effects in a $70m sci-fi film? The terrible script, the lifeless direction, the odious moralising? But most of all is the fact that the film is so patronising in every possible way. Forget the life lessons and off the peg sentiment, this is a movie aimed straight at the under-eights by people who know they're making a kid's movie and are constantly talking down to their intended audience, throwing in fifth-rate jokes and routines that would insult most children who had only recently mastered the art of speech. This film could replace being sent to bed early without their dinner as parents' favourite punishment for kids.<br /><br />The biggest flop in British film history (it didn't even cover the cost of prints and marketing), it's just about watchable if only as an object lesson in how NOT to make a summer movie.

Nickelodeon has gone down the toilet. They have kids saying things like "Oh my God!" and "We're screwed"<br /><br />This show promotes hate for people who aren't good looking, or aren't in the in crowd. It say that sexual promiscuity is alright, by having girls slobbering over shirtless boys. Not to mention the overweight boy who takes off his shirt. The main characters basically shun anyone out of the ordinary. Carly's friend Sam, who may be a lesbian, beats the snot out of anybody that crosses her path, which says it's alright to be a b**ch. This show has so much negativity in it that nobody should watch it! I give it a 0 out of 10!!!

First I'd like to excuse my bad English.<br /><br />I'm not a HOSTEL-hardcore-fan, but I liked that movie nevertheless. Live Feed, however, SUCKED BIG TIME! I have never seen a gore-movie with superb acting, but hey, who's surprised? The acting in Live Feed was... well, not there! I've seen some commented this as it must have been a school project or something. Okey, but not by students in media or acting school. This was NO class at all! And what about the story? A really sad rip-off on Hostel. And what about the gore? What about the psychopathic torture scenes that supposed to make your guts twist and leave you cold-sweating? That was the most disappointing about the hole movie! Short, quick and NO edge. More like an execution rather than a torture. Okey, there where buckets of blood, but it didn't even look real. The slaughtering and the violence reminded more of Braindead than Hostel or any of the Saw-movies. And Braindead was fun! Okey, I laughed at Live Feed a couple of times, but that was more out of disappointment than out of sheer fun!<br /><br />So instead of wasting 80 minutes by watching Live Feed, watch ANYTHING else!

I am finding that I get less and less excited about Disney's sequels to movies. Yes, I do understand that the budget for the direct to video movies are not the same, but these movies don't even try. Some examples are Hunchback II and Tarzan and Jane. If anyone has seen the previews for Stitch-The Movie, you will see my point. But I digress, this movie reaffirms my point. The animation is sloppy, the story lines resemble Saturday morning cartoons, and not all of the original voices are there. I was very disappointed not to hear Michael J. Fox's voice. It was so glaringly obvious that the person doing Milo's voice was trying to sound like Fox, but didn't come close to succeeding. <br /><br />If it says anything, my children ages 10 and 6 didn't even sit through the whole movie.

This movie is a cringe-fest of bad acting and poor set design as well as tacky lines and a lame plot. But it is so much fun to watch. Everything about it is hilarious.The basic plot is a group of scientists from the future travel back in time to capture their evil co-worker who is intent on destroying them all. They catch up with him in the year 1146. The 'futuristic' lab of the scientists from the year 2033 is an eighties-style room with a bunch of 'futuristic' flashing buttons and a time capsule that looks like a lawn shed. The actors deliver their lines with unenthusiastic aplomb, which isn't hard to understand considering that the lines are usually earth-shakers like " I double-checked everything twice!" He double checked everything twice? He checked it four times? Not only that, but they feed you the entire premise of the movie in the first five minutes, and continue at a rapid fire pace until they hit the medieval part. When Roger Corman ran out of money. And had to stop travelling through time and consequently different sets. The medieval set is a comic mish-mash of anything from the late 10th century to the 16th century. Any costume they could find, they used. I guess chain mail wasn't on the budget, 'cause the guys all wear sequined shirts masquerading as armor. The fight scenes are laughable, with men casually throwing themselves onto cardboard swords with abandon and dying in death throws with nary a blow cast.It sounds truly awful, but I enjoy it every time I watch it. The lines alone are enough to have you in fits and everything else pulls together to create a fabulous B-movie that, if you are a connoisseur of corny flicks, I would suggest you see. And once you have, read the review on Unknown Movies. I love hearing them point out all the funny, truly awful bits in the movie.

While this is horribly dated, I MUST insist...PLEASE, NO REMAKE! Frankly, it just won't help, as there's nothing which could be added or changed, contemporarily, to make this cinematically better.<br /><br />The novel upon which this is based, was atmospheric, well written, truly spooky work, but on film, it just doesn't translate. Most of King's written masterpieces fail to translate to film. I'm not sure why this is, but when you view this work, if you view it, you are likely to see just what I mean. <br /><br />The book? It's wonderful. It's not a masterpiece, but it's more than just entertaining. <br /><br />The movie? Do something else. You can thank me later.<br /><br />It rates a 3.1/10 from...<br /><br />the Fiend :.

"Changi" is an Australian comedy/drama set in the World War 2 Japanese prisoner of war camp of that name. The story cuts between past events, and the present day, when the aged veterans plan a reunion. This is a much publicised and controversial miniseries, here in Australia. The budget ran over ($6.5 million Aust. dollars); historians and veterans criticised it's authenticity; and critics pilloried the uneasy mix of comedy and drama (shades of "Pearl Harbor"). Series writer John Doyle (half of the successful Roy & H.G. comedy team), has tried to defend himself with comments about "the characters are composites of actual people"; "the troops used comedy to cope with the situation"; "it's only based on actual events"; "one of our actors was actually there" etc. I don't have a problem with any of these points. Many superb fictional and factual dramas have come out of the Japanese P.O.W. camp experience: "King Rat", "Tenko", "Merry Christmas Mr. Lawrence", "Bridge on the River Kwai", "Paradise Road", "Empire of the Sun", "Blood Oath", and "A Town Like Alice". Black comedy has often been used successfully in P.O.W dramas: "Life is Beautiful", "The Great Escape", "Seven Beauties", "Stalag 17", "The Colditz Story", and even "Hogan's Heroes". So why is "Changi" a monumental failure? - the acting in "Changi" is uniformly excellent, the music and cinematography is good - it is the writing and direction that have let it down. Every scene seemed to give me waves of deja vu. When Anthony Hayes is made to stand in the blazing sun, I thought "Didn't I see Alec Guinness do this in "Bridge on the River Kwai"?". The sudden flashes into surreal song & dance brought back Dennis Potter's "Singing Detective", but without the finesse. This borrowing happened so often, it smacked of lazy writing by cut and paste, rather than homage. The constant intercutting between the past and present stories left me unable to concentrate on either. Flash forward and flash back can be a useful tool - here it left me distanced from characters, where intensity was called for. The "Ausiness" is overdone - every conversation seemed to include "stone the bloody crows" & such, that I was saying "I get the point, I know they're Aussies". Cultural stereotyping extended to the British and Japanese too -sadistic young Japanese officer; uptight British officer; wiser Japanese commandant; fun-loving, rascally Aussies etc. I thought I was watching "Hogan's Heroes on the River Kwai". After 3 episodes I'm tuning out.

This movie illustrates like no other the state of the Australian film industry and everything that's holding it back.<br /><br />Awesome talent, outstanding performances (particularly by Victoria Hill), but a let down in practically every other way.<br /><br />An "adaptation" of sorts, it brought nothing new to Macbeth (no, setting it in present-day Australia is not enough), and essentially, completely failed to justify its existence, apart from (let's face it, completely unnecessarily) paying homage to the original work. If there's one body of work that has been done (and done and done and done), it's Shakespeare's. So any adaptation, if it's not to be a self-indulgent and pointless exercise, needs to at least bring some new interpretation to the work.<br /><br />And that's what this Macbeth fails to do. As it was done, this film has no contemporary relevance whatsoever. It's the same piece that we have seen countless (too many!) times before. Except with guns and in different outfits.<br /><br />Apart from the fundamental blunder (no other way to put it) of keeping the original Shakespearian dialogue, one of the more cringeful moments of the movie is the prolonged and incredibly boring slow motion shoot out towards the end, during which I completely tuned out, even though I was looking at the screen. I never thought I had a short attention span, but there you go.<br /><br />I suppose the movie succeeds on its own, very limited terms. But as Australia continues to produce world-class acting talent, its movie-makers need to stop being proud of succeeding on limited terms, and actually set high enough standards to show that they respect for the kind of acting talent they work with.<br /><br />A shame. An absolute shame.

I'm in a film class and i know that i don't know everything about film but truthfully this is one of the worst, stupidest, retarded and waste time, movies that i have ever seen and i saw NAPOLEAN DINAMITE. they are both equally terrible. Conrack is boring and nothing interesting even happens in the film its not really a heart warming story and Pat Conroy overcomes nothing! I'm not saying there should be fighting and crap blowing up but it would liven up this more than bland film. the kids they fond to act in this film may have been the real kids from yammacraux island they sounded stupid and couldn't act as as far as i am concerned this was a stupid idea for a book and an even worse idEa fOr a movie I don't know why this movie was even made, deviantly top five worst movies of all time.

I want to state first that I am a Christian (and that I do work in the film and TV industry) so I understand what it is like to work on a feature length film so props to the filmmakers in that regard. I'm all for positive, uplifting messages if they are true to the nature of life (that this is a fallen world and that things don't always work out ... even for followers of Christ). I'm glad that others are having such overwhelmingly positive reactions to the overt Christian message; for me it was just that the execution is where the film fell on its face. A movie lives and dies on its story and here you have one dimensional stereotypes, exposition aplenty, and spontaneous changes in character behavior that are inexplicably to say the least. I believe that a film does not have to club you over the head with its message to get the point across. I'm sure the Kendrick bros. will improve with time and that their storytelling methods will as well. Maybe they could direct someone else's screenplay as their next project.<br /><br />* Sports films are not exactly my first love but a good one (Hoosiers, Field of Dreams, etc) can inspire in a multitude of ways. If you would be interested in a PG-rated film that inspires, give Steven Soderbergh's 'King of the Hill' a look. All truth is God's truth ...

The synopsis of this movie led me to believe that it would be a story of an unconventional woman challenging the conventions of the society in with she lives. I like strong female characters and expected a movie much along the lines of "Chocolat" with a less fairy tale and more bite. What I got was a cast of despicable characters.<br /><br />For a character-driven movie to be effective, I need to feel a connection or compassion for the people. There was no one with whom I could relate in the movie. Grazia (Golino, whose work I admired in "Rain Man") portrays a mentally ill, probably bipolar, female that is often rude, aggressive and violent. Her husband bickers and yells, when he is not hitting or slapping someone. The children are rude brats. They yell at each other and the females in the movie. They attack other children with no provocation. Violence begets violence. This seems to be an island of unfeeling, aggressive, violent and rude people all the way around.<br /><br />The direction is not compelling. There are intermixed scenes that attempt to be art, but instead bore the viewer. The location is exceptionally gorgeous, but even that fails to be captured to the degree that it could be on film.<br /><br />I would have to recommend that you stay away from this failure of a movie.

Ettore Scola is one of the most important Italian directors. My parents and I watched together "C'eravamo tanto amati" on a summer night: we liked it, but we didn't love it as we loved "A special day". I believe Ettore Scola is pretty underrated: we often forget to remember him, maybe because his latest films were disappointing. And so, yesterday night, my mum and I sat on our sofa to enjoy this masterpiece. Writing, direction, cinematography, score and production design were sober and accurate, but the thing I liked the most was the chemistry between Loren and Mastroianni. They're both excellent actors and play the main roles of Antonietta and Gabriele. Antonietta is an housewife: married with a fanatic Fascist, she has six children but her husband wants to have another child to get a prize for the huge families. Gabriele is simply an Anti-Fascist. They spend together a special day, that special day of 1938 when Hitler came to Rome visiting Mussolini. I don't want to spoil anymore about the plot: go looking for this film!

This movie stinks. The stench resembles bad cowpies that sat in the sun too long. I can't believe that so many talented actors wasted their time making such a hopelessly awful film. Whew!

I am a massive fan of Jet Li! He is THE best HK action film star alive... and consequently - This film rocked! I saw it in the video store and, as it was in the mainstream section of this mainstream video store, I didnt register its presence at first, and had to look twice. I immediately knew what I would be renting out. My only qualm (I suppose I expected it) is that it was dubbed (AAARGh) and not subtitled. Elsewise, the movie's original/strange/cool plot, and full on action made it one of Jet Li's better movies... even though they all fall under that category....

I get it the Diehl character is s'posed to be a microcosm of America itself - seeing Arab terrorists under every rock, only to find out at the end that it's his own actions all along that got him into that siege state and truly if he practices good-will to all men everything will be rainbows and lollipops. Sorry Wim you have made amazing movies in the past that stay neutral of the politics and for good reason, polemics are your weak point and they weaken this a well-made, amazingly filmed movie with absurd characters, dialog and plotting. Better luck on your next flick. Another thing that yanked my crank was the belabored point of the homeless section of LA being there for reasons of hunger, these people don't get enough to eat. Truly these folks aren't eating regally but the real hunger these folks is a spiritual hunger, an emotional hunger, a mental hunger. They need self-respect, self-worth, dignity which you can't give a man. Yeah those folks are hungry and if they need it it is available. Less the center for hunger in America, I would say it's more the center for alcoholism, drug-abuse, mental suffering and economic devastation. Dealing with hunger although a noble endeavor is band-aiding a more profoundly systematic societal and age-old human problem of homelessness. Bill Diehl was good though and Michelle Williams was cute as the young yet (cliched) old soul.

A wonderful film, filled with great understated performance and sharp, intelligent dialogue. What really distinguishes the film, however, is that undercurrent of sadness throughout. The story is underscored by affairs, loneliness, suicide, disappointment, the fear of losing ones job in a world where that had disastrous consequences. Most of all it was set in a world that no longer existed, having been ripped apart by the beginning of World War II. In fact, the film is barely a comedy at all if you compare the percentage of serious scenes to the comic scenes. Yet funny it is--listen to Margaret Sullivan's harsh dismissal of Jimmy Stewart and watch his pained expression as he replies that her comments were a remarkable blend "of poetry and meanness". It's funny, pointed, and sad all at once. A remarkable achievement and one of the ten greatest screen comedies ever made.

Just saying you've got a movie about John Holmes is a guarantee to get some folks in front of the screen, but writer/director James Cox delivers oh so much more. A "Rashamon" of the sleazy Hollywood set, the film splitters the July 1981 Wonderland murders through a variety of angles (and film stocks), but mostly through the filter of John Holmes' coked out weasel brain. In a film full of bad guys Holmes is either the most vile, the most pathetic or both. Several versions of the story emerge and merge as Cox flashes jump cuts and twisting title cards amid effects and emoting. The dialogue is fast and naturalistic and never once rings false. While the film takes places two years after Holmes had fallen out of porn and into a truly wicked drug fueled depravity, Kilmer relentlessly exudes a sexuality so intense it can be measured in inches. This sexuality at its edges creates a sense of foreboding that hangs over the entire film almost as heavily as the violence at its center. Those murders are teased at through the whole film though are never clearly shown, not even at the climax,though the violence of them relentlessly infuses the whole picture and much blood is splattered across walls and crime scene photos. Once again Val Kilmer as Holmes shows he can act wacko better than anyone else working. Strutting, cringing, bragging or begging, Kilmer is constantly in character and the character is constantly a fascinating car wreck. Stand out performances beside Kilmer definitely include Ted Levine as the lead cop in the investigation and Lisa Kudrow as Holmes estranged wife. The trio of criminals Holmes falls in with include the frighteningly high energy Josh Lucas, the ever interesting Timothy Blake Nelson and an absolutely unrecognizable Dylan McDermott in a pivotal role as the teller yet another version of the murders. Cox suggests that no matter how much we learn about Wonderland, there is always a worse version possible, but looking through the debauchery surrounding it is much more fascinating than understanding the truth.

This movie was so awful, so boring, so badly miscast -- it took a lot of work to make what should have been a sure thing into such a travesty. I love Lucille Ball, but she absolutely stunk in this movie. Too old, couldn't sing, sounded like a truck dumping gravel even when NOT singing -- and the biggest sin of all -- SHE WASN'T FUNNY. EVEN A LITTLE. The studio shot themselves in the foot with this one, and for ruining what should have been a fabulous screen version of a fabulous stage musical, some other body parts deserve to have been wounded as well -- or perhaps they were already lacking those parts. That might explain it. But for Lucy to think she was right for a part that required SINGING -- well, that's the saddest thing of all. It's a very good thing to know your limitations. Even a legend can't come out of a stinker like this and still smell like a rose.

Paulie is a fantasy of a littler girl or perhaps her recollection of what her youth was like growing up.<br /><br />Tony Shaloub executes a flawless performance as an Russian Scientist (PhD) who cannot find decent work in America. He befriends an isolated parrot while performing meanial duties of a janitor at a behavioral science lab.<br /><br />The chief Doctor is a bitter man, as Paulie, who can speak and fully comprehend language and learn, embarasses the Doctor, who later banishses him to the lower levels of the building, where Mikail (Tony S.) finds him.<br /><br />Paulie recants his life with Marie and how they lost each other. The quest begins to reunite Paulie with Marie, only more than 20 years has passed.<br /><br />The movie ends, some will say predictably, with Mikail reuniting Paulie with Marie. The story closes with the three entering Marie's home, where you can make the final your own choice.<br /><br />Great family film!

If I were to pitch this movie idea to some Hollywood bigwigs, I'm sure it would sound like this: <br /><br />ME: "Four boys at a private high school are good friends, AND they are witches."<br /><br />Hollywood: "That sounds like "The Craft." <br /><br />ME: "No, no, I said four boys, not four girls." <br /><br />Hollywood: "That still sounds like "The Craft", just with boys instead of girls." <br /><br />ME: "OK, but there is this fifth unknown boy that comes into the picture and he wants more power."<br /><br />Hollywood: "Still not much difference, because one of the girls in "The Craft" also wanted more power.<br /><br />ME: "OK, OK... I'll make these boys part of the "in crowd", they'll be rich, AND the school is on the east coast.<br /><br />Hollywood: "Now that sounds original. That is nothing like "The Craft", here's a billion dollars." <br /><br />This movie was so cliché and uninspiring. Even the manufactured drama between Chase and the brothers of Ipswich was very blasé. A bunch of rich kids, with their biggest problem being what color Bentley they want for their 18th birthday (and 18th car), don't interest me at all, even if they have powers. Every single kid in this movie looked like they stepped out of a magazine, and of course there had to be the gratuitous male nudity and female 80% nudity just to drive home how out of shape you are. I wanted to rename this movie "The Witches of O.C.". Oooh, rich kids and their problems... let me pretend to care.<br /><br />This film was completely unimaginative and predictable. The final fight was lame and dragged out and the ending was very anti-climatic. This was a movie best left on the cutting room floor.

This is a wonderful new crime series, bringing together three old stalwarts of British television (Denis Waterman, James Bolam and Alun Armstrong) as retired detectives brought back to help clear up old cases, under the leadership of younger, career-focused Amanda Redman. The three quirky, irritable old cops make a brilliant team, applying twenty-year old detection methods in a police force which has moved a long way on since then - sometimes with effect, at other times to the horror of their senior officers. The three are portrayed sympathetically, warts and all. There are splendid comic scenes, and some very moving ones as each of the three has to come to terms with growing old and the legacy of their pasts.<br /><br />At the end of the first six-part series (we are promised a further series next year) each of the characters had developed. Widower James Bolam cannot come to terms with his wife's untimely death. Lothario Denis Waterman is learning to accept his role as grandfather. And even obsessive Alun Armstrong is helped by his new friends to fight the demons of his past - and keep taking the medication! While Amanda Redman has to face the all-too-familiar conflict between having a life and a career. The story lines have been interesting, if rather heavily dependent on the wonders of DNA-testing. But it is the interplay of four of Britain's finest actors which has made the series unmissable.

Ironically, although he can do the "splits", Thomas is a complete stiff as an actor. <br /><br />This film is seared into my memory as one of the most side-splittingly cheesy and incompetent movies I have ever seen. As such, I'm actually rather fond of it. <br /><br />Still,the only reason this gets more than one star is that Thomas is great shape, and it's fun to see his tiny, muscular body performing various feats of gymnastic skill on the oddly shaped rocks and poles scattered about the East European country side (including the infamous "pommel horse" shaped well cap in the middle of a village square that Thomas uses to plant his feet in the faces of various insane villagers). But let the poor guy open his mouth and try to emote, and any illusion that he might have a film career is immediately dashed to bits. <br /><br />Thomas at least had the excuse that he wasn't really an actor. Everyone else in the film - actors, director, editor, camera guys, etc. is at least as bad, or even worse, and most of them are professionals. So Kurt doesn't come off quite as badly as you might think. <br /><br />I hope poor Kurt took the money and ran. If anyone ever asks him to perform in a martial arts film again, I'll bet that Thomas kicks the guy in the face.

Will some company PLEASE make a (good+) DVD of this film!??? Aside from being a wonderful film about relationships and friendships, "Four Friends" is the ONLY film I've ever seen -- And I have, literally, spent *years* of my life watching films! -- that captures the essence of the 60s experience (and I was there!): the idealism, the hope, the freedom, the confusion, the betrayals, and ultimately its upbeat but bittersweet denouement. And all of this is accomplished without being a story about any of the numerous upheavals of that era, although many are just touched upon... as part of the tapestry. But the story is primarily about the characters and their friendship over about 10~15 years... and that those survived and deepened, despite the tragedies of that turbulent decade. Absolutely a joy and must-see film... even if one's not an old hippie!!!

This movie was so bad, I thought I was going to scream in the middle of it. It was all I could do to sit through it. The beginning of the movie where they are at war was promising. Only it smacked of "Saving Private Ryan" to me...or at least an attempt at it. Only we don't care for these people. There was no build up to the characters. The kid that dies I guess was suppose to make us cry...but for some reason it just irritated everyone. Then we have to listen to line after line of sappy dialog that tried desperately to mimic "Wuthering Heights", which of course was also quoted in the movie. Go figure. There was nothing original about the movie at all, it was like sitting through the most mundane parts of every war movie ever made, with a little bit of humor thrown in to keep you hoping that it was going to get better. Sadly it doesn't. 3 hours later, I leave the theater feeling cheated. Anthony Menghilla should be shot for trying to duplicate the English Patient, which for it's time was a good movie, but now I wonder....should I rent it and make sure I wasn't just caught up in the HYPE??? Maybe I was, but I definitely wasn't caught up in the hype of this film. I really went to the theater wanting to like this movie. I am a die hard Nicole Kidman fan. Save your money, rent it on DVD and laugh through it, as I did.

I will admit that I'm only a college student at this present time, an English major at that. At the time I saw this film I was a high school student--I want to say junior year but it may have been senior, hard to remember. My experience with quantum physics goes pretty much to my honors physics course, an interest in quantum mechanics that has led me to read up on the subject in a number of books on the theoretical aspects of the field as well as any article I can find in Discover and the like. I'm not a PhD by any means.<br /><br />That said...<br /><br />This movie is simply terrible. It's designed to appeal to the scientific mind of the average New Age guru who desperately wants to believe in how special everybody is. My mother is such a person and ever since she's seen this movie she's tried to get all her friends to see it and bought a copy of the film. I attempted to point out the various flaws and problems I'd seen with the films logic and science--and they are numerous--and she dismissed my claims because "oh, so a high school student knows more than all those people with PhDs." In this case, apparently so.<br /><br />Leaving behind the fact that earning a PhD doesn't necessarily require that a person be correct or, in fact, intelligent. Leaving behind the fact that my basic understanding of physics is enough to debunk half the film. Leaving that behind, the film makers completely manipulated their interviews with at least one of the participants to make it appear that he supported their beliefs when, in fact, he completely opposed them.<br /><br />I could go on and on but I think intuitor did a really good job of debunking the film so feel free to read that if you care to do so.<br /><br />http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/bleep.html

Eddie Fischer was simply bad. Possibly the worst scene came early in the movie when he broke into a spontaneous song and dance number centered around a piano and some conveniently placed employees. The song was totally stupid... I think I could drunkenly offer a few lines on a sheet of paper that would far exceed it and probably win a Grammy. Then, as if the writers could come up with no better way to escape the ridiculousness of the scene, Fischer says something to the effect of, "Don't tell (insert the guy's name). He doesn't like music" and smiles. I can't describe how bad this is, I felt a little embarrassed. And that guy Debbie Reynolds works with and who's always hitting on her is so annoying too. I can't even imagine someone like her wasting a fraction of time on him. The jokes were delivered without any sort of chemistry between characters which made the movie crawl by. At least the baby had cute hair. The two stars are for Reynolds, who was like a swan among ugly ducklings.<br /><br />See Bachelor Mother instead.

This is a horrible little film--and unfortunately, the company that made this short made several others. The short is essentially a one-joke idea that wasn't funny to begin with and may also offend you. It certainly made me uncomfortable watching very young children (most appeared about 2 years-old) cavorting about and pretending to be adults--in this case, a dancehall girl and bar room patrons. It's the sort of humor that you might be forced to laugh at from your own kids if they pretended to be adults, but I can't see anyone WANTING to see this--especially when a very young Shirley Temple is dressed in a rather slinky outfit and acts like a vamp!! And then, other kids act like adults in some rather adult situations. At the time, I am sure they were not trying to appeal to pedophiles, but when looking at it today, that is what immediately comes to mind! Because of this, this boring film ALSO creeped me out and I hope to never see it again!! Pretty strange and pretty awful.

I'm giving ten out of ten it's one of the best movies ever. Absolutely smashed, stunned and dazed by the whole picture, marvellous playing of Jason Statham, Ray Liotta and all the crew, amazing plot... Just look into yourself and pluck up your courage to admit-it touched your soul, because it's strange, but there are all the answers you've been ever looking for... The very best, mr. Ritchie! THE VERY BEST EVER. Those who were looking for a simple figtings and skirmish keep yelling they are disappointed. But there are lots of shallow movies in Hollywood nowadays, you can't remember what it was about the next day you had seen it. On the contrary, Revolver is unique, I could have hardly expected it's possible to portray such a clear and genius picture of myself, of everyone who was to watch it. Absolutely unsurpassed, astounding, dazzling... One can get insight watching this, I have no doubt about that. Actually, no words can express my admiration... I'm still wondering how it was possible to shoot such a movie after years of giddy Hollywood rubbish we had been watching. Thank you from all heart, it's simply the best.

I love oddball animation, I love a lot of Asian films, but I didn't love this particular product of Japan. The Fuccons are supposedly an American family (they're all mannequins) who have moved to Japan, and they're somewhat a 50's sitcom type family, with slightly more modern sensibilities at times. The DVD features several very short episodes (like less than 5 minutes each?) and I did not find it to be either funny or entertaining, not even in a weird way. I'm not sure what the appeal is of this. I did pick up on some satire here and there, gosh, who wouldn't, but satire is usually somewhat humorous, isn't it? And nothing I saw or heard rated even a little smirk. I picked this up used and it certainly SOUNDED appealing, but I guess either I'm missing the point or it's just plain LAME. The box even says it's Fuccon hilarious, right there on the front, but I beg to differ. 2 out of 10.

This is the type of film that may need to be viewed several times to capture all of its beauty and intelligence { just like Curse of Frankenstein from 1957} . If you don't like odd, non-mainstream films, steer clear of this masterpiece. For me, the artwork alone in this film is worth the purchase price of the videocassete. The storyline is a bit fantastic but seems to becoming reality in our world today. For being produced in the 1980s, this film is proving to be a prophetic vision of whats to come with Big government and Big brother wanting to control and monitor us.<br /><br />There are many slow sections and the dialog can be quite hard to catch in many scenes { thats why I've watched it 6 times now} but if you can digest it all, it may prove to be well worth your time.<br /><br />The film is basically about a world where people have evolved into robotic machines that have lost their individualism . They are only concerned about accumulating and procreating. The hero of the film has not succumb to this sickness and has not been " tagged" and monitored by big brother. His mission is to release a secret drug into the water supply which will change the way the human robots think and allow individulaism to once again be a part of humanity.<br /><br />Yes, its very low budget, but for its time the computer effects and sound effects are very unique and the paintings are utterly fascinating. If you have an open mind, this film should impress and its prophetic visions are chilling.

I think this programme is a load of rubbish. All they do is argue and slap each other across the face and they call this acting?! These people get paid lots of money for this and most of them can't even act to save their lives. Also, the story lines are awful and after watching it for a few minutes, I am bored with it. I like the way that Harry Hill takes the mickey out of it on his TV show 'TV Burp' e.g. the weak joke "The Princess and the Pea isn't exactly Shakespeare is it?" that had Sonia and Naomi in stitches. I don't see how that is funny. I think this is a waste of everybody's money for their TV licence so this can be shown 4/5 days a week. Isn't there anything better than this?

This is not a very good telling of the Tarzan epic. There was only one reason for this movie. John Derek wanted to show off his beautiful wife in the buff! Bo Derek in '10' was at least a humorous movie and there was a reason for nudity and sex. This movie is nothing more than soft porn. If you're into that, well, then fast forward to it and skip the rest! This movie (like Bolero) was again a vehicle for Bo Derek to show off her terrible acting. She is undoubtedly a beautiful woman but a poster of her is more exciting than this movie! Richard Harris was a better actor than this; this was one of his few mistakes! don't waste your time on this movie...go buy the book instead.

Greetings again from the darkness. Based on the mega-best seller from author Khaled Hosseini, the film provides us a peak at the ugliness of post-Russia invaded Afghanistan and the terror of the Taliban. Director Marc Foster adds a gem to his resume, which already includes "Monster's Ball", "Finding Neverland" and "Stranger Than Fiction".<br /><br />The story of young friends Amir and Hassan and the unknown bond they share into the next generation. This is a story of honor and courage and loyalty and is an unusual coming-of-age tale. Some great scenes of the boys when they are kids and then a couple of truly amazing scenes as Amir returns as an adult to find Hassan's imprisoned son.<br /><br />This is tight, compelling story telling with a message. The acting is solid throughout, with no one actor stealing the screen. Although not a pleasant story to watch unfold, it is certainly meaningful and heart felt. Plus a quick shot of Midnight Oil playing in the pool hall is a welcome gift.

This was Laurel and Hardy's last silent film for Roach Studios. However, since the public had a real thirst for "talkies", this same short was re-made by the team just a few years later with only a few small plot changes. LAUGHING GRAVY was essentially the same plot except that Stan and Ollie were trying to hide a cute puppy from their grouchy landlord--not a goat like in ANGORA LOVE. This whole goat angle is the worst part of the film. While you could understand the boys wanting to keep a cute little dog (after all, it is snowy outside), why exactly they bring a goat home is just contrived and pointless. According to the plot, the goat followed them home and so they got tired of shooing it away and kept it. Huh?! This just doesn't make any sense--if it had been a giraffe or a cow, would they have done the same thing?! Apart from being an unconvincing plot, the movie itself is pure Laurel and Hardy, with a familiar plot and familiar roles for the comedians. This film features quite a few laughs, but unfortunately isn't one of their better films to wrap up their silent careers. This aspect of their careers just seems to have ended with a whimper.

Horror/Sci-Fi that is interesting as it is laughable. F/X pretty good...for what you manage to see. A made for TV thriller that is not as bad as the worst of them. Jeffrey Coombs plays a brilliant although misguided scientist that tampers with stem cell research and manipulates human DNA with that of a hammerhead shark. The horrifying results give birth to one hell of a killing machine. A group of scientists led by William Forsythe and Hunter Tylo are invited to a remote island to check out the brilliant new experiment. Of course, after laughing and stammering in awe...Coombs' creation, by the way is his own son fused with a hammerhead, is let loose to hunt down one by one his father's colleagues. Revenge is not always rewarding. Also in the cast: Elsie Muller, G.R. Johnson, Arthur Roberts and Velizar Binev.

This 1981 comedy still sparkles thanks to the combined efforts of writer/director Steve Gordon and stars Dudley Moore and John Gielgud. Sadly, Gordon, only in his early forties, died soon after completing this, his only feature film. It's an especially unfortunate loss since he shows a truly deft hand at character-driven farce that makes the whole film irresistible. It plays almost like a 1930's-style screwball comedy revamped for contemporary tastes. The plot centers on Arthur Bach, a drunken, diminutive millionaire playboy who is at risk of losing his $750 million inheritance if he doesn't marry the dowdy and boring Susan Johnson, an heiress handpicked by his old-money father and dotty grandmother. Of course, he doesn't love her and by chance, runs into Linda Marolla, a working-class waitress (and of course, aspiring actress) after she pilfers a Bergdorf Goodman tie for her father.<br /><br />The standard complications ensue but in a most endearing way with loads of alcohol-fueled slapstick executed with classic élan by Moore. That he makes such a spoiled character likable is a credit not only to his comic talents but to Gielgud's feisty, acidic turn as Hobson, Arthur's devoted but reality-grounded valet. It's the type of role he could play in his sleep, but Gielgud makes Hobson such a truly memorable character that his fate in the film brings a welcome injection of poignancy in the proceedings. In probably her most likable film role, Liza Minnelli hands the picture to her male co-stars by toning down her usual razzle-dazzle personality and making Linda quite genuine in motivation.<br /><br />A pre-"LA Law" Jill Eikenberry plays Susan just at the right passive-aggressive note, while Barney Martin (Jerry's dad on "Seinfeld") steals all his scenes as Linda's slovenly father Ralph. The one fly in the ointment is veteran actress Geraldine Fitzgerald, who overdoes the eccentricities of the grandmother. And I have to admit that I still can't stand the very dated, overplayed Christopher Cross song that inevitably won the Oscar for that year's best song. Unfortunately, the 1997 DVD, certainly in need of remastering, has no extras worth noting except some photos and production notes.

If you ever visited Shenandoah Acres as a child and wondered, could there be a worse vacation spot in the world? Well, you could have watched this movie and had your answer. Flavia (a.k.a. Fistula) Macintyre's dude ranch is often frequented by business casual Gordon, at least since resident water witch, Jessica, was 13. But Jessica can find much more than fresh spring water with that divining rod – buried "tray-shure," lost jewelry, dead bodies, even a talisman that will keep her from dressing like a slut and raising drinks with a phony beat and a Suzanne Pleshette look-alike while hypnotized by a disembodied head. Evil, evil evil.

It is hard to make an unbiased judgment on a film like this that had such an impact on me at such a young age. This is with out a doubt the worst kind of exploitation film. I was unfortunate enough to see this film for the first time in my youth, Iwill never forget it. I thought it was the most horrible movie ever made. I then saw it again earlier this year and was once again horrified.<br /><br />I am not a zealot or one to say what others should and should not see but I did take great offense to the way in which something as horrible as rape was dealt with in this movie. I love lowbrow cinema but this is just plain nasty. Rent some Rus Myer instead.

This is one of the best movies I have ever seen. I feel greatly touched by the theme the movie intends to convey. One sentence that keeps coming up on my mind is that "history repeats itself". Life is what it is shown in the movie: when people are young, they seem not to understand their parents, their own spouses; people have every excuse for not sharing the dearest time with their children until too late; people always have to work hard to support the whole family but are just liable to neglect the subtle feeling of their partners; people always change their perspectives at different stages of their lives; people can always be forgiven if their heart is full of love for their beloved; nothing is more important than the blood relation people share in this world, and one is never too late to talk with their folks about what they feel at the bottom of their heart so as to achieve a better understanding between themselves, so that when life has to end some day, people should not feel sorry or regretful since they have kept their words and there is always hope ---a new life. The actors and actresses are fantastic. They have understood the director's intention perfectly. The movie's charm lies in, to me, the effect of bringing a skillful and splendid fusion of cheers and tears to the audience.

'Doppleganger', ( or 'Journey To The Far Side Of The Sun' as it is more commonly known ) was written ( with input by the late Donald James ) and produced by Gerry and Sylvia Anderson, best known for their 'Supermarionation' television shows such as 'Thunderbirds'.<br /><br />The international space agency Eurosec discovers the existence of a mysterious planet on the other side of the sun, and proposes a manned flight be sent there. The committee balk at the exhorbitant cost, and shelve the project. But when a security leak at the agency is discovered, fearing that the Russians might get there first, the project gets the green light.<br /><br />American astronaut Glenn Ross ( Roy Thinnes ) is teamed with British scientist John Kane ( Ian Hendry ). After weeks of gruelling training, the Phoenix blasts off, heading for the unknown.<br /><br />Three weeks later, their ship crashes in what appears to be a bleak, mountainous landscape. Ross survives, but Kane is badly injured. A light is seen moving towards them...<br /><br />I will leave the synopsis here. Until this point, the film has been gripping, with excellent special effects ( by Derek Meddings ) and music by Anderson's resident composer Barry Gray ( why it has not been issued on C.D. is a mystery ). But when Ross and Kane crash land, and we discover the secret of the alien world - it is a duplicate of our own, everyone on it is the same, the only major difference is that things are reversed - it becomes less interesting, and ends with a shattering anti-climax. I think the cinema was the wrong place to do this idea, in fact Gerry & Sylvia later did something similar on their 'Space: 1999' show. Ross risks ( and ultimately loses ) his life in an effort to return to Earth - his Earth. But why? The new Earth is so similar he might as well not have bothered.<br /><br />Roy Thinnes had recently done 'The Invaders' television series, and gives a competent performance ( pity there weren't more scenes like the one where he rows with his wife ). Ian Hendry is good as 'Kane', but vanishes from the story too soon. Several actors went on to appear in the Andersons' 'U.F.O.' such as Ed Bishop and George Sewell. Blink and you will miss Nicholas Courtney ( 'The Brigadier' from 'Dr.Who' in a tiny role ). But the acting honours go to the late Patrick Wymark as 'Jason Webb', head of Eurosec. The character is not far removed from 'Sir John Wilder', the one he played in A.T.V.'s 'The Power Game'. Webb is such a devious character he is marvellous to watch. Herbert Lom's contribution ( as a spy with a camera hidden in a false eye ) amounts to little more than a cameo.<br /><br />Like I said, the special effects are marvellous, as are the sets. So the film is worth watching, but do not expect very much to happen once the action moves to the mirror planet. With a stronger script, this could have been another 'Planet Of The Apes' or - dare I say it - '2001: A Space Odyssey'.<br /><br />In Anderson's productions, he made the future seem like a great place, an adventure playground where science was cool, everyone had swank cars whose doors opened vertically, sexy women, and absolutely no suggestion that anything is seriously wrong with the world. We are in the future now and people are still watching 'Coronation Street' every other night. How disappointing. If a mirror Earth really exists somewhere, one hopes that is a better place than this one. If all the women there look like Lynn Loring or Loni von Friedl, I will be on the next flight!

Hilarious film about divine retribution. Camera work stinks (shot on digital video) and looks like early MTV videos. Turn the other cheek by looking past the visual and concentrate on the story. Laughs galore for those with a well-developed sense of irony.

Having seen the first ten episodes, I must say this show sucks. <br /><br />What bothers me the most, is that the show was shot in Canada. I know it's cheaper, but they should have shot it in California, so we could have had scenes in the desert. That would have been more true to the movie. The first scene where they are outside in another world is in the mountains, with lots of pinetrees where it looks cold. That does'nt feel very Egyptian. What worked so well in the movie was that it felt like you were in the ancient Egypt. Here it feels like they're running around fighting aliens in a Canadian forrest. And it's so lame that appaerantly, on other planets, the fall comes as well. You can see leaves on the ground in the forrests that all look like forrests outside Vancouver. It just makes the show even more unbelievable and dumb. <br /><br />And then there is Richard Dean Anderson. He is no Kurt Russel. Sure he does a decent job and he tries to copy Russels performance a little bit, but he is just not as cool as Russel. And not nearly as good an actor as Russel. And Russells way of playing O Neill, well he was much more cynical. Andersons O Neil, is way too soft. I liked it that Russels version just did'nt give a s*** and had no trouble detonating the bomb until the very end of the movie. <br /><br />Michael Shanks does a really good job as Jackson though taking over from James Spader.<br /><br />Teal'c is a really annoying character. He is Jaffa. Not a Jaffa. Just Jaffa. Aaaarrgh!! A former bodyguard of a pathetic Ra character, seen only in the pilot and in one other episode so far. Teal'c speaks talks and acts like a robot. I've seen better acting from Jean Claude Van Damme.<br /><br />And the fact that Teal'c and the Ra character and the people they saved in the movie, can speak English all of a sudden is also incredibly dumb. What made the aliens so scary in the movie was that they spoke an ancient language and were real monsters. <br /><br />As for the special effects, they are really good in the pilot. But the very rare effects in the actual show are badly done and looks cheap. Especially a planet they visit with crystals. It's so obvious they walk around on a soundstage with a badly made painting in the background. It's an insult to us viewers that they made it look so cheap. Especially when they could have made it in front of a bluescreen with cgi backgrounds. <br /><br />The X-files had better effects when they aired their first episodes in 1993. That was 4 years before SG-1 started. And they did'nt have the apparent two million dollar budget per episode, that SG-1 supposedly had. They must have spend all the money on catering. Because I don't see it on the screen. <br /><br />Incredibly boring and pointless show, that could have been great if they had shot the show in Hollywood with a bigger budget and better writers and better characters.

I had pleasure to watch the short film "The Cure", by first time director Ryan Jafri. What really impress me are the camera work and music.<br /><br />I think many young filmmakers (as I myself am one of them) would experience hard time with cinematography when just start making of an indie. We see the output are not exactly what we imaged or below our ambitions. But this film, directorial debut from a young director, handled very well on screen. The camera motion, color, lighting, compositing all contribute to the story and emotion of the film.<br /><br />And music, as a key element of film language, helps a great deal too.<br /><br />It's hard to portray a woman's heart, her desire, her fear, especially in a short. But still, I have to admit I am not a fan of v/o (narration), especially when the film is advanced by narration, instead of shots and cuts. My personal feeling to some of the narrative part is, my guess was the narrator tried a bit too hard. So the energy pushes audience back from the emotion of the film.<br /><br />Overall, it's a short film nicely done, I could see the input from a director. Way to go, Ryan! Greeting from China, looking forward to your next.<br /><br />tim

Most war films made in the US during WWII were great fun to watch but suffered from severe gaps in realism because they were being produced more for propaganda value to raise the spirits at home than anything else. I am not knocking these films as many of them are still very watchable. However, because they so often lack realism they are prevented from being truly great films. A perfect example was the John Garfield film Air Force--in which a B-17 nearly single-handedly takes out half the Japanese air force! However, Pride Of The Marines is a welcome departure--scoring high marks for portraying a true story in a reasonably accurate manner. When I first saw this film, I thought it was NOT a true story as it seemed way too improbable to be true. However, after researching further I found that it was in fact rather true to the amazing story of two men who did so much to earn the Medal of Honor. This is one case where real life seemed too incredible to be true!

You might think that a show about regular teens with superpowers would be interesting, but it's far from that. Take the concept for example: the main character(s) have a big secret that they hide from they're peers. It's just like Hannah Montana and That's So Raven. Next, the acting is just average. Selena Gomez seems to be half asleep through many scenes. Lastly, the jokes are either cliché or boring. If they're not using they're colorful, yet strange dialog to make us "laugh", they are throwing various props around the room. I really wish this show would use more original and entertaining material. In conclusion, Wisards of Waverly Place is a disappointment.

After watching this for 15 minutes I knew how it would end. Its a cliché film with a stupid setup. I'm a big fan of thief films, but this one does not deliver anything new smart or special. It's about an insider heist gone bad because "hot head-bad guy" shots a bum, and of course "do goody-bad guy" goes on a moral trip. The reason why it's stupid and not believable is. When you've already gone so far to kill a bum, why not just kill the one guy that stands between you and 43 million. They got 45 minutes to stash the money and stage a robbery nobody in there right mind would hesitate to shoot Mr "do goody" and in this case he is a guy they known for a few days.... All and all I was leaning to fast forwarding from the middle of it, but I duked it out and boy do I regret it

I first saw this film in 1980 and it touched a cord which reminded me of a more innocent time. The opening narrative, music and paintings by Norman Rockwell set the tone for me. You either love the movie or hate it. Jan Michael Vincent was at his all time best and portrayed Cpl Marion Hedgepeth in a most innocent and touching way. This movie is at the top of my all time favorites, a shame it isn't available on DVD or VHS anymore. The ending was also wonderful. John Hancock did a marvelous job of capturing the essence of the time.

I love Lucy, but this movie is so wretchedly bad that I was squirming in embarrassment for all concerned within the first ten minutes . . . and it just got worse from there. Lucille Ball's "singing" is downright painful and the attempts to make her appear more youthful through the use of soft focus had me reaching for my reading glasses. It's bombs like this that give bombs a bad name.

I got this in the DVD 10 pack CURSE OF THE DEAD. You gotta love those bargain packs. For even if they don't feature true remastering, restoration and all that hoo-ha, and the films are generally in full-frame pan and scan format, there's no denying that there are always a few gems included. And by "gems", I mean there's always some good crap to be seen, especially if the films are from the '70s as The Mansion of Madness is.<br /><br />My copy is called Mansion of Madness, but when the title screens roll it's Poe's Dr. Tarr's Torture Dungeon. Doesn't matter, really, as crap is crap is crap, no? Yes! But saying this film is completely worthless is not true at all. There are some funky elements here and there, and obviously the flick did have a decent budget.<br /><br />The opening title sequence is cool with its colored negative run through a cheap TV look. The dialogue is always hilarious. Near the beginning of the film, the horse and buggy driver gets out to move a dead tree stump in the middle of the road. "WHAT STRENGTH!" says Our Hero. Funny, then, that this dude should later not be able to fight off the wacky woodsmen when they come to make freaky fun. You'll completely forget that this guy was even in the movie until he crops up again later near the end. That's how memorable these characters are.<br /><br />The best part about Mansion of Madness, however, has to be the wacky music and screwball hijinks that the good guys have to endure. It's like bad cartoon music that a three year old would find enjoyable. And why all the weirdo slapstick, anyway? I'd say my fave moment had to be when the horse and buggy is ambushed by the forest freaks when they pull a stupid looking homemade ghost up by a stick in the middle of the road and make the buggy stop. What the hell? Oh yeah, there's plenty of boobies to be seen, too, for those of you that dig such things. Boobies, bad dialogue, and wacky music. That best sums of Mansion of Madness for me. It's well worth at least one viewing, and may be a lot better if you've had a few to drink or whatnot. I can't say I was ever bored watching it, but I can't deny that it's also a barrel of poop. Kinda like Magical Mystery Tour but with a plot, but not. Hmm.<br /><br />And Mr. Chicken PWNZ.

There are times I am convinced that The Mikado is the best Sullivan & Gilbert opera ever, but that is only so long as I'm not listening to Iolanthe. Be that as it may, The Mikado is probably the most frequently filmed of the Savoy Operas. (Yes, I put the composer first. Nobody says Hammerstein and Rodgers, or Hart and Rodgers, or Boito and Verdi, or What's-His-Face and Strauss. You don't even hear the names of librettists for Offenbach, Suppe, or Balfe. Gilbert was just the bigger name (and the bigger ego) at the time, so they put his name first. It's time that silly practice was put to rest.<br /><br />Anyway, The Mikado is a compleat S&G operetta. It has some of Sullivan's catchiest numbers, combined with some of Gilbert's cleverest lyrics. It has an interesting book and sprightly dialogue. It's got a wonderful degree of craziness. And it leaves the door wide open for elaborate and whimsical costuming.<br /><br />This particular production, filmed in a live performance in 1990, turns its imagination toward striking simplicity. Set in a British seaside resort toward the end of the Art Nouveau period, it throws over the japonerie of the original entirely. The result is costuming and setting in an eye-caressing medley of whites, grey, and blacks, accented by occasional bits of red (and less frequent uses of yellow and green). It takes some getting used to, but it's really spiffy. Of course, when the chorus tells you they are gentlemen of Japan, you would be right to exclaim, "Oh, pooh. Bah!" (Did I just say that?) It's most gratifying that this fine production is now on DVD. However, one caveat: the print seems to be photographed through a glass of imperfect clarity, so that the expected sharpness of the image is softened and ever so slightly fuzzy. The tendency to superimpose images is, alas, annoying. Why do people who are doing a really spiffy production want to muck it up with artsy-fartsy stuff of that sort? But it's the performance that counts the most. We may skip the overture, since although one is performed, Sullivan never wrote one. (True, it may be so he wrote none for any of the Savoys. But the Mikado overture doesn't even date from Sullivan's lifetime and was compiled by observing the techniques used in the others.) As for the rest of the operetta, it's first-rate and supremely funny.<br /><br />The Ko-Ko here is the estimable Eric Idle, who does it credit. There is a tradition of bringing a Big Name into the role. The was a U.S. TV production years ago in which Ko-Ko was played by Groucho Marx with mixed results. Idle's performance is delightfully quirky ... he does "Taken from a county jail" assisted by a tennis racquet. His "I've Got a Little List" is done as a speech to a microphone -- of course it has the usual updated lyrics, which are much funnier than the usual run of such things, and his delivery is positively hysterical. It goes on that way throughout.<br /><br />In this operetta, it's important to have a good Katisha; it's just no fun if you're not being bellowed at in style. This Mikado has a fabulous Katisha in Felicity Palmer, in her way almost as Big a Name as Idle. She bellows with the best of them in a wonderful rich contralto ... wonderful, especially, for a soprano. And her costume...!!! (Not to mention her recital with Franz Liszt, apparently, accompanying.) Nanki-Poo is played by Bonaventura Bottone. I have trouble getting around is somewhat un-Nanki-Pooish chubby shortness -- but is voice is undeniably a solid, rich addition to the vocal palette. There is a nice touch during "A Wand'ring Minstrel", where the chorus reacts with distaste to the mention of "his nancy on his knee" -- bear in mind the Mikado's decree about flirting. Be that as it may, Bottone is a fine singing actor and if his appearance doesn't put the best face on Nanki-Poo, his performance does.<br /><br />Yum-Yum (Lesley Garett) and her friends are appropriately pretty and silly. She and Bottone do lovely duets. Pish-Tush (Mark Richardson) plays his persona as something a blageur and does it very well. Poo Bah (Richard Van Allan) is wonderful as a stuffed shirt out of water ... a role later done to death in American sitcoms (you know: haughty butlers forced to cater to bratty children -- that sort of thing). The Mikado (Richard Angas) is bloody marvelous, with an imperious voice at absolute variance with his ridiculous lyrics.<br /><br />I don't recommend you get this as your only Mikado. Get a good traditional production as well, so you can see what Gilbert intended (more or less) in terms of staging. That being said, I'll watch this one twice while viewing any traditional bit once. On the whole this is a terrific offering, a vocal and visual delight, with delicious over-acting. It's a DVD to treasure, with dervish-like maids, tap-dancing bellhops, and all. Watch for the bellhops with signs.

I wanted to love this movie. How could I not love it? Cary Grant, Jayne Mansfield, Stanley Donen; all icons in their own way. However, the train wreck that was Suzy Parker ruined the entire experience for me. Her acting was so appalling that I sat there with my jaw hanging open, not believing my eyes or ears. I could barely make it through one viewing, THAT'S how hideous she is in this.<br /><br />Cary? Gorgeous and in fine dramatic form. Jayne? Adorable, endearing, and obviously having a ball. The supporting cast does alright, and the city of San Francisco is captured in all its stunning, retro elegance.<br /><br />Then you see Suzy Parker attempting to speak her lines with a woodenness, a deadness, a cluelessness that simply defies belief. Who told this creature she could ACT?? Oy VEY, people.

You know those films that have you trapped in the cinema? You're stuck there in the best seat in the house, centre of the row in your own special sweet spot that you swapped three times before you got just the right seat - and after about what feels like 13 hours you are still trapped there, uncomfortable and itchy, thinking "When the F*** is this film ever going to END???" (You know the feeling - think of A.I. and The Village).<br /><br />Well, Visitor Q delivers a weird variant of that feeling. I sat there for the first 30 minutes wondering when the thing was going to f***ing start! It is interminable! So "Arty" it hurts. This is the first Miike Takashi film I have watched. Apparently he makes films by the dozen and, if they are all pretentious w@nk like this, I suspect it will be the last.<br /><br />I'm not against Pretentious w@nk. David Lynch is up there amongst the top 10 directors for me but Visitor Q is cut-rate, cheap, and nasty pretentious w@nk. <br /><br />As you may have worked out by now - I hated it.

"A Texas community is beset with a rash of mysterious killings involving some of the students from the local college. The sheriff investigating the death discovers the startling identity of the killer responsible for the murders. A NASA experiment involving cosmic rays has mutated an ape and turned it into an unstoppable killing machine with a thirst for blood," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />Or, could the creature really be a mutated alligator returning from a space-bound "Noah's Ark"? <br /><br />A long opening, with laughably straight 1960s couple Ralph Baker Jr. (as Chris) and Dorothy Davis (as Judy), suggests "Night Fright" might be a joyously bad movie; but, don't get your hopes up. After some innocent cavorting, the attractive collegiates discover another couple has encountered a monster; naturally, the creature is hell-bent on terrorizing young romantics. Sheriff John Agar (as Clint Crawford) isn't trusted by the younger set; but, he really wants to help.<br /><br />Mr. Agar was a friend of my aunt; he spoke about very few movies, and this wasn't one of them.

It is an extremely difficult film to watch, particularly as it targets the innermost core of all of our lives. But ultimately it is a very beautiful and deeply moving film. Any person who finds it cynical I have to say that they must have greatly missed the point of the film's entire message. For those who actually watch the film, they will see that the way the issues are dealt with is absolutely necessary, and the outcome is ultimately uplifting. Sure, it's very hard to watch, a difficult subject matter and even brutal. Yet it's extremely relevant to society and everybody. It shows the peak of what world cinema is doing at the moment (I will not restrict that term to just France) and everyone should try to see it. I will say that it is best to go in with a clear head without being swayed by conflicting views, and just let the film work for you.

This is an absolutely true and faithful adaptation of 'The Hollow'. It could be argued that the actual mystery here is not one Christie's best but what makes 'The Hollow' special is the characterisation and I found the actors here, more or less without exception, were perfect in their parts. In such a uniformly good cast it's difficult to select stand out performances but I have to say that Sarah Miles is just perfect as Lucy Angkatell. What is extraordinary is that she not only conveys Lucy's dottiness, tactlessness and her more lovable qualities BUT she also manages to pull off the underlying truth that in fact, Lucy is not really all that nice! Megan Dodds is also very good as Henrietta and Claire Price very affecting as Gerda. John Christow is really quite an unlikeable character but Jonathan Cake nevertheless manages to make us see what his women see in him.<br /><br />As I said, the script follows the story quite faithfully. The only disconcerting thing I found was that Midge and Edward's relationship really comes out of nowhere and I do believe that some of it must have ended up on the cutting room floor! Theirs a secondary story however and the primary story is very well done. The whole thing looks beautiful as well, really capturing a perfect English autumn.<br /><br />Its a beautiful film in every respect and well worth seeing.

Nico Mastorakis's banned movie was quite disappointing in my opinion. The movie is about a couple, who go to a Greek island to kill of all perverted people (apparently). You know you got something pretty sick when one of the first scenes include a guy having sex with a goat and then killing it off.<br /><br />But things only get worse from that point as all scenes pretty much look alike. They meet some people, so they either kill or have sex with them (preferably both).<br /><br />The ending is OK allright when the couple turn out to be brother and sister and she is just letting him rot somewhere but overall one would have expected more. No substance here I'm afraid.<br /><br />3/10.

It was "The Night HE Came Home," warned the posters for John Carpenter's career-making horror classic. Set in a small American town, Halloween centerers around serial killer Michael Myers' attempts to track down his sister Laurie Strode, and in the process eliminates all her friends in rather brutal ways...leaving poor Laurie to fight against the seemingly indestructible Michael. This plot out-line inspired countless horror knock-offs throughout the 80s, 90s and continues to do so today, as well as a poorly received 2007 remake. The difference between them, and this, is, quite simply, that "Halloween" is the best.<br /><br />Made on a very modest, tight budget...Halloween changed the face of horror in 1978 and spawned the sub-genre of "sexually promiscuous-teens getting stalked by a knife/axe/chainsaw/ wielding psycho".

I like action movies. I have a softspot for "B" flicks with bad dialogue and wooden acting. So, I've been wracking my brain to come up with one of my guilty pleasures that was worse than this blockbuster. I can't. You'd be hard pressed to put together a bigger piece of cr*p than this Bruce Willis vehicle.<br /><br />Armageddon is the story (and I use that term loosely) of a team of "Super-Drillers" flying off to destroy an asteroid before it destroys the Earth. Realistic? Not really. But who cares? It's an action flick. I'm not blasting the premise.<br /><br />Minor spoilers:<br /><br />The movie begins with a couple of scenes designed to introduce the threat and the characters. Bruce Willis is the tough-as-nails leader of the team, and spends his first bit of screen time chasing around Ben Affleck with a gun for the unforgiveable act of sleeping with his daughter. For some reason, that didn't make me laugh. It was forced, like everything in this movie.<br /><br />The team is called in because they're the only people in the whole wide world who can drill the asteroid. Okay, I'm prepared to accept that premise if it gets us to the action - the supposed meat of the movie. More attempts at humor, with each character going out to do some crazy, nutty thing before blast off. Again, lame. Finally, they take off. Here's where the movie really pi**ed me off. They arrive on the rock, and set to work. Would you believe it, nothing works right and everything has a suspenseful countdown!!! Whoah! Ten, nine, eight... one - Oh, surprise surprise we saved the day again!!<br /><br />And don't even get me started on the jerky camerawork. When I saw it in the theater I thought I was going to be sick. I can only assume they were trying to cover up the gargantuan holes left by the insipid performances by cutting away to a different shot every few seconds (and this from someone raised on MTV - Mr short attention span himself).<br /><br />Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse... wait - there's a manufactured tearjerker ending that was so tacked on it made the rest of the film a virtual Citizen Kane.<br /><br />Summary: The witticisms weren't witty. The plot - well, I said I'd let that one go. The acting was bad. Really bad. Even Billy Bob couldn't rise above the script, which was worse. Camerawork - again, bad. (I didn't even mention the dumbest love scene in the history of motion pictures - think animal crackers).<br /><br />Rating: 1 out of 10. (I'm giving a half point for Steve Buscemi, who makes me smile against my will and another half point for the times I was able to look at the lovely Liv Tyler and attempt to ignore her acting performance) This is far and away the worst movie I've gone to see in the theater... ever.

A bit quirky and bordering bad taste; but intelligent enough to be worthy of watching. A wheelchair-bound young woman Jane Hatchard(Helena Bonham Carter)is teamed with a reluctant caregiver, Richard(Kenneth Branagh). Richard is an artist that daydreams of human flight. He builds an airplane in his garage and intends to fly it. He wants to resurrect his own troubled life by taking care of the independent, dying Jane, who suffers from an neurological disease that has all but left her speechless and very little motor skills. Wheelchair-bound and full of spirit, her last dying wish is to loose her virginity. She offers herself to Richard, who won't help her directly; but is willing to rob a bank in order to pay a gigolo to do the deed. I found this flick ambitious and humorous. Even in this role, Carter has a certain charisma and likability.

"Nicodemus" is almost a copy of "Red" in the odd behavior sense, but this episode focuses on other people in Clark Kent's unpredictable life. When a poisonous flower finds it's way into Smallville Jonathan Kent is the first to be effected by it. the flower causes people to reverse their behavior and when it effects Jonathan, he becomes short tempered and violent, however Clark manages to stop him from doing anything rash until his father finally passes out. okay. so far, so good. next up is Lana. the Episode was good up to that point, for the flower causes her to attempt seducing Clark. at the last moment, he refuses her but the damage has already been done. this episode causes the wrong impressions and isn't suitable for people under the age of twenty, due to it's adult content. the first part was good, the last part (focusing on the effect the flower has on Pete) was good, but the middle that was all about Lana's alternate personality, was most defiantly not, and that ruined what could have been a brilliant Episode. I give this Episode two.

Sean, you know I think that you are absolutely the greatest actor in the world, but I can't commend you for this. Comedy just isn't your strong suit.<br /><br />However, it wasn't all your fault. Some of the stuff was just too hard to understand. Alfred Lynch did a decent job, but you gotta wonder where the lines came from from the beginning.<br /><br />Once again, Sean... I apologize.

It seems that it is becoming fashionable to rip "Basic Instinct 2," to the point that a significant part of the audience (including critics) found it terrible even before it was released. It seems even more fashionable to trash Sharon Stone who—like all of us—is now fourteen years older, and—unlike most of us—still looks wonderful. First comments on this movie were so vicious that I had to see for myself. In my opinion, this sequel is not nearly as good as the original film, but is not as bad as most comments pretend. Michael Caton-Jones is not Paul Verhoeven, neither Henry Bean and Leora Barish are Joe Eszterhas. "Basic Instinct 2" is just an entertaining, average thriller, and besides the addition of Jerry Goldsmith original score, keeps little resemblance to its predecessor. Even Stone gives her character a different dimension, creating a lustful, devilish Catherine Trimell, who can perfectly well rank among other monsters like Hannibal Lecter. She is an intelligent actress who is not afraid of taking risks and can play with camp at her leisure. Unfortunately, she seems to be the main target for those who enjoy trashing this flick. She became too successful, too much of a main icon, and like all those actors who have reached that level, her time has arrived and she is now bound to be destroyed by Hollywood audiences.<br /><br />The rest of the cast is outstanding, giving performances that are far better than the material deserves. David Morrissey is a much better actor and by far more interesting than Michael Douglas: his acting is flawless, giving a dense, complex dimension to an otherwise one dimensional character. Since he has more screen time and is the axis of the movie, he can keep your attention from beginning to end.<br /><br />I am not recommending "Basic Instinct 2" as a great movie; I am just expressing my disagreement with most of the comments on this site and my conviction that agendas other than the movie itself are shaping the opinion of most spectators.

Generally over rated movie which boasts a strong cast and some clever dialog and of course Dean Martin songs. Problem is Nicholas Cage, there is no chemistry between he and Cher and they are the central love story. Cher almost makes up for this with her reactions to Cage's shifting accent and out of control body language. Cage simply never settles into his role. He tries everything he can think of and comes across as an actor rather than real person and that's what's needed in a love story. Cage has had these same kind of performance problems in other roles that require more of a Jimmy Stewart type character. Cage keeps taking these roles, perhaps because he likes those kind of movies but his own energy as an actor doesn't lend itself to them, though he's gotten better at it with repeated attempts. He should leave these type of roles to less interesting actors who would fully commit to the film and spend his energy and considerable talent in more off beat roles and films where he can be his crazy interesting self.

This movie starts off somewhat slowly and gets running towards the end. Not that that is bad, it was done to illustrate character trait degression of the main character. Consequently, if you are not into tragedies, this is not your movie. It is the thought provoking philosophy of this movie that makes it worthwhile. If you liked Dostoyevsky's 'Crime and Punishment," you will probably like this if only for the comparisons. The intriguing question that the movie prompts is, "What is it that makes a renowned writer completely disregard his publicly-aproved ideas for another set?" The new ideas are quite opposed to the status quo-if you are a conservative you will not like this movie. <br /><br />Besides other philosophical questions, I must admit that the movie was quite aesthetically pleasing as well. The grassy hillsides and beautiful scenery helped me get past the slow start. Also, there was use of coloric symbolism in representing the mindstate of the main characters. If these sorts of things do not impress you, skip it. Overall I give this movie a 7.

Enjoyable and watchable. Tim Meadows at his best. A big boost from Billy Dee Williams. He and a very funny John Witherspoon provide a solid foundation for Mr. Meadows' riffing. Have fun with this one.

I was surprised by how emotionally invested I became in this film. Peter Boyle is a tour de force as the working class socially conservative bigot, Joe. I actually sympathized with some of his complaints. Of course he doesn't mention the underlying historical socio-economic reasons for many of his prejudices. The film also provides interesting insight into the rapid change American society was undergoing at this time. Recreational drugs, casual sex, and the challenging of parental authority became in vogue and replaced the more time honored traditions of respect for God, country and seniority. Susan Sarandon fans will be delighted. Joe is her film debut. She also provides viewers with a visual treat near the beginning of the film. Recommended, 8/10.

awful, just awful! my old room mate used to watch this junk and it drove me crazy. the book is one of my favorites and its a shame that some people will never know what it is really like because their first impressions are from dribble like this. they changed so much it is hardly recognisable. which baffles me since the book reads like a soap opera anyway, providing enough fodder for modern day entertainment. it's like one of those Lifetime movies that say "based on a true story" but are completely fictional. there is none of the emotion or depth of the book, just mindless melodrama. if you are a high school student looking for a way to get out of reading, i suggest you try another version.

"RVAM"'s reputation preceded it. I first heard of it in one of those Medved style movie books, "The 50 Worst Movies Ever" or "The Golden Turkey Awards", or something like that. Every review of the film basically said that this movie was so bad that it would make you bleed from the eyes to watch it. So when the Exposed Film Society finally got around to showing it, I was anticipating the kind of cathartic experience that only a true cinematic stinker can provide. <br /><br />However, "Robot" wasn't really all that bad. <br /><br />Oh, this is definitely a "Z" film through and through. Some of the voice dubbing (as is usually the case for K. Gordon Murray imports) is awfully cheesy, and the movie itself seems to be structurally something of a Frankenstein, since a huge chunk of it seems to be footage from a previous "Aztec Mummy" movie, narrated with a voice-over by the leading man. A dead giveaway: anytime the question "Then what happened?" is asked more than twice in the dialog, you are looking at reassembled footage put together with little regard for plot coherence or momentum. In RVAM, "Then what happened?" or "What happened then?" is uttered at least four times in the 1st hour. <br /><br />Even without the structural problems, the plot and dialog don't translate well to an older American audience. For instance, as the hero explains (and explains and explains) the back-story. he includes a remark about Doctor Krupp, "a doctor who suddenly turned into an evil master criminal" and began his quest for the treasure that the Aztec mummy guards. No background, no explanation, he just "suddenly turned evil". Obviously, this was aimed at a pretty undiscriminating audience. <br /><br />The clincher, though, is the "Robot", the supposed "showcase" of this movie. This Robot is the worst robot special effect since "Undersea Kingdom" or even "Santa Claus Vs. The Martians". Compared to this hunk of junk, the Tin Man from the "Wizard Of Oz" looked like the Terminator chassis that chased Linda Connor through the foundry in T2. The Aztec Mummy himself is well designed and executed; he's recognizably undead, familiar enough to look like a mummy, and yet distinct from the "Boris Karloff" bandage collection familiar to most American audiences. But whoever designed the Robot in this followup had no feel for the concept...or no budget. They could at least have given him some knees, for heaven's sake. <br /><br />In addition, the titular battle is terribly executed and lasts less than 60 seconds. (I've seen shoving matches on junior high playgrounds that are more convincing.) Then the movie basically just stops. That seems a bit of a rip off considering the amount of time the movie spends building up to the battle itself.<br /><br />In spite of all these problems, the movie isn't horrible or incompetent the way a Coleman Francis film or a Larry Buchanan film was. Compared to "Monster A-Go-Go" or "Attack of The Eye Creatures", "RVTAM" is like a Coppola film. It's just kind of dull and boring and silly. The actors are competent (in a mannered B movie way) and reasonably photogenic; Dr. Krupp, in particular seems to be having a wonderful time as he leers and plots and capers about in his cape and "Phantom Of the Opera" suit. I often found myself rooting for him, in spite of his being the villain. <br /><br />Anyway, I've seen much, much worse. File this with "Samson Vs The Vampire Women", under "interesting Mexican juvenile oddities".

You don't see the meaning of the title till much later, but you get the point of it in the first few minutes. This directorial debut from Golden Globe nominated (for actor) Danny DeVito, also playing Owen/Ned 'Little Ned' Lift, is a terrific Hitchcock-like film about one man's hate for his wife's book (she stole his), and one man's hate for his mother. Basically, Owen wants to be a good writer, like his teacher Larry Donner (Billy Crystal), and he inspired by murder stories. Larry suggests he see a Hitchcock film, quite ironic, and that is when Owen has the idea to kill Larry's ex-wife, Margaret (Star Trek Voyager's Kate Mulgrew). Owen is inspired by 'Strangers on a Train', swapping murders, so Larry must kill Owen's horrible Momma (Oscar and Golden Globe nominated Anne Ramsey). Larry was convinced Owen killed Margaret, and also that he had to/wanted to kill Owen's Momma, but there is a happy ending when months later both Larry and Owen bring out books, Momma died naturally, and they went on a holiday with Beth Ryan (Kim Greist). Also starring Rob Reiner as Joel and Oprah Winfrey. With hilarious moments, a great director/actor and his support, this is a must-see comedy. Very, very good!

I wish there was a category to place this in other than Horror. It simply isn't. Granted it has it's horrific moments, however I don't feel that makes it a horror film. I will give that this movie could have been better. A million little things could have been changed to make it better.<br /><br />That having been said I love this movie. I'm often sad that people misunderstand the whole point of it. It has always been clear to me that the point of this movie was to say... things aren't always what they seem. Sometimes 'evil', isn't. <br /><br />Barker was at a Con I went to and he did a little talk then watch the movie thing. It was very interesting. Many things he wished to put in the movie couldn't be, and a chunk was cut out of the movie that he believed to be long lost. This was a chunk that helped shed light on Boone and his Girlfriend, as well as some other details.<br /><br />I know some people are bothered by not having more information about all of the 'breed' in the background, however I always felt that gave the movie a more 'real' fleshed out feel. I have read the novella this was based off of as well as many of the comics. Because of this, the movie just always seemed like a staging ground for the whole story. A much more involved story that sadly has never has a chance to live. <br /><br />Despite all of the flaws this movie might have I believe it has a lot to offer. The 'monsters' are wonderful, very imaginative. While the acting is sometimes a bit stiff there are some very quotable lines. Whenever I watch it I find something new. Keep and eye on Boones chest toward the end. At one point Decker stabs him and shortly after Boone falls on a card table. He ends up with a card stuck to his chest. This card stays there for a while even after Lori pulls the knife out. It stays there until Boone casually removes it. I love that. That was a lovely little detail I thought.<br /><br />Basically what I want to say is that... if you are looking for a horror movie, don't watch this. If you believe that at times men can be more evil than anything we have ever dreamed up. This is the movie for you. This is a movie about how men destroy what they don't understand or fear.

When you first sit down to watch this movie, keep in mind that you are about to see something you've probably never seen before. Keep in mind that this is a movie where they obviously spent INSANE amounts of cash on explosions and not enough on acting or anything else for that matter. The crazy thing I noticed is that every character is completely over-portrayed, and it seems (most of the time anyhow) that the film had been 'sped-up' to make the characters move faster! (I wonder if the Hong Kong version was dubbed too?) I understand the cartoon had this, but it doesn't work for live-action. It just looks odd... as if the camera crew decided to act because they couldn't afford real actors.<br /><br />The English version is horribly dubbed, and the character's words do not match the mouths at all. I would have preffered subtitles, but since this is a kids movie, and since some kids cannot read well, I'll let it go. But there is something extremely odd about this movie. It's supposedly a kids movie, but there's a lot of material about SEX, RAPE, and STRIPPING which isn't exactly for young Western audiences. (In the Orient, they have different laws and sexuality in children's movies is much more accepted). But parents be warned! There is a scene where two characters talk about rape, multiple scenes where people say 'sex maniac' and a scene where this insanely young japanese girl does a sexy dance for one of the 'sex maniacs' and shows him her breasts! Who was this movie made for anyway?<br /><br />Oh, and the special effects are laughable. You can tell the spaceship-like things that bomb the village are cardboard cutouts (or animation, I wasn't sure) that look unconvincing, even to a kid. The makers of this movie left out a lot of cool things from the cartoon, simply because they couldn't budget the kind of money they'd need. I didn't like how the names of all the characters were changed... it made me wonder if this movie was made by the same people as Dragon Ball Z.<br /><br />I don't really recommed this movie to anyone. Kids, adults, or Dragon Ball Z fans. It's just a poor representation of the cartoon, and obviously, one will be able to tell that this movie was rushed and no care whatsoever was put into it. I won't even get into the camerawork... just wait until the end credits at the still picture that sits there for 2 minutes... most of the shots are not framed correctly AT ALL and the movie just seems made by amateurs. Grainy film quality too.<br /><br />Just all around horrible!!!!<br /><br />

Surface was awesome, I don't know how many Mondays I survived at school just by thinking about the new episode of surface. I loved it, sometimes I had to call home and tell my mom to tape it for me. I was pretty upset when I heard it was cancelled, I mean jeez way to let us hang. So,they can have their new Tina fay comedy(you couldn't pay me to watch that, I think seeing the commercials made me dumber). I'm gonna miss my Monday night fix of Surface, even if my sister did make fun of me. although,kidnapped does look good and, they still have L&O: SVU (i think, i still have to check) (i only wrote the 2 lines above, because they said i needed ten lines).

You don't need to read this review.<br /><br />An earlier review, by pninson of Seattle, has already identified all the main shortcomings of this production. I can only amplify its basic arguments.<br /><br />Bleak House was a relatively late Dickens novel and is much darker than his earlier work. This is taken too literally by the director, Ross Devenish, who piles on the gloom and fog too much. When Ada, Rick and Esther appear, half an hour into the opening episode, it is a relief just to be in daylight for the first time. In some of the murkier scenes it was hard to see what was actually on my TV screen. I watched the whole thing in one day, starting in mid-afternoon. As daylight faded this became less of an issue, but I have a pretty good TV and I have never encountered this problem before at any time of day.<br /><br />The pacing is very deliberate (i.e. slow). I am sure this was intensional, but it is overdone. There are numerous shots of people trudging though the muck and gloom of Victorian London that are held longer than is necessary to establish the mood and atmosphere. A good editor could probably take several minutes out of each fifty-minute episode, without losing a line of dialogue, just by trimming each of these scenes slightly.<br /><br />I don't want to overstate these two problems. You soon adjust to the look and pace of this production. The more important issue is that it doesn't always tell the story very effectively. Earlier Dickens novels are as long as Bleak House, but are not nearly so intricately plotted. For example, I recently re-read Nicholas Nickleby because I was intrigued to see how Douglas McGrath crammed an 800 page book into his two-hour movie. The answer is simple: the book is full of padding. McGrath cut great swathes of the novel while still retaining all the essential story elements. This would not be possible with Bleak House. <br /><br />This production needs its seven hours. Probably, it needs even longer, because many elements of its convoluted plot are not sufficiently clear, or as well handled, as they need to be. A few random examples will illustrate the problems.<br /><br />The maid, Rosa, appears from nowhere with no background, so Lady Dedlock's attachment to her is largely unmotivated.<br /><br />Sergeant George's acquiescence in Tulkinhorn's demand for a sample of Horton's handwriting is somewhat fudged.<br /><br />It is not made clear enough that Esther is actually in love with Woodcourt when she agrees to marry John Jarndyce. Neither is it clear that they have agreed not to announce their engagement, or why.<br /><br />Ada and Rick's secret marriage is omitted. In one episode they are merely lovers, in the next, people are suddenly referring to them as husband and wife.<br /><br />Mrs Rouncewell is only introduced at a late stage in the story and Sargeant George's estrangement from his family is left unexplained - as is the means by which she is discovered.<br /><br />Tulkinhorn's dedication to maintaining the honour and respectability of the Dedlock family is understated, so his motive for persecuting Lady Dedlock is more obscure than it need be.<br /><br />The involvement of the brick makers with both Tom and (later) Lady Dedlock is somewhat opaque.<br /><br />It is not obvious that Guppy renews his offer to Esther because her smallpox scars have all but vanished.<br /><br />This is only a selection: there are others. They are not major problems and the main thrust of the story is clear enough. Nonetheless, they are minor irritations that detract from its power: you shouldn't have to puzzle over little plot points. However, there are more important structural problems that do weaken the story in its later stages.<br /><br />The whole business of Tulkinhorn's murder is somewhat thrown away. Bucket immediately pinpoints Hortense as a suspect, which undermines the suspense of Sergeant George's predicament and the importance of finding Mrs Rouncewell. It also diminishes the impact of the sub-plot in which suspicion is thrown on Lady Dedlock and weakens the scene in which Hortense is unmasked in front of Sir Lester.<br /><br />A more serious problem is that the murder, its investigation and the subsequent search for Lady Dedlock, dominate the story for over an hour, during which time we completely lose sight of the other main plot strand: the legal case and its effect on Rick. His failing finances, his gouging by Vholes and Skimpole, Ada's despair, his declining health and so on, are all put on hold for an entire episode. This may be how Dickens wrote the book (I haven't read it for years) but a good screenplay should keep the different plot strands moving forward together.<br /><br />Finally, Smallweed's role in the story is so diminished that he is almost superfluous. His discovery of the new will, that triggers the final phase of the story, is also thrown away. It happens off screen.<br /><br />Despite all of this, it is still a very good production. Many of the performances are outstanding. Individual scenes are beautifully realised. Its accumulating sense of tragedy is very powerful. I would still be recommending it as a superb adaptation of a great book, had it not been for the 2005 production. In fact, I probably wouldn't be fully aware of its defects if I hadn't seen how Andrew Davies did it better. I have been critical of Davies's Jane Austen adaptations, but I have to admit that he really knows how to tame Dickens's sprawling books.<br /><br />This is an impressive and gripping drama and well worth seven hours of anybody's time. Nonetheless, its probable fate is to be viewed mainly as a cross-reference to the near-definitive 2005 version.

Which do you think the average person would know more/less about: Iranian cinema or Iranian football? Interestingly, the two come to the forefront of controversial Iranian filmmaker Jafar Panahi's latest film entitled 'Offside', a tale that uses football or access to football as a backdrop for a series of scenes revolving around one's right to do something or go somewhere and an individual's right to extend that courtesy if and when they'd like to. The odd thing is, you don't come away from Offside having learnt about Iranian football or too much about Iranian cinema (unless it's an education in Panahi's controversial style), but you do come away feeling enlightened, that at least someone from Iran has taken a controversial issue that is clearly still very much in force in a nation like Iran, and is willing to present it to an international audience rather than exploit it.<br /><br />I can remember the 2006 World Cup, I'm sure many people can. It was the summer after my initial year out at university and after the slog that was my first year, a summer of World Cup football acted as a nicely timed tonic. Needless to say, I saw practically every game bar the ones they show simultaneously with the other ones at the very end of the group stages so that to avoid incidences as seen in Spain '82 when it was thought West Germany and Austria transpired to get a result between them that would see them both through at the expense of Algeria.<br /><br />Anyone in Britain that was watching the BBC's broadcast of the Iran – Mexico game, both nations' first of the tournament, may remember that at the top of the show, the BBC's football anchorman Gary Lineker let off a snide comment to introduce the match. It went something like: 'We've seen giants Germany, England, Argentina and Holland play but now we get to see.........Mexico and Iran battle it out'. The emphasis on the latter two being inferior was clear and that maybe watching them was a chore. It's a shame because there are people, and films like Offside present them, who are really willing to see Iran play to the point where they risk their well-being to achieve it and it's sad when people in a position of power dismiss what they deem 'inferior' when there are others who'd do anything to have the chance to otherwise engage.<br /><br />When immediately thinking of the words 'Iran', 'football' and 'World Cup', my mind flies back to the France '98 game between said nation and America. Here is a film about a World Cup game of sorts involving Iran but where some or indeed most Iranian filmmakers may well have opted to present a tale revolving around Iran's famous victory over The United States and what that meant to them, director Panahi chooses to look at what goes on behind the scenes and presents a story from the stands as women are barred from football matches and are not allowed to live the ecstasy of winning a game of immense magnitude. You can imagine a heavy handed film detailing Iran's 'victory' as a lumbering propaganda film designed to exploit as they 'defeat' a Western power or 'enemy' at a sport they perhaps were not expected to do so in.<br /><br />A couple of films that spring to mind when it comes to beating the unbeatable at their own game are 2001 Indian film 'Lagaan', in which the Indian peasants defeat the ruling British at cricket. Similalry, 2005's 'The Game of Their Lives' sees the Americans defeat the English at a football match only this time in the 1950 World Cup. The differences between these films and Offside are immense; Offside is looking at a situation behind a state's mentality and dares to explore an essence of Feminism as the girls, trying to see their beloved Iran defeat Bahrain and qualify for the World Cup, are rounded up like animals and kept in a crude purgatory mere feet from a barred window that would allow them to see the game. The reasoning is to do with the foul language the men 'may', not will, but 'may' use during the game. The film presents Iran as so incompetent that they cannot take away a man's right to swear and ban the bad language but must ban a woman's right to see the game all together – it is no wonder Panahi's film was itself banned in Iran.<br /><br />But Panahi remembers to include what makes the rule so crazy in the first place by frequently allowing his female characters to both smoke cigarettes and use mobile phones, two things the doctors and scientists will have you think are far more dangerous to the human body/mind than hearing a little bit of foul language at a football match. Panahi pays special attention to the title of his film 'Offside' which itself is a ruling within football detailing when an 'attacker' is 'caught' trying to gain an advantage in the field of play. The parallels run with the womens' position in the film as these advancing (supposedly without right) individuals are caught trying to put one over the opposition team; that being the state itself.<br /><br />I think Offside is one of the better films to come out of the Middle East and surrounding Gulf area that I've seen. It's a tense but humbling film about people who do not carry any acting history according to the IMDb and thus, the acting is raw and real adding that quaint neo-realist aura to it all. The immediate ending is haunting and the constant verbal battle between the male soldiers and female wrong-doers who dared to defy the state is wonderful. I also think for anyone to actually dislike the film for the reasons I've mentioned shows a distinct level of callous, either that or you work in the Iranian government.

Near the closing stages of Baby Mama, one of the central characters goes on to describe the basic outline of everything that came before and summarises that it 'was all just a mess'; I really couldn't say it any better than that. And while the feature does have its odd ray of hope every now and again, the vast majority of what is present is too neutered to be considered relevant and too unremarkable to be worth anyone's time. A lacklustre cast, mundane script and vague, caricature characters ensure that Baby Mama certainly isn't taxing on the ol' noggin, but it never makes up for this through its proposed sense of humour. Consisting mainly of very routine, cliché jokes based around an odd couple (rich and poor) trying to live with each other as they prepare to bring a baby into the world, the film is far too esoteric to deliver laughs outside its very thin demographic.<br /><br />As a story on finding love, it's not that bad, but playing this plot line as a side-story of sorts to work alongside the comedy-orientated odd couple tangent, characterisation is notably weak, resulting in a lukewarm romance that never bubbles. As characters themselves, both central figures are mildly amusing when put together in small spaces, but when left alone quickly unravel and bare their emptiness; so while we may eventually come to find the character's interactions with each other amusing at times, the comedy never branches beyond distant chuckles; we don't feel for the characters and don't find them inherently interesting, but rather their dynamic. Unfortunately however, although this dynamic works best, or at least better than the individual personas, as mentioned above, it rarely stems outside of the typical confines of the odd-couple formula.<br /><br />Kate (Tina Fey) is a successful business woman who has hired working class, dumb-blonde Angie (Amy Poehler) to be her unlikely surrogate, and after Angie decides to leave hopeless husband Carl (Dax Shepard), both eventually have to learn to live together despite their obvious differences. Yes, it's the typical odd-couple premise, and one that we have already seen in this year's What Happens in Vegas, yet what Baby Mama lacks that the aforementioned movie had is both chemistry between performers and semi-layered characters. Kate and Angie both fail to ever show much of a personality outside of their two dimensional outline and as such both performers are neglected to play out roles that demand chemistry to produce out of thin air. In fact, the movie's only real engaging performance and character comes from the underused talents of Romany Malco who gets lumbered with playing a door-man. Of the few times that I laughed during Baby Mama, most of those moments were because of this man, and the remainder usually fell to Shepard.<br /><br />It's a rare thing of course to find a movie which embodies its script's themes in the way which its world is shot and presented to us through the camera, and yet director Michael McCullers goes from page to screen effectively enough. Yet, for a film about babies, multi-million dollar business and cultural stereotyping, this isn't necessarily a good thing. Baby Mama is grade-A, hammy, plastic tinsel-town with capital bore topped with sugar. So not only did I feel emotionally distant to the characters because of their two-dimensional nature, but I simply didn't care for the world they inhabited. The dialogue, along with sets, costumes, and the script's general themes are painted in pastel blues and pinks so much that all shades of humanity are lost in the director's incessant need to make his movie feel like a neutered fantasy; these aren't characters and that isn't our world in any way… so why should I care? At the end of the day however, a romantic comedy's ultimate gauge of success or failure comes down purely to its chemistry between its love interests, and the frequency of its laughs; Baby Mama has little going on in any of these departments. Of course to say that the film is without any value at all would be unfair. I'm sure female audiences in a similar boat as lead character Kate may get a slight kick out of the proceedings, but anyone else will probably just feel numb and probably bored. In this respect Baby Mama avoids being unbearable, but never convinces in being anything remarkable or worthy of a look to anyone outside of its immediate audience; a comedic dud and a romantic mismatch, Baby Mama is too light-headed to be interesting and too shallow to be entertaining.<br /><br />- A review by Jamie Robert Ward (http://www.invocus.net)

If you have not heard of this film, it follows two Sudanese refugees from a refugee camp in Africa to America, where they convince themselves they will find success and riches. Life is harder than expected in the states, and this film beautifully captures the frustration felt when things are not going right. The lives are captured so well many moments seem scripted because they're so perfect. Whether it be on the job, at school, or the time in between, the two boys, Peter and Santino, are very honest with the filmmakers, and make some very thought-provoking comments about life in the states. It's one of the only documentaries I can recall that, when it ended, I wanted it to go on for another two hours. It might be difficult to find this movie cause it didn't get great distribution, but check your local "art house" or independent theater and give this one a go (side note, if you're reading this when it's already on video then definitely it's worth a rent). Rating: 28/40

I didn't mind all the walking. People really did walk places back then. It loaned an air of authenticity to this period piece and some perspective on the technology of the Martians. I too was disappointed by the effects, in particular the "Thunderchild" scene, which I regard as one of the most exciting in the book. But I can't praise this film enough, for its faithfulness to Wells's story! It's about time. The actors are likable and the performances are charming. Also this film is very much worth seeing just to hear Jamie Hall's truly great musical score. It was interesting to see the same actor play both the writer and his brother in London.

Yes, this gets the full ten stars. It's plain as day that this fill is genius. The universe sent Trent Harris a young, wonderfully strange man one day and Harris caught him on tape, in all that true misfit glory that you just can't fake. Too bad it ended in tragedy for the young man, if only an alternate ending could be written for that fellow's story. The other two steps in the trilogy do retell the story, with Sean Penn and Crispin Glover in the roles of the young men, respectively. The world is expanded upon and the strangeness is contextualized by the retelling, giving us a broader glimpse into growing up weird in vanilla America. Recommended for anyone and everyone!

Before I begin, a "little" correction: IMDb states that Richard Gere is 180 cm tall. Wrong! I passed by him 10 years ago, and he can't be an ant's a** bigger than 165. I'm 183, and he looked like a child next to me.<br /><br />Should have been called "Wheatlands"; an appropriate title to complement Malick's previous (and much better) movie "Badlands". This movie shows that not all directors have as their prime objective to entertain. In fact, some of them have as their main objective to show wheat in all its splendour.<br /><br />The movie is depressing and relatively uninvolving, with the obligatory tragic ending. Nothing more than an average and predictable love triangle drama, with the male two-thirds of the triangle not surviving the movie. Praised for its visual quality; while it does have that realistic 70s feel to it, there are limits to how spellbinding wheat fields can be. You can shoot them with 1500 mm cameras, for all I care, but they are still wheat fields.<br /><br />Gere, who at first seems miscast as some kind of lower-class factory-worker-turned-Wheatfield-worker, is quite solid, while Brooke Adams appears distant and cool for most of the movie, making one wonder just how much she loved either of the two hunks. But for those looking for a movie that displays all the glorious colours of a field of wheat, look no further: you've found your dream!<br /><br />If you're interested in reading my "biographies" of Richard Gere and other Hollywood intellectual heavyweights, contact me by e-mail.