Datasets:

mushroomsolutions

/

imdb_sentiment_3000_Test

like 0

Follow

Mushroom Solutions 2

This movie packs a punch. There are a few every now and then that make me think deeply, and disturb me a lot. I could see myself in this same predicament - passively allowing things to happen around me, not standing up for the right and decent thing, just trying to avoid trouble. How often do we avoid making waves or sticking our necks out? How often does our inaction condone the evil actions of others. We would never join them, we tell ourselves, we recognize that what they are doing is bad, but do we do anything about it? <br /><br />Lawrence Newman (William H. Macey) is a low-key, nerdy office worker who has paid off his home in Brooklyn, NY in the waning days of World War II. He rarely gets engaged in what is going on around him, has never married, rarely socializes, just goes to work and cares for his invalid mother. Then a series of events in his very "white" little neighborhood pull him out of his complacent shell into a maelstrom of events. It starts as he witness from his bedroom window the rape of a Puerto Rican girl by the son of his neighbor. Soon after he gets glasses because of poor vision. As he is now better able to see, he becomes less able to deal with the circumstances of his life. The one bright spot is a new love in his life, and he marries, hoping to continue on in his normalcy. Then the virulent anti-semitism on that street catches him, despite his credentials as a Presbyterian WASP. As things spiral further out of control, he discovers he must make an important decision - does he take a stand or does he simply go away.<br /><br />I cannot how anybody can view this movie without being affected and having to think very much about themselves and what they really stand for. Post war anti-semitism is the setting here, but there is injustice at all times and in all places. It is for the individual to decide where he or she stands.

My wife is a teacher and she is very familiar with the story, having read it to several of her classes. It never sounded all that interesting to me, though, and I bought the DVD figuring this would be a movie that wouldn't really be up my alley.<br /><br />The first half of the movie has a lot of set-up and I found myself thinking that I was right. It starts off a bit slow and I have to admit that I was a little bit bored - but curious enough to stay with it. Boy, am I glad I did because this ended up being a very satisfying and rewarding movie. I would most certainly watch this again!<br /><br />The casting was very good. Since I haven't read the book, I can't vouch for accuracy, but I have to say that Jon Voight was truly delightful. You liked the characters you were supposed to like, hated the ones you were supposed to hate, and laughed at the ones that were supposed to be funny.<br /><br />I can see how some folks might not like this movie. It is tedious at times, especially in the beginning. All the flashbacks can be distracting (though they are essential to the story). Once the story starts to come together at the end, though, I think you're paid back in spades for your patience. When all is said and done, I think this is a very good movie - 8/10.<br /><br />

Since musicals have both gone out of fashion and are incredibly expensive to make without all the talent needed to make one under contract to a studio, I doubt we will ever get a real life story of Enrico Caruso. <br /><br />But if everything else was in place it was no accident that no Hollywood studio attempted the task until Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer had Mario Lanza under contract. No one else could have done it, I doubt whether it will ever be tried again.<br /><br />And why should it. I think Enrico Caruso himself would have been satisfied as to how his singing was portrayed on screen. For his tenor voice was his life, his reason for being on the earth. <br /><br />To say that liberties were taken with his life is to be modest. Caruso, like the man who portrayed him, was a man of large appetites although with a lot more self discipline. He had numerous relationships with several women and fathered two out of wedlock sons who are not in this film. <br /><br />His contribution to the recording industry is treated as almost an afterthought. He's shown in a recording studio once late in his life. Actually he started recording right around the turn of the last century and together with Irish tenor John McCormack for RCA Victor made the recording industry what it became.<br /><br />When Caruso and McCormack were at their heights you had to practically inherit a ticket to see either of them perform live. But a lot of immigrant Italian and Irish families had a phonograph and a record or three of either of these men. It's why both became the legends that they are.<br /><br />What the film does have is some beautifully staged operatic arias done by Mario Lanza, a taste of what he might have become had he the discipline of a Caruso to stick to opera. The Great Caruso won an Oscar for sound recording and received nominations for costume and set design.<br /><br />Mario himself helped popularize the film with an RCA Red Seal album of songs from The Great Caruso. Unfortunately due to contractual obligations we couldn't get an actual cast album with Ann Blyth, Dorothy Kirsten, and Jarmila Novotna also.<br /><br />Though Blyth sang it in the film, Lanza had a big hit recording of The Loveliest Night of the Year further helping to popularize The Great Caruso.<br /><br />If you're looking for a life of Enrico Caruso, this ain't it. If you are looking for a great artist singing at the height of his career, than you should not miss The Great Caruso.

I became a fan of the TV series `Homicide: Life on the Street' late in the show's run, but became a fan very quickly. It was a cop show unlike any other: visually different in its use of hand-held cameras, taking the viewer everywhere, with its multiethnic and mutiracial cast and their varying and fascinating personalities, and that it covered all of the good and bad of a police department, including the corruption and personality clashes that bubble up to the surface. <br /><br />Homicide: The Movie, the reunion follow-up to the series, is as good as a made-for-television film can be. After Lt. Giardello (Yaphet Kotto), now a candidate for mayor of Baltimore, is shot, the series' cast members are back to help find the killer. In addition, the cast members who left the force and those who died, also manage to have their place in the film. The intensity and fire that marked the series return, and the script bristles with the same fire that marked the series. All in all, a terrific TV movie.<br /><br />Vote: 9

OK. I admit. I'm one of those nerds who have spent all to many hours with my beloved DVD player and my wonderful television set watching science fiction series. Star Trek (Next Generation) was my first space date, and since then I've switched partners regularly. I've seen'em all, it seems, and my favorites are «Lexx», «Farscape» and the new «Battlestar Galactica», in other words: the newest, state of the art space operas. But, I also have a general crush on the old fashioned ones, the cheap ones, like the magnificent four seasoned BBC show «Blakes7». Here, the budgets are smaller than hobbits, the special effects seem to be made on a Commodore 64, but who cares when the scripts are sharp and intelligently written with dark humor, the acting dead serious and at times even high class?<br /><br />But why do they always speak English in the space future? Because this is NOT the future, it's fantasy for kids. Still, it can be irritating at times. Me, being a Norwegian, have often damned this appalling fact that one never makes genre series, like science fiction, for Scandinavian viewers. I never ever thought of the fact that this might have happened. But it did, actually, once, and even in my own homeland, Norway. I was two years old when the so called Fjernsynsteatret (TV theater section) of our national public service channel Nrk produced this three episode version of Blindpassasjer (The Stowaway).<br /><br />When I first heard of it, I was not surprised of the fact that until this day, the show has only been screened once in Norway, making it impossible for me to actually see it. It went on Swedish, danish and Finnish television also, in it's time, but that was a long time ago. There have been no video or DVD release of it, not a surprise either, and when it was screened on an art house cinema, this happened in Bergen, a city far far away from Oslo (where I live). And then there's another fact about «Blindpassasjer» that didn't surprise me, that it was written by the two Norwegian authors Tor Åge Bringsværd and Jon Bing (Bing&Bringsværd). This duo basically introduced the SciFi genre to Norwegians in the seventies; they published anthologies and wrote what they called fable prose. In my opinion, Bringsværd is the most interesting of the two writers, and has written several great and entertaining novels, masterpieces even, some of them hilarious, such as «Bazar» and «Syvsoverskens Dystre Frokost». No other than this guy, also an acclaimed dramatist, could construct the script of «Blindpassasjer».<br /><br />When I finally got to watch it, it was because a strange swede who recorded the three episodes on VCR in the 80's, eventually managed to transform it to DVD and give it to me. He was a nice bloke. So I sat down and watched it, with Swedish subtitles, bad sound and some scrapes and errors; but the thing came through and I was surprised that I eventually came to love it.<br /><br />The exterior scenes with the spaceships and planets are better than the ones in Blakes7, and the credit goes to Caprino studios (who made the famous Flåklypa Grand Prix), and the interior of the Marco Polo (the space ship) works better than I'd expected. The acting is typically theatrical, but it works better than when they play Ibsen, to put it mildly, and Bjørn Floberg carries his role solidly, as does Trini Lund. The legendary actress Henny moan delivers her lines in a serious and laid back tone which fits the genre, but this is an ensemble play, and I'm happy to say that Ola B. Johannesen carries his mustache with nobility, and Marit Østbye is a really hot space chic of my standards.<br /><br />But is it really that good? Well, one have to swallow the rather abrupt ending, the pretentious criticism of «modern society», but yes, it's, well, not really really really fantastic, but charming, cool, nostalgic and pleasant. One and a half hour of classic Norwegian SciFi.

Being a long-time fan of Japanese film, I expected more than this. I can't really be bothered to write to much, as this movie is just so poor. The story might be the cutest romantic little something ever, pity I couldn't stand the awful acting, the mess they called pacing, and the standard "quirky" Japanese story. If you've noticed how many Japanese movies use characters, plots and twists that seem too "different", forcedly so, then steer clear of this movie. Seriously, a 12-year old could have told you how this movie was going to move along, and that's not a good thing in my book.<br /><br />Fans of "Beat" Takeshi: his part in this movie is not really more than a cameo, and unless you're a rabid fan, you don't need to suffer through this waste of film.<br /><br />2/10

This movie is one of the most provocative Jesus movies I have ever seen. It does not seek to tell the whole story, but only to portray an interpretive expression of the last day of Jesus Christ. It is darkly witty, playful and seriously faithful to elements of the Jewish tradition and to modern scriptural interpretation. Judas is much more ordinary than other portrayals, not the dark and sinister evil that we sometimes imagine, but a grossly mistaken man, horribly misguided in his zeal. Chris Saranden's Jesus is playful and serious, faithful and committed--very human while also divine. The final dialog is thoughtfully done and serves as the kind of small talk that two powerful men might do when they have just committed an atrocity. I would watch this movie again and recommend it to others.

I'll start by relating my first encounter with Prince's music. It was in a bar, on my 39th birthday and a girl was dancing bare breasted to "1999" playing on the speakers. I asked people, who is this singer? I was told it was Prince. It was so good that it distracted me from a beautiful, topless dancer. Later I started hearing other Prince songs and really "digging" them. When Purple Rain came out I still knew very little about this fellow Minnesotan. The movie blew me away. I instantly became Prince's No. 1 fan of the "War Baby" generation. Later I found out one of my cousins was his secretary, and she got me, and my nephew into a V.I.P. Prince concert where we sat next to his mother...how cool is that! Getting back to the topic at hand, I agree with Siskel & Ebert who called Purple Rain an instant classic. I have seen it over 17 times and absolutely love it. I thought Prince's acting was fine, Apollonia struggled a bit, but all in all the acting was fine. John Gielgud was not available to play 'The Kid' so Prince took the role. The film is visually stunning, brilliantly paced (it never gets slow), and terrifically directed. I rank it among the Best Movie Musicals of all time. The last time I watched it was after about a 7 year gap and it still delivered. I am so proud of fellow Minnesotan Prince Rogers Nelson and would love to tell him personally. He walked right in front of me during the above mentioned concert and said, "Hi", to my nephew but not me. He was chatting with his mom. I was a bit crushed but he's still No. 1 with me.

Until today, I thought there only three people, including me, who considered Heaven's Gate (1980)to be a masterpiece and perhaps the last great western, (since the 1970), after, Little Big Man (1970), Jeremiah Johnson (1972), The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976) and The Long Riders (1980).<br /><br /> I was stunned and pleased to see that 22.5% of those voting at IMDB rate this movie a 10, as do I. A recent book, the Worst Movies of All Time, includes Heaven's Gate. Through it's production and release it was vilified, as no movie since Cleopatra, almost twenty years before. At one time it was considered the most expensive over-budget movie of all time, surpassing even Cleopatra. It was blamed for the downfall of its studio, United Artists, until everyone finally saw all the studios were falling. Michael Cimino, fresh from his glory with the Deer Hunter was hated and despised for his success and movie making excess, but clearly, that was petty jealousy at its worst.<br /><br /> Cimino ended up fashioning one of the great expositions of the American experience. This film is not to be missed but any serious student of American filmmaking.

Deliriously romantic comedy with intertwining subplots that mesh beautifully and actors who bounce lines off each other with precise comic timing, a feat that is beautiful to behold. When Cher's spineless fiancé asks her to help him make peace with his estranged, moody younger brother, no one could dream the consequences which follow. Operatic symbolism, Catholic church confessions, love bites and falling snow..."Moonstruck" is timeless and smooth. It takes about 15 minutes for the picture's rhythm to kick in (there's an early sequence with the grandfather and his dogs at the cemetery that's a little rough, and a following scene with Cosmo and the elderly man at the gate that seems obtuse), but the patchwork of the plot is interwoven with nimble skill, and the movie's wobbly tone and kooky spirit are both infectious. ***1/2 from ****

Not only does the film's author, Steven Greenstreet, obviously idolize Michael Moore, but he also follows in his footsteps by using several of Moore's Propaganda film-making tactics. Moore has expertise in distracting the viewer from this focus though, while Greenstreet is obviously less skilled here.<br /><br />Having been privy to all of the issues surrounding Moore's speech at UVSC, I was disappointed to see that the major complaints of the community -- that Moore was being paid $40,000 of the State of Utah 's educational funds to basically promote John Kerry's campaign and to advertise his own liberal movie -- were pushed to the background by Greenstreet while lesser issues were sensationalized.<br /><br />The marketing methods for this video have been equally biased and objectionable... promoting the film by claiming that "Mormon's tried to kill Moore". Not only is this preposterous, but it defames a major religion that Greenstreet obviously has some personal issues with. I followed Moore's visit very closely, and all of the major news agencies noted that Moore's visit came and went without any credible security problems or incidents in Utah.<br /><br />Greenstreet has banked on this film to jump-start his film-making career to the point that he has even dropped out of film school to help accelerate this. This seems to have been a severe miscalculation though, since Moore's visits to roughly 60 other colleges and Universities across the country in 2004 diluted interest for this rather common event. Greenstreet's assumption that American audiences would be interested in this film due to the promoted religious and conservative angles doesn't seem to be well founded.<br /><br />Even the name of the film, This Divided State, is somewhat of a misnomer since Utah voted overwhelmingly for Bush's re-election and thus appears to be more politically unified than any other State. The division in the movie title seems more indicative of the gulf that exists in Greenstreet's ideological differences with his religion and State. If anything, I find a humorous correlation between the religious angle of this supposed documentary and Woody Allen's hilarious contention in Sleeper (1973) that, "I was beaten up by Quakers".

Arg. The shuffling dinosaurs are back to take another bite out of our sanity in this all-awful third film. This time, European terrorists(Irish I'd say) hi-jack an army convoy supposed to be transporting uranium. They pull into a shipyard, open the truck and discover our old friends the carnosaurs. Pandemonium comes visiting then when the rubber dinos chomp the terrorists, the cops and some marines. The whole film seems to be (again) largely inspired from Alien(as Carnosaur 2 was) with the pathetic marines going through the "claustrophobic" shipyard? guns at the ready. This third opus is probably the driest and ungoriest film of the lot, with only one spurt of blood when a rubber dino rips a marine's head off. The dinos are stiff, shuffling creatures as usual and the T-Rex sounds like an enraged elephant when it roars(it also appears to have no eyes). One of the goofiest scenes of the film is when the coppers arrive on the scene: they enter the building where the hijacked truck is kept and hear some weird noise coming from another truck. On opening it, surprise! The Rubber Reptile Gang burst out and devour them. Why were the dinos locked up in the second truck after escaping from the first? How did they get locked in as the truck door could only be locked from the outside? What was the point of filming this scene???? Oh bother, who cares? Both thumbs down for the Over-sized Rubber Iguanas.

I will start by saying I have always been a Bonnie Hunt fan.... She always adds life to any character she plays, and she did a wonderful job in her directorial debut.<br /><br />I have to admit this is a chick flick... But keeping that in mind, it is a wonderful story, it touches on many emotions and elicits all sorts of reactions.<br /><br />This film depicts real life like people with real life like situations. (Tho I have to exclude the coincidence that is the major part of the film)<br /><br />It's a love story.. not just of a man and a woman, but the love of family, friends, and loved ones past. (Even pets).<br /><br />I really enjoyed it. Well worth the rental or the purchase.

I thought this was a sequel of some sorts, and it is meant to be to the original from 1983. But a sequel is not taking the original plot and destroying it.<br /><br />I actually had very little expectations to this movie, but I just wasted 95 minutes of life. No suspense - I actually feel clairvoyant, poor acting, and so filled with technical errors, so I as a computer geek just couldn't believe it. They have tried to make it a mix between a generic war movie and 24 hours. But this is not even worthy of a low budget TV movie.<br /><br />Do not see this movie, this is a complete waste of time. Instead get the original. The theme is still valid. Don't let to much power into a machine. And the acting and plot is far more exiting and compelling.

I caught this on local Mexican television at 2:00 a.m. and I decided to give it a chance since it's based on a real life case that deals with the murder of the typical All American family (a dad, a mom, and a young son).<br /><br />On the beginning the hints point to Walker to be the murderer as he had strong differences with his father. Shortly after, when Walker and Luke are taken to the Sheriff's dept. to being examined by the lies detection machine, things turn out to be very different...<br /><br />Also, when Walker and Luke attend to an appointment with their father's lawyer, they learn that Luke would receive $200,000 and Walker is out of the heresy. Luke immediately buys a convertible.<br /><br />Anyways, this is an excellent mystery movie that deals with betrayal, ambition, feelings, and cold , very cold blood.<br /><br />I know the real names were changed but still the experience is the same. Give this movie a try. I know there are HUNDREDS of "based on real murders" or events of the like, but this one is truly worthy. Pure quality on acting, direction, and plot.

I watched this film not expecting much and not knowing anything much about it. I loved it. A very good, tight plot, an intriguing hook in the form of the ugly, fat, deaf girl and the ex-con, and a pace that kept things flowing without being hurried. <br /><br />A much, much better film than the same director's De battre mon coeur s'est arreté, which was boring and unbelievable.<br /><br />The only thing that didn't quite work was that the supposedly ugly, fat girl was neither ugly nor fat: solid, certainly, and far from conventionally beautiful, but with so much character in her face that she took over the screen whenever she was on it. Superb. I wish she was in more films, and better ones than she generally is. I've seen a bit of Gilles' Wife and a bit of The Moustache, and they both looked like rubbish, and I've seen all of De battre mon coeur s'est arreté, and that certainly is rubbish. She seems to have a few coming up, so I'll keep my fingers crossed.

This movie was difficult for me to watch. Stan looked very old and ill compared to what I remembered, and Ollie was heavier than I ever recall in another film. Most difficult though were gaps in the script/production where I found myself wondering, "How did they get from here to there???" It took nearly half the film before I could deal with the dubbing of non-American actors -- that was also a distraction.<br /><br />Although I miss great actors such as Laurel and Hardy -- will there ever be great actors like those of the old studio era??? -- this film helps me understand why actors sometimes "bow out" in their prime.

When a movie of a book seems pointless and incomprehensible, the cause can invariably be found in the book: either it was pointless to start with, or the point is one not easily conveyed to film, or the movie missed the point, which is the most frequent of these results, and the easiest to happen, especially when the point is one not easily defined. The book "Morvern Callar" has a point; every reader of the book must have felt this, and felt as if he had gotten it; but I suspect most of them could not state it in words. I'm not sure I can, myself, but perhaps it comes to this, or something like it: Things come, things go, such is life, but we carry on; or at any rate some of us--people like Morvern--do. No doubt a more erudite critic could construct a more adequate definition. But the important fact is that there is a point--possibly the sum of the entire story is the point--and that this would have been the main thing to keep in view, and to carry over, in adapting the story to film. The maker of this film evidently missed the point, and doesn't substitute one of her own; and so the film is about nothing.<br /><br />This is not the usual complaint of a book-lover that his favorite text has been violated. The merit of the book is something I conceded grudgingly: in reading it I found it a bloody nuisance, and an occasion for kicking the author in the pants and getting him in to finish the job properly. The narrative is supposed to be the work of the half-educated Morvern, but that illusion is constantly dispelled by a dozen different types of literary effect, as if the author were poking at her with his pen; there are inconsistencies of style and tone, as if different sections had been composed at different times; and any conclusions I could reach about Morvern had to remain tentative because it was uncertain which implications the author intended and which he did not: for instance, despite Morvern's own self-characterization as a raver, am I wrong that in the end she remains essentially a working-class Scots girl, and beneath her wrapping of music downloads not so different from those of generations past? In any case, despite my irritation at the author, I couldn't deny that his book stuck with me; and what I couldn't get out of my head was his character's attitude, her angle on the world, which was almost as vivid as a Goya portrait. Morvern is the kind of person who's always encountering situations at once rather comic and rather horrible; occasionally she invites them but more often they land on her, like flies, so that much of her life consists of a kind of gauche but graceful slogging-through, unconsciously practical and unconsciously philosophical--and that doesn't begin to describe it idiosyncratically enough. The complex of incidents and of Morvern's responses to them are the substance of the book, and its achievement, in exposing a cross-section of existence it would be difficult to illuminate otherwise; for all my dislike of the book, I can see this.<br /><br />The Morvern just described is not the Morvern of the movie; or if it is, most of her is kept offscreen. An actress who might have been a good fit for the character, had she been the right age at the right time, is Angharad Rees, from the old TV series "Poldark". Samantha Morton, then, would seem like good casting: she's rather the same sort of actress, and in one of her earlier movies, "Jesus' Son", she played a girl who with a few adjustments could have been turned into this one. Unfortunately, as the film turned out, she doesn't have the character from the book to play. For one thing, the book is one that, if it is to be dramatized, virtually cries out for monologues by the main character to the audience; without her comments, her perspective, her voice, the story loses most of its meaning. It has lost more of it in that the adaptor has expurgated it of its comic and horrible elements: the most memorable incidents from the book are curtailed before they turn grotty, and so Morvern's responses (whether of amusement or distaste, depending on her mood) are missing too, and the incidents no longer have a reason for being in the story. In short, the filmmaker chose for some reason to turn a brisk, edgy serio-comic novel into a genteel art TV film, and chose as her typical image one of Ms. Morton languishing in a artistically shaded melancholy; as if the outing Morvern signs up for were a tour of the Stations of the Cross. This isn't at all what the book, or the Morvern of the book, was about. For another thing, the Morvern of the movie isn't Scottish (the actress said in an interview she hadn't had time to study up the accent), and she ought to be: it's important that she, her family, and her mates are all from a single place. And finally the film is missing the end of the story: Morvern's spending all she has and coming home to icy darkness: it's winter, the dam has frozen, the power has gone out, and the pub is dark. Minus this, and minus all of the rest, what's left is a failed art film, a dead film, about a subject whose strength lay precisely in her refusal, or native inability, ever to give in to being dead.

Spirit is a unique and original look at western life from the point of view of a wild horse, and native Americans. The film focuses on the friendships and perils that a wild horse, Spirit, encounters during his life.<br /><br />Very well done in the presentation, using the technology available today to deliver stunning visuals that are breathtaking in their depth and realism.<br /><br />The music is fantastic, with songs by Bryan Adams, and music by Hans Zimmer, who also was responsible for the extremely popular music from the 1994 Disney hit, The Lion King.<br /><br />The story is not very deep but the fact that it isn't quite as in-depth as some movies doesn't in my opinion detract from the film as a whole.<br /><br />An excellent film which I enjoyed immensely, and that is suitable for all the family. Not one to be missed. (10/10)

I have never read the book"A wrinkle in time". To be perfectly honesty, after seeing the movie, do I really want to? Well, I shouldn't be reviewing this movie i'll start off with that. Next i'll say that the TV movie is pretty forgettable. Do you know why I say that? Because I forgot what happens in it. I told you it was forgettable. To be perfectly honest, no TV movie will ever be better than "Merlin".<br /><br />How do I describe a TV movie? I have never written a review for one before. Well, i'll just say that they usually have some celebrities. A wrinkle in time includes only one. Alfre Woodard(Or Woodward, I am not sure), the Oscar winner. <br /><br />The film has cheesy special effects, a mildly interesting plot, scenes that make you go "WTF". The movie is incredibly bad and it makes you go"WTF". What did I expect? It's a TV movie. They usually aren't good. As is this one. A wrinkle in time is a waste of time and a big time waster. To top it off, you'll most likely forget about it the second it's over. Well, maybe not the second it's over. But within a few minutes.<br /><br />A wrinkle in time:*/****

Space Camp, which had the unfortunate luck to be planned around the time of the Challenger accident, deserves such luck. The "stars" make a mockery of acting, Lea Thomson actually being turned sideways, when asked for more than her usual wide-eyed innocent smile, presumably to mask her risible attempts. The movie is at times hilarious, when it begins to ask far too much of you. A small boy keeps a multi-million dollar robot in his closet which breaks when given too many commands by the hordes of cliched dorm-mates. This hackneyed and unlovable machine, "Jinx", is a major player in the ridiculous premise of the movie, which seems part Short Circuit, part 2001 by the Airplane team. I shan't bore you with this, suffice it to say you can only laugh when faced with it. Having said all of this, it is enjoyable to watch, in a SeaQuest, Saved by the Bell kind of way. The romance and technology, beware, are as unbelievable as each other. Also, if you're an eighties freak, its unmissable for the amusing performances of Kate Capshaw (Willie from Temple of Doom) and, obviously, Lea Thompson. Also, Joaquin Phoenix puts in a dodgy turn as a sort of wannabe Goonie who befriends Jinx. Do not go near this movie if you are not a fan of trash.

I find Alan Jacobs review very accurate concerning the movie;however I had the opportunity to rent the DVD from blockbuster with a commentary from BYU's Curator, Motion Picture Archives James D'Arc. The then LDS Prophet Heber J. Grant approved of the movie understanding the deviations from historic content for dramatic expression and telescoping events. For example the movie showed Joseph Smith on trial. despite Brigham Young's great oratory in defense of Joseph Smith he was convicted anyway. Then Joseph was killed. Historically Joseph Smith was never convicted of anything. Brigham Young was in Boston when Joseph Smith was arrested for this particular trial. Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum where both killed before the trial took place.

This movie is a real waste of time and effort. The film lacks plot and depth. The visuals are decent but nothing to write home about. There are far better films out there.

It takes a lot for a movie to reach the already numb particles of my brain which have not already been tapped out due to the overcharge and redoredoredocopycopycopy world of movies. But this movie has made it onto my 'Magic Movies' list. To become a 'magic movie', it must leave every string of my being quivering in that which I can only define as 'bliss' and 'complete satisfaction'. This movie has tapped into the fibers of how my mind thinks and if not for the deeply personal bond my head and the head of whoever made this shares, it would look like another 'dead rave scene' movie from back when the 90's exploded with its Ecstasy craze. This is not how the movie came off to me at all. It's reached into me and pulled up something that I thought was dead for a very long time and pushed me as far as to give it a critique of my own. I forgot how long it's been since I've seen something that left me feeling this good inside. I strongly suggest seeing this movie.

With its ww2 timing, falling in and out of love, and easy on the eye Kira, this is re-Atonement. <br /><br />This a relationship story with focused main characters working out the the balance between first and fast love in the home front of WW2. Poet Dylan Thomas philanders his way between wife and ex in dark and smoky Blitz London and later in windy wales. <br /><br />Vera's ex and next spark off each other as the poet and soldier become a sideline while the girls bond and share. An easy watch that works well in the era bouncing along with just a few dips in pace. Would work well with French subtitles but then I may have been to too many art house movies lately.

It was 1983 and I was 13. I watched Valley Girl on HBO one night when my parents were working. After it ended I wanted to talk with someone about it immediately. Turns out my best friend watched it too and it became our favorite movie. Every weekend after that we watched it until we could recite it. We woke her parents up late at night laughing hysterically. We began to worship the main character, Julie, played by the beautiful Deborah Foreman. I am not saying this is a great classic. Although it is for me personally. And I understand that the whole Valley Girl talk becomes annoying but that was the 80's. But deep down at the heart of the movie-it is a love story, and a familiar but good one. Girl meets boy and there are sparks from both sides, an instant connection. Julie's friends don't like him-he doesn't fit in, doesn't go to their school, doesn't have money. They like her better with her ex-boyfriend the football player even though he is a jerk. She makes the ultimate sacrifice-her own happiness for her friends' happiness. And she has these really cool supportive hippie parents. It is one of Nicholas Cage's first movies and his first starring role. One minute he is absolutely hilarious and the next incredibly touching and romantic. His friend Fred is pretty funny too. If you were a teenager in the 80's you will love this movie or at the very least it will bring back memories. It is no longer my favorite movie but it is still one of my favorites, probably in my top 10. I am eagerly awaiting it's release on DVD if they ever release it. You can go to Deborah Foreman's website to sign a petition to get it released on DVD and there are 2 soundtracks from the movie that are must haves if you like 80's music.

I found this film the first time when I was searching for some works in witch Stéphane Rideau had participate, still in an extraordinary ravishment caused by the astonishingly beautiful «Les roseaux sauvages» (in Portuguese, Juncos Silvestres), by André Téchiné. I was searching for similar movies, in the come of age line. I found then «Presque Rien», a movie where the director Sébastien Lifshitz deliciously amazes us, earning a nomination by the Cannes festival in 2000. The story is about two guys, the kind «boy next door», Mathieu (Jérémie Elkaïm) and Cédric (Stéphane Rideau), who meet during the summer vacations. In a land far from where he lives, Mathieu spends is days at the beach with his sister. There he meets Cédric, a local, with whom he starts this estival and revealing relationship, much by means of the sensual and seducer personality that Stéphane Rideau gives his characters, (in «Les roseaux sauvages», 6 years younger, he still preserves the innocence of the sweet seducer, witch matures here in experience). Exemplar in directing, in the amorous sequence, in the intimate and confessing description that is made about a boys first facing his (still ambiguous) sexuality and great love. The first love, in its terrible progression ecstasy-despair. The best of the film is the best of France: the fervent passion, the hot and excited rationalism, the brownish beauty, the simple and natural acceptance made by the families, although not without surprise and first anger. Still, there is the beach, the luminosity, the lightness e simplicity of summer, the freshness of breeze, the surge&#8217;s melody, and the expressive eyes of an introverted Elkaïm (hesitant, hurt, puzzled, passionate). The sex is not avoided nor exploited, it is treated as it is, with no exhibitionist intention. In virtue of pure talent, this is a work of drama of uncommon quality, without cheap sentimentalism, showing an inevitably real image of two homosexual in their prime youth as any ordinary person, although with a social fear of rejection and shame. It is well worthy being seen, especially by those who adore French movies (although the DVD front cover is very lame, with the two actors in between tens of stars, greased with brilliantine). A movie witch, in my opinion, deserves an 8-9!

This solid black and white slapstick comedy with a dark (but hopelessly contrived) plot is a true crowd pleaser that will have you howling with laughter (as well as rolling your eyes with disbelief).<br /><br />It's the old psychopath on a train story but that is of no big importance as the thriller portion of the film almost seems to be merely a counterweight to the antics of the great comedian Robert Gustafsson. His hapless, nearly incurably optimistic soldier invokes both compassion and schadenfreude in a fashion that almost rivals Chevy Chase.<br /><br />The thing about the film that appealed to me the most, however, is that wedged between the improbable and the hilarious are the accurately portrayed everyday joys and nuisances of train travel. They add a most welcome sense of realism and recognition.<br /><br />This thriller comedy has admittedly borrowed most of its "suspense" from Hitchcock and should, in my opinion, only be watched for its comedy value (which is high indeed). Besides Gustafsson, Lars Amble's solid performance as a delightfully cynical misogynist is worth the price of admission alone.<br /><br />Heartily recommend.

Short Version: Seed isn't worthless. It's just derivative and inferior. And soulless.<br /><br />Long Version: If you have never seen any of the films comprising the vaguely-defined "psychological horror" genre, this movie will probably melt your face off. Maybe not, but it will give you a good burn. The opening montage of real animal abuse will be sufficient to open your eyes to possibilities of brutality-on-video, and the (only) memorable gore scene later in the film will perhaps be more than you can handle. The climax will play with your emotions in a way that perhaps no other film has.<br /><br />But that's if you don't have much experience with the genre. If you've seen the real thing..."August Underground's Penance," for example, you will, as I did, find it terribly difficult to stay awake until the end of the film.<br /><br />Other reviewers have compared this to the video nasties of old. I understand this comparison. Like the video nasties, "Seed" is more violent than a mainstream horror film and less subtle. But the reason the video nasties are still known to us is not only for the above reasons--those that are still popular had something special. Permit me to be ambiguous, I think you will understand: those that have stuck around had "soul".<br /><br />Take this quote from Gabriele Crisanti, director of "Burial Ground," on an interview on the new-ish DVD: "...we will never have more films like these, because today, technology has surpassed imagination. And technology is cold. So many things will disappear because small films like these won't be produced anymore. Today we have great, exceptional tricks that are very expensive, but they are cold. Today a horror, a terror film of this kind costs more than a million dollars. These films were not so expensive...they are real effects, made with our hands".<br /><br />Perhaps it is wrong to take the comparison to old school horror so seriously. But Crisanti has hit the nail on the head. Even at their most seemingly exploitational, the best of the video nasties were pursuing a primitive "truth." And this is where Boll falls short. It's like he's seen the movies and not understood them. Everything on the checklist is there...BS about "making a statement about humanity," an obscene torture scene, etc. But it is, as Crisanti puts it, "cold." The gore is all CGI. The whole thing feels like scenes pieced together from other movies of various genres. And the pacing is sooooo slow. Man, so slow.<br /><br />Another interesting note: the one gore scene really reminded me of a video game.<br /><br />Anyway, enough BS. Weak movie.

Who in the world told Harrison Ford that this was a good role for him???<br /><br />And Josh Hartnett...how does a 19 year old who can't fire a gun become a cop? Over used cliches plus zero character development and about 15 pointless music industry cameos equal a surprisingly bad film!!!

This game was terrible. I think they worked too hard on the visuals and didn't do much with the gameplay, which is the most important part. I mean, the visuals look incredible, but is the game really "fun"? NO! I mean it's like "hey let's jump off buildings" and all I'm doing is holding up and A/X. The game play just isn't there, and I don't agree with what Ubisoft did, because they had this hot girl (the producer of the game, Jade Raymond), and they were like "OK we've got this hot girl, let's pimp her" and if you go to gaming websites, you're not gonna see gameplay stuff of Assassin's Creed, you'll see her face with a microphone and it'll be like "We interviewed Jade Raymond about her favorite cookies!" It's like man, shut the F*@K UP WHO CARES?! Apparently...a lot of people do, because they bought the game and like it...I mean compare this game with Super Mario Galaxy. A Wii game that really doesn't abuse the Wii Remote, but STILL is very innovative and delivers in the most important part, GAMEPLAY! They were able to do a bit of everything with Mario Galaxy, the graphics were still stunning, the music in the game was orchestrated and sounded amazing, and THAT'S a game that deserves game of the year. NOT Assassin's Creed, man, it doesn't even deserve to even be a NOMINEE for Game of the Year. The hype around this game where it was like "oh it's the next generation of gaming"....really? I think not! So let me get this straight here, because I think the people liking this game are only liking it because they're Jade fans, so I'll tell you guys, JADE WILL NOT MAKE OUT WITH YOU OR ANYTHING IF YOU LOVE OR DEFEND THIS GAME! If you want a REAL game on the PS3, get Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, if you want a REAL game for the Xbox 360, get Call of Duty 4 (and a ton of other games too), and if you want a REAL game just in all the systems? GET SUPER MARIO GALAXY! I know this comment will be hated by many, but seriously, pressing two buttons for doing all this cool stuff, is that REALLY a fun game? The only reason why other games make it more complicated is because after it'll end up being more innovative and fun. And this game just isn't it.<br /><br />1.3/10 A LIVING HELL!

1993 was the year. This was long before Phillip Seymour Thomas had won an Oscar. Who knew I would be an extra in a movie with him? I was actually a paid extra in "My Boyfriend's Back," which was shot in a suburb of Austin called Georgetown, TX. The original title was "Johnny Zombie" (thank God the producers had a change of heart!) I was in the theater scene. I rushed out to watch the movie the day it was released in theaters. It is more of a comedy than a horror movie. But... for a good laugh, you might want to check it out. Nothing that is even close to "Dawn of the Dead" or even "Shaun of the Dead" quality, but the cheese factor is good enough. ciao

Back in the 60's, this grim study of Joy, a young proletarian wife, was the introduction to the career of Ken Loach, who became one of the most distinguished and respected British filmmakers of all time. By then I knew very little about Brecht, politics or the reality of the under-privileged, and I was quite impressed by the aesthetic of the film, its free style, its austere color cinematography, and Joy's monologues in front of the camera. I was also much surprised to find that Terence Stamp (who had become a celebrity, thanks to "Billy Budd", "The Collector" and "Modesty Blaise") had so little screen time. Although 20th Century Fox distributed "Poor Cow" in Panama, Loach did not stay in mainstream cinema (which this film hardly is) and I lost contact with his films. I just heard of his successes, "Kes", "Family Life", "Black Jack". until I caught up in the 80's. The beautiful title song by Donovan, by the way, is available in his anthology "Troubadour".

Let me start off by saying that I didn't watch this movie at first with high expectations. It was recommended to me by a friend with mediocre taste in movies, and "MTV" was pasted on the front cover so I was not expecting much. What i was expecting was a tear-jerker, overly dramatic but at least effective.<br /><br />I was wrong.<br /><br />Firstly, let me start off that I had never read the book nor watched any other versions of the movie.<br /><br />The acting was my main gripe with the film. By god is it AWFUL. The main girl is pretty mediocre, but when compared to the rest of the cast she's Maryl Streep. The main "Hero", Heath, is just plain awful. He can sing decent sounding clichéd songs, but that's about it. His acting broke the 'sad' moments by being so bad at points that I just burst into laughter. The Isabel girl was pretty godawful too, and the brother was just a flat character that was played by an actor that couldn't display emotion whatsoever. And when he tried to, it failed miserably. Neil Patrick Harris was the only decent actor, playing Edward, although it's obvious the direction was bad because even he did not live up to what I've seen him do. Oh, and the father wasn't half-bad to my memory, but he was in the movie for such a small amount of time I can hardly remember.<br /><br />The story itself was not very good. More breakups than you can imagine. Predictable story (Until the ending, which I barely understood). EXTREMELY one-sided characters with no real depth to them... Overall just not interesting or compelling, nothing we've never seen before done MUCH better, and nothing worth watching here.<br /><br />The ending is suppose to be a tearjerker. It did nothing of the sort. The ending isn't built up at all, it almost feels like an afterthought. In fact, I had to ask my friends WHY the ending actually happened, which when they explained it to me I must have had a look on my face of "Wait, when did they say that? What?". Never a good sign. The editing was probably the worst I've seen, though I do understand the fade-ins-fade-outs are done because this was originally made for TV, but that's really no excuse.<br /><br />Overall, the movie is just garbage. I'm a sensitive guy, I cried during two episodes of the Simpsons. I never cried during this crap, not even close. Really, this movie is not worth your time. If you really want to see a tearjerker look elsewhere.

I wish more movies were two hours long. On the other hand, I wish more American Civil War movies were MERELY two hours long. "Gone with the Wind", "Gettysburg" - that's about the length I've come to expect; although those two at least entertained for however many hours they lasted; and even "Gettysburg" lasted as long as it did because things HAPPENED in the course of it.<br /><br />By contrast Ang Lee's film is bloated and uneventful. It actually feels as if it takes much less than two hours. That wasn't a compliment. It's really no different to any other form of sensory deprivation: at the time it feels as though it will never end, afterwards it seems to have taken no time at all.<br /><br />The film gets off on the wrong foot, as Lee plays his interminable credits OVER the opening footage (bad mistake) in which we are introduced to some characters we take an instant dislike to and will later come to loathe. The central two are Jake, the son of German immigrants who are staunch supporters of Lincoln, and Jack, an equally staunch Southerner whose values Jake shares. (I had to re-read that sentence to make sure I hadn't written "Jack" instead of "Jake" at some point or vice versa.) The two go off to become "bushwhackers" - Southern militia who so strongly lust after revenge and violence that they can't even be bothered to join the official Southern army, which I presume they think is for sissies. I'm afraid Lee lost me right there. It's easy to feel for characters who make moral mistakes: if we have some independent reason to like them, or feel as if we know them in some way, then their moral flaws can make us care for them all the more. Not so here. We aren't properly introduced to Jake for at least an hour; when we are, it becomes clear he's a gormless pimple of a man, who isn't a confederate by choice so much as by habit - the kind of person who says and does what everyone around him says and does, whose psychology is purely immitative. The people he associates with are either just the same or positively evil in some uninteresting way. I found myself cheering whenever the Northern cavalry appeared on the screen. I thought: good - kill the rebels, end the damned war, let me go home.<br /><br />Aggravating this problem is the horrible, horrible dialogue. Everyone speaks in the same whining Southern accent. I've heard accents from all over the English-speaking world and this is the worst of them all. I don't care if Southerners really did talk like that, it's simply not fair to ask an audience to listen to it for two hours. And believe me, we do listen to it for the full two hours: Lee's picture is a talky one, largely because characters take so long to say what they mean in their ungrammatical, say-everything-three-times, folksy drawl. It would help if they talked faster, but not much. Can't these people find a more efficient language in which to communicate?<br /><br />In short: the film is little but a gallery of uniformly unattractive characters with no inner life, who talk in an offensively ugly mode of speech, who don't bathe often enough, to whom nothing of interest happens, despite their being involved in a war. Good points? Jewel was nice to look at, and so was the scenery. But I have complaints even here. The cinematography, nicely framed, looked as if someone had susbtituted colour film for black and white by mistake; and as for Jewel, we were teased with her body, but never actually allowed to gaze upon it, which I think is the least we were owed.

I absolutely LOVED this movie! It was SO good! This movie is told by the parrot, Paulie's point of view. Paulie is given to the little girl Marie, as a present. Paulie helps Marie learn to talk and they become best friends. But when Paulie tells Marie to fly, she falls and the bird is sent away. That's when the adventure begins. Paulie goes through so much to find his way back to Marie. This movie is so sweet, funny, touching, sad, and more. When I first watched this movie, it made me cry. The birds courage and urge to go find his Marie for all that time, was so touching. I must say that the ending is so sweet and sad, but you'll have to watch it to find out how it goes. At the end, the janitor tries to help him, after hearing his story. Will he find his long lost Marie or not? Find out when you watch this sweet, heart warming movie. It'll touch your heart. Rating:10

A real insult to the original "Spoorloos", which is one of the most genuinely disturbing films (and I intend this as a compliment!) I have seen in the last years.<br /><br />Where the original is chilling and brilliant, the remake is flat and even boring, especially the "happy end" finale takes away what little suspense there was in this film in the first place.<br /><br />While such a distortion (especially grafting a "happy end" which wasn't there previously) is quite frequently the case in "Hollywood" remakes of European art-house movies and could've been expected, the biggest disappointment lies in the fact that this inane mess was created by the very same filmmaker who did the original "Spoorloos"...<br /><br />Why Mr. Sluizer decided to ruin his masterpiece in such a fashion is beyond me.<br /><br />Avoid this abomination at all cost, as it might spoil the original for you even if watched *after* that, let alone the other way round...

This was Hitchcock's third Hollywood feature, and it appears he was yet to settle into a pattern of consistency, turning from faithful adaptation of classic novel in Rebecca, to espionage thriller in Foreign Correspondent, and now this romantic comedy in the mould of the "screwball" pictures of the 1930s.<br /><br />Hitchcock's formal method, on the other hand, had by now settled into something consistent, so much so that he was unable (or at least unwilling) to deviate from it. It was unwise then for him to step outside his usual genre, and a romantic comedy was particularly inappropriate. In Rebecca it was actually great to see Hitchcock constrained by his producer and the source text, forced to turn his technique to heavy Gothic drama, but for Mr and Mrs Smith there is a huge mismatch between form and content. In other words, Hitchcock was no Ernst Lubitsch.<br /><br />First, let's look at the romantic angle. The best love scenes in Hitchcock films were wild, passionate and slightly dangerous – the "ever fallen in love with someone you shouldn't have?" situation, and he was great at depicting that. This is something that makes a much earlier film, Rich and Strange, one of the few Hitchcock non-thrillers that really works. Hitch is not so good however when it comes to a more gentle and familiar love story. A light, tender touch is required and Hitch doesn't have it.<br /><br />Secondly, take the comedy. Of course, Hitchcock films could be funny – The Lady Vanishes is probably the best example – but only when the jokes were sprinkled throughout the story. The master of suspense simply isn't enough of a comedy director to create a film that has funny bones. He cuts up scenes as he would in a thriller – snappy opposing angles of people talking, inserted close-ups of hands and feet, point-of-view shots – but doesn't allow for comic timing or focus on gags. For example, the business with Carole Lombard's dress bursting at the seems is shown to us with a couple of close-ups, but these are timed more as if he were revealing some crucial plot point, and have no comedic impact. Occasionally Hitchcock's style does roughly coincide with the comedy – for example the arrangement of characters in the scene at the club, where Robert Montgomery tries to make it look as if he is with the attractive, sophisticated woman at the next table – but such moments are few and far between.<br /><br />Even the cast of Mr and Mrs Smith are not up to standard. I'm not sure this was Robert Montgomery's strength lay, and he is boring here. This was of course exactly where "Queen of Screwball" Carole Lombard's strength lay, and yet while she is clearly acting well the scenes are simply not geared to capturing comedy performances. Even Jack Carson, who could be hilarious when he was really allowed to let go before the camera, fails to perk things up at all. Of course, neither of these fine comedy actors is helped by the screenplay, which isn't exactly bursting with laughs in the first place, even if the basic story is a fairly good premise.<br /><br />The only full-on comedy Hitchcock made after this was the Trouble with Harry, and that sort of worked because it played upon his familiar suspensefulness. However it was only when the story could exist independently of the humour, when the basic framework was suspense – as it is in The Lady Vanishes or Family Plot – that Hitchcock was capable of doing comedy well.

I saw this movie on Thursdays night after having a really boring day. I had no expectations, those I had were rather negative. Being that the only movie I've ever watched Jimmy in is the American version of Taxi with Queen Latifah(?)...don't ask why! But seriously..this movie is so cute! Drew Barrymore is always sweet, but I almost fell in love with Fallon's character. Why can't I meet a cute nerd like that. :) Movies like that are excellent. Simple, sweet and necessary. Sunday on a Thursdays. I'm not even a sports fan, but it's something about American movies with baseball that fascinates me. Probably the fact that we don't have that sport here in Norway.<br /><br />(My first comment ever.) Haha

Have previously enjoyed Wesley Snipes in several action flicks and I had expected a lot more, even from a score of 5.8 IMDb, the movie fails to entertain and even though the story is thin and unoriginal, the acting is most unfortunately thinner and goes to mimic a "worst case scenario" of playing "strong" feelings accompanied by some bad acting... Don't waist your time this movie ísnt entertaining, if you wanna cry it might suffice though, even though your tears will be wept due to seeing Wesley Snipes in the tragic action film wannabe comedy...<br /><br />I give this 2/10 it really was awful, if you wanna see a decent movie go see shooter or rent it, its all the good things this movie isn't.

This movie was obviously made with a very low budget, but did they have to make it so obvious? It looked like they made no effort to make the "future" look in the least futuristic. For example, the first scene takes place in an 80's office building and all the cars that get blown up are from the late 70's (I assume they didn't want to blow up cars that cost more than $500). Additionally, its pretty obvious that Don "the Dragon" is driving his personal car during the movie (after all, he did partially fund the film). Finally, they point out at the beginning of the film that all kinds of drugs are now legal in this new "cyberpunk" society. Not only does this never become important in the film, but later when don needs surgery without anesthesia, why doesn't he just go out and get some legal heroin or morphine? The whole movie is sloppy like this and completely anticlimactic since Don easily blows up an "unstoppable" Cybertracker about 25 minutes into the movie. However, if you find this movie cheap or free I'd watch it, the last scene is almost worth putting up with this whole film.

Wow. After seeing this film, you will know why America's youth continues to lack intelligence and any traits to contribute to the wellbeing of society, except for making themselves more inept to function.<br /><br />Jackass Number Two stars some of the most repremandable people imaginable, who at there core lack any sort of talent or brains to make anything of themselves (especially Bam Margera and Steve-O), and there only option for fame was to make a living entertaining those as stupid as them by harming there being. A guy drinking horse semen? Just flat disgusting. A man putting a fish hook through his cheek and acting as "bait" for sharks? This isn't humor, it's evidence for institutionalizing him.<br /><br />Overall, I walked out of the theater with no hope for mankind.

Working with one of the best Shakespeare sources, this film manages to be creditable to it's source, whilst still appealing to a wider audience.<br /><br />Branagh steals the film from under Fishburne's nose, and there's a talented cast on good form.

I never read the book. Now I don't really want to. I had no clue what this movie was about when I walked into the theatre. I still don't really know what point it was supposed to get across, but I do know that a good two hours was wasted from my life. Two precious hours I can never get back.<br /><br />The storyline was so predictable, it's laughable. Werewolves...or something...a very Romeo and Juliet type plot. I predicted the endig within five minutes into the movie. And I was correct.<br /><br />The acting isn't horrible. The only two cool characters in the movie were the British cousin guy and the Rambo-graphic-novel duder. The other characters are too...the dialogue is very bland and predictable.<br /><br />The absolute WORST part of the movie is the transformations between the "humans" and the "wolves." If you wanted something kick-ass like Van Helsings, you're gonna be really upset. Imagine ballerina's, a bright light, then a wolf. Yep...that's about it.<br /><br />Just avoid this movie. Period. Especially if you've read the book, because you'll just wanna punch babies.

This movie is so over-the-top as to be a borderline comedy. Laws of physics are broken. Things explode for no good reason. Great movie to sit down with a six-pack and enjoy. Do not - I repeat DO NOT see this movie sober. You will die horrible death!!!

This program would be useful for training hardened felons basic human emotions. Beyond this purpose, the show has no value other than to fill bandwidth that would otherwise go unutilized in the electromagnetic spectrum. I feel a greater sense of suspense and anticipation listening to a computerized voice chip endlessly droning out the products of a random number generator. Fortunately, the helpful and frequent music cues will tell viewers how they're supposed to feel, in case they are unable to fully internalize the predictable and shallow plot line. I did find Amy to be a superficially positive character, as she is a role model to young women that they can serve in traditionally male fields. Unfortunately, her totally subjective approach to the law is guided solely by whatever capricious personal guidelines Amy elects to employ, resulting in Amy's trials more closely resembling appeals to the personal mercy of a tribal despot than a true administration of justice. This show is unpalatable in any amount, although this is to some extent mitigated after two episodes by the brain's god-given filtering processes, by which the show will thankfully leave the same imprint on the viewer's memory as a television tuned to a dead channel at maximum volume.

are you crazy or what? this movie has talent who are you to criticize a movie that was made by famous directors and producers? i mean you must be watching some crappy version because if you had a proper version you wouldn't think its some low resolution game graphics..<br /><br />this movie is for people who enjoy hongkong cinema the other side to what Asian people enjoy watching.. you are such a sellout.. hongkong cinema is totally different to that of Hollywood, hk cinema is in a class of its own...<br /><br />so if you don't enjoy watching movies from hongkong producers don't go and ramble on about how its a waste of time to watch.. just let other people enjoy the movie..<br /><br />and personally I've seen this movie and i love its story and the way it was made..

Below average movie with poor music considering a movie based on music??? Ordinary Script & Direction with full of blunders. Salman Khan was at his usual acting. Ajay's performance deteriorating with time as his looks,especially his styles as a Rock Star were pathetic. Asin was just a showpiece only. Overall I felt like wasting my money in cinema. Salman Khan remains as immature as 10 years ago compared to Aamir Khan. There were many songs in the movie all boring except "Man Ko Ati". The Most Important Song to impress the UK Music Sponsor was most unimpressive. "Khanabadosh" can be very easily understood by an English Music Sponsor. The other movie I saw last week was "Wake Up Sid" which was simple slow love story with good direction & acting despite average music

The other lowest-rating reviewers have summed up this sewage so perfectly there seems little to add. I must stress that I've only had the Cockney Filth imposed on me during visits from my children, who insist on watching the Sunday omnibus. My god, it's depressing! Like all soaps, it consists entirely of totally unlikeable characters being unpleasant to each other, but it's ten times as bad as the next worst one could be. The reviewer who mocked the 'true to life' bilge spouted by its defenders was spot-on. If anyone lived in a social environment like this, they'd slash their wrists within days. And I can assure anyone not familiar with the real East End that it's rather more 'ethnically enriched' than you'll ever see here. Take my advice - avoid this nadir of the British TV industry. It is EVIL.

iCarly is about a teenage girl named Carly Shay (Miranda Cosgrove) who lives with her artist brother, Spencer in a loft in Seattle. Carly has a web show that gets millions of views and makes tons of money a year, so much money she "doesn't even know its a real number". Her best friend is Sam (Janette McCrudy) who's as predictable as they come! She says "normal" things and beats up Carly's neighbor, Freddie who is in charge of all the technical things for their web show. Carly shouts every word and looks like she doesn't have emotion. Sam chases Freddie around and Freddie screams. In one episode Carly and her friends shoot Lewbert (the doorman) down in elevator and he survives.<br /><br />I would not recommend this at all, unless you like teenagers shouting, hurting people and making fun of stuff.

"A Minute to Pray, A Second to Die" is a quality spaghetti western with a solid cast and an interesting storyline. It is filmed beautifully, with a relatively high production value for a film in this genre.<br /><br />Alex Cord does a terrific job portraying Clay McCord, an outlaw who is suffering from increasingly debilitating seizures. He is seeking amnesty before his enemies close in on him, but is being too cocky for his own good when he asks for it. Robert Ryan delivers the best performance in the film as the governor of New Mexico. Mario Brega and Arthur Kennedy are also great here.<br /><br />This movie is very good, but it doesn't stand out to me as being one of the best spaghetti westerns out there. It's lacking too much in style to be in the same league as any of the great ones. It does have some cool spaghetti overtones, but overall it's a bit too much like an American western. This is especially evident in the music score, which is OK as movies go in general, but pretty dull by euro-western standards. The soundtrack kind of reminds me of the music from "The Unforgiven." Although there is an interesting story here, it is told in a manner which is a bit too conventional for my tastes. If a spaghetti western fan and a Hollywood western fan had to watch a movie together, this one would be the perfect compromise.<br /><br />All of this is not to say that anyone should avoid this film. I did enjoy watching it very much. As I said, it is a very well-done film and I recommend it to anyone who likes westerns, spaghetti or otherwise.

Anyone who loves the Rheostatics' music is going to enjoy this film. I have some minor complaints, mainly about pacing and the casting of certain actors (not Maury) who aren't really convincing in their roles, but I don't have time write a detailed review. I just want to warn anyone who has seen this film or plans to watch this film as presented CBC television in Canada: The version that airs are the CBC is like the Reader's Digest version of WHALE MUSIC---don't watch it. It cuts out entire scenes and subplots (if you can them that) from the film. The CBC, which presents most of films untouched, took half the guts out of WHALE MUSIC. I don't know why. It's horrible what they did to the film. Rent the video or watch it in a theatre, but DON'T watch it on CBC television.

We rented the movie and it maybe the worst movie ever. The box they had in the video store had a cool looking monster on the cover but in reality the monster was a creature from the black lagoon mask. Awful, awful, awful...you actually might have to rent it it's so bad. It feels like you are watching a bizzare-o home movie.

It begins with several of the principles on a stage run to Albuquerque. Gabby Hayes(Juke, sounds like Duke) is the driver and begins his usual tirade against women in general, with his girlfriend Pearl being an exception. He then relates a garbled version of the biblical story of Samson to justify his retention of long whiskers against the wishes of Pearl, who is the town barber, no less, and who claims if everyone followed his example, she would be out of business. This point will return to dominate the last scene in the film. Gabby seems an irritation to some reviewers, but is a definite plus to this one. It's too bad he wasn't in more of the better Randoph Scott westerns to help lighten up Randy's usual iron-jawed demeanor. Also on this stage are Randy(Cole Armin), his future wife(Cathrine Craig , as Celia Wallace), whom he is getting acquainted with, and a little girl(Myrtle), to whom he soon becomes a hero when he rescues her from the runaway stage after it is held up by henchman of Randy's wheelchair-bound uncle John Armin(George Cleveland), who essentially runs the town.<br /><br />Randy soon learns that his uncle, and by extension, himself, is not exactly popular among the town folk. He does, however, quickly form a useful friendship with Gabby. After he learns that uncle John was responsible for the stage holdup of his business competitor, Celia Wallace, and the associated murder, he demands that uncle John return the money and decides to work for Celia and her brother Ted(Russell Hayden), instead of for uncle John. <br /><br />As his rival's prospects rise, uncle John decides to plant an informant(Barbara Britton, as Letty Tyler) in the Wallace office, to keep him informed as to when they are delivering ore from the mines to town so that he can sabotage their run. When this doesn't work, he resorts to the draconian tactic of staging an arson of his own office, for which Randy is blamed. Unfortunately, when the fire was discovered, Randy was in Letty's apartment confronting her with suggestive evidence that she was tipping off uncle John. Myrtle and Letty testify that he was in the apartment when the fire was discovered. This puts him and Letty in the dog house with Celia(his apparent beau) and Ted(who hopes to woo Letty). This news also ends Uncle John's trust in Letty as an informant, and he suggests she leave town. Instead, she switches sides and tells the Wallaces why Randy was in her apartment. Uncle John tries once again to sabotage their ore run, and when that fails, there is a general shootout in town. You can guess the results.<br /><br />The plot is well constructed and executed, with complicated relationships between the principles, and with a variety of obstacles for Randy to overcome, with the sometimes aid of his associates. At least, Randy was spared the necessity of bringing his uncle to justice. Uncle John had a choice to avoid assassination, but arrogantly trusted that a woman wouldn't have the guts to carry out her threat. The presence of Hayes and two beautiful wholesome single women, as well as little Myrtle, much helped to lighten the otherwise tense atmosphere in this battle for survival, as uncle John put it.<br /><br />It seems odd that Barbara Britton, the "bad" girl, gets top female billing over Catherine Craig, Randy's love interest. Barbara's on camera time was much more limited. <br /><br />Those who grew up on the Lassie TV series featuring George Cleveland as "Gramps" will be surprised to find him playing such a mean controlling villain. We may wonder if his wheelchair-bound status has a bearing on this persona. This leaves him with few options for making a living in the wild West. Without apparent family to help support him(except Randy), he can't afford to have some upstart beat him out of the most profitable business in town. On the other hand, from his conversations, he probably achieved his status as the town "boss" before becoming wheelchair-bound.

Why this is called "Mistresses" is a puzzle, because it's about four women, three of whom aren't mistresses… Except, wait. Ah, I see. It's a salacious title and we all have to merchandise I suppose. The series itself? Delicious. Most of the characters are hell bent on cutting metaphorical chunks off themselves. Great fun. Reminds me of LWT's 1976 miniseries "Bouquet of Barbed Wire", where every character and their dads wielded the machete.<br /><br />Siobhan (Orla Brady) is the only actual mistress and she's getting herself in proper trouble. Husband is infertile. So no chance of a baby there then. But at work, there's Dominic, played by uber-sexy Adam Rayner, who looks so good that there's no surprise when heavy lust breaks out. Dominic, it turns out, has no fertility problems. I expect his sperms do swashbuckling - probably each carries a little sword - and now Siobhan is inevitably pregnant that way instead. What Siobhan should do is to shut up good and tight, and go with - it's a miracle. What she actually does of course is say to her friends "I have to tell my husband". No you don't. Really, you don't. Stop. Stop!<br /><br />Katie (Sarah Parish) was a mistress once, for we learn that she'd had an affair with a married man before the series started. Unwisely, she's now taken up with his son. The father died of cancer and Katie, who is a doctor, helped him on his journey. So, she's an euthanasiarist, has had affairs with two of her patients and is sleeping with the son of the father in carelessly ignoring the incestuous undertones. It's not going to end well for Katie.<br /><br />Jessica is an experimental lesbian. She arranges events and she's busy doing a lesbian marriage as the series gets underway. She quickly gets into steamy eye exchanges with one of the brides Alex, played by Anna Torv, and the script hurries along to a lesbonk with great haste. However, it can't think of a good way of putting the two women in bed together, so it invents a very lame "You're not having a hen night?! Well I can't let you get away with that. I'll organise one and the guests shall be .. Me!", which achieves the result but isn't exactly Winterson. I thought script writers were supposed to earn their living. Lazy. Torv's interpretation of her character is good. Alex treats Jessica as possibly unsavoury and Alex's body language always points backwards when she's moving forward. Mind, once she's over the wall, in she happily goes, and unsurprisingly, for Shelley Conn is so mouth-watering that so would a good percentage of the human race given the chance.<br /><br />Which brings us to Trudi, who's a widow. Of course there should be plain people in a community but, if you're going to have a plain character, then you have to invent something to admire in them. It's quite possible to be a lump and engaging. However, Small's Trudi looks like one of those characters that Casting put prominently in a medieval crowd scene after the director said "That's ridiculous, not every single character would be pretty". More tellingly, you can't find anything to admire in her. Nothing. She's a turnip in a bowl of apples. Appallingly, she does "sexy" from time to time. I won't forget her appearance in bright red corset with stockings tucked into her crotch for a long time, and for all the wrong reasons.<br /><br />So, good, delinquent fun all round. There's easily enough material here for a second series and I hope that they do one. I trust they learn one lesson though. The characters never take off their underclothes in bed! Having spent abandoned hours of unbridled lust, afterwards they surface still wearing their bras, or keep the sheets tight wound round their naughty bits. After several episodes, no nipples yet and you can go beg for a cock. What's this? Early 21st century puritanism? So production team, are you listening? Your characters will solve some of their mental problems if they Do abandon as well as Talk it. At least they'll have more fun in the fun scenes, poor things. In a series dominated by either being in the bedroom, or wanted to be in the bedroom, or having just been in the bedroom, it's a bit silly, and jars a lot, that the characters bonk in their underwear.<br /><br />Overall. I was going to score 6 (top end medium), but the series does one trick that's rare enough. When each episode ends, you always want more, and you look forward to the next one with anticipation. So I score 7.

OK. Who ever invented this film hates humanity and wants to see them all slit their throats. This "film" was absolute and utter filth. What the heck was up with the weird old bags eyes? Seriously, was she on some sort of horrible drug and then she like just thought she could control people? She was running around with her freaking evil eye and it was like what? Do I have a booger hanging out of my nose? What are you staring at? Are you like the sea witch or something? All and all though I thought the graphics were top notch old chap. For that alone I would give it a ten. But just cover your ears when you are watching it. The pure and complete evil that comes from that film will make your ears bleed and your eyelids fall off. Who knows? You might even get a knot in your small intestine. You better watch out fools.

this, is NOT one of those films it is one of the biggest pieces of tripe I have ever scene, the camera work is trying to be flashy but it really just crap the whole thing looks like the red shoe diaries, but without the sex, the only reason I bought this was I wanted to try out dvd and this was the cheapest one I could find, possibly the worst buy of my life and could have put you off dvd forever, the soundtrack is REALLY tacky and most of the movie is made up of endless repeats of clips from the first two films, why anyone would want to make a movie as awful as this is beyond me, if they had really attempted to make an original movie and failed I would be nicer in this review but they don't they just got the rights to reproduce stuff from the first two and then edit it and repeat it into this film with about maybe under 1 3rd original footage which is about up to the standards of film school students, DO NOT buy this movie. the only entertainment this dvd can offer is if you were to stick it in the microwave and watch the flashing lights! UTTER UTTER UTTER UTTTER unbelievable GARBAGE! 0/10 if only the voting system would allow that.

The best that I can say about this film is that it was mildly amusing at times, and that it was an adequate time killer. Unfortunately, this film is also so annoying that I wanted to slap these characters around. This is the kind of film that is so sweet, it hurts your teeth. The intentions were good, I suppose, but things get awfully tiresome when the dialogue is SO nauseating. When the two leads aren't together on-screen, this really isn't bad at all, but be afraid during those frequent moments when the loving couple starts talking to one another.

The "all I have is 5 dollars and my wedding ring..." scene was a riot. I also guffawed at the scene in the bar where Hyde snorted the horse radish and flipped the bird to the Japanese guy and said "Pearl Harbor buddy". I think my IQ is higher than 115, but I'm not sure because I can't count that high.<br /><br />Funny thing, this 10 line requirement. Seems as though they would bash you for making your comments too long, not too short. I hope I don't make it to 1,000 words before I get to line 10.<br /><br />I'm still two lines short. Pardon me while I think and drink, or drink and think. It depends on whether my hands are faster than my mind. Good, I think I've made it to the 10 line limit. Thanks for reading!

I have not read "A Time to Kill" by John Grisham, and perhaps that would have helped understand the film better. But perhaps not. I hear this is the most faithful Grisham adaption yet, and if that is true, I can see why so many publishers turned down the novel when Grisham introduced it as his first work.<br /><br />"A Time to Kill" is one of those films that is seriously confused and wants to do too many things at once. It wants to be a suspenseful crowd-pleasing thriller and, at the same time, a film dedicated to exploring certain social and moral questions. Let's face it, those two types of films do not go together in Hollywood, which is why "Dead Man Walking" had to be made independently.<br /><br />The story involves a young lawyer named Jake (Matthew McConaughy) out to defend a black man named Carl (Samuel L. Jackson) from murdering two hillbillies that brutally raped his young daughter. The day before the rapists' trial, Carl hid in a closet in the courthouse and when the rapists were brought through the building, he charged out and shot both of them dead. To help out with the defense, Jack accepts the help of a former law student (Sandra Bullock), who proves that her role in this film was totally unnecessary, and put in the film only for marketing purposes.<br /><br />Meanwhile, one of the rapist's kid brother (Kiefer Sutherland) was angered that a black man killed his brother and decided to act out a revenge. All of this leads to a shooting in front of the courthouse, a kidnapping, a brutal beating, and race riot. I'll admit that all of this held my attention greatly throughout the film, in addition to the courtroom scenes. What I later objected to was the film's handling of ethical questions and its use of formulas in the plot.<br /><br />The main question that the film constantly asks, over and over again, is whether a black man gets a fair trial from a white jury. Sure they can, but that doesn't mean that the man has to be acquitted in order for the trial to be fair. This film, however, doesn't seem to think so. Besides that, there several gaping holes in the plot used for conveniences. For example, there is an unknown character called Mickey Mouse, who is a member of the Klan, and, for reasons unknown, is helping the members of the defense team escape from serious dangers of the other members of the Klan. After Bullock is kidnapped by Sutherland and company, and left for dead in the wilderness, this unknown person comes and saves her---and we NEVER find out who he is and why he is helping out the people he should be terrorizing.<br /><br />And speaking of the Sutherland character's reign of terror, it's amazing how witless the police and the Bullock character are in stopping him throughout the film. There's a scene when Sutherland becomes a sniper from a building across the street from the courthouse and tries to shoot Jake as he comes out, shooting one of the guards instead. Now you'd think since there are dozens of police around, it would be easy to surround and capture the sniper. No such luck. From what we could see, no one seemed to even care that a sniper was still on the loose. Even after Bullock, was rescued by Mickey Mouse, she never, ever mentioned who her kidnapper was, nor was it even questioned. Why was this? Simple. The Sutherland character was needed throughout the film to add continual suspense, although logically, he should have been out of the picture.<br /><br />Besides Bullock's character, there another thankless character. He is Jake's assistant played by Oliver Platt. There seems to be one reason for his character to be in the movie--to supply a number of one-liners for the audience. In my opinion, one-liners show a major weakness in "serious" films when used. It demonstrates that the filmmakers are not confident that the story and dialogue alone are enough to keep the audience's attention, and so use them to make the audience laugh to reassure everyone that they are watching an entertaining film.<br /><br />But enough of the film's many minor problems. What about the film's message here? It is clear that Carl is indeed guilty of murder. We saw how he planned for hours to murder the men who raped his daughter. The lawyers argue that it was temporary insanity, etc that caused him to kill. In desperation, Jake asks the jury to close their eyes as he recounts the rape in detail as part of his closing arguement. After describing everything that took place, he adds on one final line..."The girl is white". We then see members of the jury with tears in their eyes.<br /><br />In the very next scene, a girl comes out yelling "He's free! He's free!". Wait a minute! Do juries base their verdicts on their emotions or on the facts? Most of all, why weren't there any scenes that showed the jury deliberating and what they were really thinking after their emotions worn off. I'll tell you why. They couldn't show the delibertion because NO JURY could acquit a man of such a crime, no matter how much the defense's closing arguements touched their hearts. What is the message? That someone is justified in killing if it is a form of revenge for a previous crime done to them?<br /><br />This film should have had the courage to say that murder is NOT OK in this situation, because in reality, there would not be an acquittal. But since dollars were at stake, the filmmakers were more concerned about sparing the audiences' feelings than they were about presenting a responsible message. If people start killing as a form of revenge, the makers of this film should be held responsible. What a socially irresponsible film this is!

OK, here is the deal. I love action movies and generally have no problem suspending a great deal of disbelief over plot holes or other implausible actions. However, this movie went far beyond minor flaws and went straight to the ridiculous. Let me get this straight. The police send a notorious gangster and cop killer (along with a number of other prisoners) on a bus with a grand total of two guards. They then are forced to stop at a precinct where precisely two cops are working, one of which is a day away from retirement and the other is a burn out. Apparently the building was about to be shut down so somehow the police decided that everyone else in the entire precinct got the night off for new year's eve. Right. But wait, it gets better. Gabriel Byrne shows up to take out Fishburne before he can rat him and other dirty cops out. (although we never find out anything about their relationship or dealings). Interestingly, the cops launching the assault on the precinct are in full SWAT gear with night vision goggles, assault rifles, the whole nine yards. Later on they even bring in a helicopter with MORE people in full gear. I'm not a cop, but I'm pretty sure you can't just waltz out of the station with an entire swat platoon worth of equipment without someone asking what you are doing. And the police helicopter??? In the supposedly terrible winter storm??? Also, no one near the precinct happens to hear or see this major siege going on with flash grenades and heavy rifle fire going off? I mean seriously, come on. I know this is set in Detroit, but even there it would raise suspicion on a supposedly top secret mission. I also love the fact that they find a Tommy Gun in the evidence room and somehow the gun still works and has bullets that are still intact and usable.<br /><br />I could live with some of these problems if there weren't other glaring issues also. For one, the opening couple minutes of the movie are shot nicely in a very frenetic and hyperactive way and I thought was going to set the tone for the rest of the movie. Unfortunately I was wrong. The remainder of the film has no sense of pacing or tension or drama. The "characters" don't relate to each other in any way which is probably largely due to the fact that they aren't particularly interesting. There isn't enough interesting action to make this a good action movie, and there isn't enough character development/storytelling to make this a passable thriller/drama. The "relationship" between Hawke/Fishburn is the only thing that the director even tries to make interesting or intense. Oh and by the way, the final scene in the wilderness? Uh, I thought this was in the middle of a run down industrial section of Detroit and suddenly we are in the woods?? The acting isn't terrible in this movie, it is just that the directing and writing are atrocious. I really enjoy some of Hawkes, Fishburne, Byrne, Dennehy's other movies but this one is terrible.

I thought the movie (especially the plot) needs a lot of work. The elements of the movie remains westernized and untrue to the attempt of trying to produce an eastern feel in the movie. I'll give three out of many of the flaws of the movie:<br /><br />First, when Shen told Wendy that he would help her study the history of China, I was really happy that the audience would receive some information about Chinese history; but it turns out that the movie did not exactly show Wendy actually studying Chinese history; yet instead, the movie only shows Wendy practicing the method of remembering what she had studied, which frustrated and put me in dismay.<br /><br />Second, which really bothered me, is how the characters kept mentioning about moon cakes -- moon cakes this and moon cakes that and how good it tastes. Yet they didn't really mention the real significance of it. The only they they talked about that had any relevance to the moon cake was the Autumn Festival, which they did not explain or go in depth. They could have mentioned the myth that correlates with the moon cake -- the Moon Lady. The myth starts of with how there once exists ten suns and each would rotate rising, but one day all ten suns rose up, drying up the land with the rising intense heat; so the Divine Archer, Hou Yi, shot nine of the ten suns, leaving only one sun (there are different versions where the Hou Yi shot the eight out of nine suns). Because of his heroic contribution, he was given the pill of immortality so he could live on forever in case the ten suns do rise up again, but his wife, Chang-O stole it. After stealing it, she fled to the moon, where she met a hare. She then came upon an idea and told the hare to pound the pill into many piece so she could spread the pill all over earth, giving everyone immortality. (There are a few variations of this story but throughout my childhood, I, most of the time, heard about this version). I thought details such as this would make the plot more culturally Chinese oriented.<br /><br />The last thing I would point out is the last battle scene of the movie. The teachers that were possessed by the monks were fighting the Terra-cotta Warriors (the life-like statues of the soldiers) went against the idea of how important Chinese history is to the Chinese. The Terra-cotta Warrors serves as a connection of China's past and it was very westernized (where evil must be killed in anyway possible) that the monks in the movies were willing to destroy that connection. It would be understandable if Wendy, considering she is Chinese-American and doesn't have full Chinese knowledge, had no problem destroying these priceless artifacts.<br /><br />The whole movie was westernized because it seemed that all the monks and Shen want to do is fight... I mean, it's rated TVPG due to violence, which goes against the Confucius thinking of cooperation and harmony. It would seem more accurate that the monks try to avoid violence and try to work things out peacefully before having to resort to violence.<br /><br />All in all, all of or either of the producer, writer, or director did not do their research thoroughly and did a messy and effortless job instead. I would suggest that they either stop airing this movie or that they re-shoot the movie so it contains more accurate information; however, I would give it credit (2 stars) for removing one stereotype of Asians and Asian-Americans of being smart and quiet.

As an engineer, I must say this show's first season started out very promising. Most of the applied mathematics were somewhat plausible, and the relationships portrayed between the Eppes brothers and father gave the show an interesting edge.<br /><br />But after the first season, the show started degrading, heavily. Most of the mathematics and technology used in crime solving is now utter gibberish and very laughable to all people involved in science & technology for real.<br /><br />The involvement from the actors still feels okay and I can imagine a fair amount of money is still going into producing each episode, but in the end, this has degraded to a very unpleasantly tasting dish which is a mix of a grade C action thriller and CSI style cop show.<br /><br />If you are gonna watch it, go for only the first season and possibly parts of the second. Thereafter I would not waste my time. Myself, I gave the show up midway through season 3.<br /><br />Season 1 - 8 stars Season 2 - 5 stars Season 3 - 3 stars<br /><br />Let's sum that up to 4 stars. Since Charlie doesn't know his math anymore, I won't bother with the correctness of mine either.

This was one of the most ridiculous and badly directed movies I've seen in a very long time. I've never liked Spike Lee, but thought I'd give this one a try: bad mistake. The movie is supposed to show how the Son of Sam real life murders affected a neighborhood in the summer of 1977; what it really did was center around the most boring characters that I doubt anyone cared for as far as their drug problems, marriage problems, and so on, etc. The scenes that depict the murders are just that, and nothing more; a shooting and then it's back to Saturday Night Fever! What's even more ridiculous is Spike Lee's choice to show up as a reporter in the movie: Spike, trust me, you're no Hitchcock, stay out of the movies, it makes them even worse off. The most silly scene had to be the dog speaking in a goofy voice, which was depicted in a scene before it where it was supposed to have been shot??? Spike, what were you thinking when you made this film? Not thinking at all is my guess. People who think they'll see a crime drama, take my advice and do not waste your time or money on this loser. You're better off watching Jerry Springer in this case! Waste of film, I gave it a 1 out of 10: awful dud.

Lars Von Triers Europa is an extremely good film. How's that? Von Trier has a very stylized way to tell a story, at least he did have with Europa. To me the whole film was like an experience even if I did see it on a small television screen. Even with all the tricks, in my opinion, this film is the most complete, REAL and moving piece of cinema then most of the films on the top 250 list. I also think it is perhaps the scariest, the most gothic and complete film around. All right there are other good ones too, but this one is my favorite. The final scene is one of the most harrowing scenes ever.

Boasting the title for the sickest film ever made, PINK FLAMINGOS is an undisputed classic. Sure, the camerawork is shaky and off-center, the story is muddled and slow-paced, and every single character in the movie is repugnant and despicable, but PINK FLAMINGOS has a certain playful charm and brilliant satiric wit that no other movie can match.<br /><br />While this film is indeed an offensive one, reading descriptions of what goes on in the movie is much worse than actually seeing it. Only John Waters can succeed in making rape, murder, sadism, cannibalism, coprophagia, and just about every other form of human debauchery known to man seem absolutely hilarious. This movie must be seen to be believed.

OMG, it is seriously the best show in the world. It rocks harder then Jackass and CKY and is so funny and entertaining. I love the show. All 5 seasons are awesome but for a quick summary: Season 1:- Great if you wanna plan a scavenger hunt, watch the house be pulled apart and enjoy seeing Phil bing starved.<br /><br />Season 2:- Great if you wanna see them buy Castle Bam, watch a slayer concert, see the wonder that is Mardi Gras and the fun of getting to it, see a demo derby and actually see a the making and opening of a Tree Top Casino.<br /><br />Season 3:- Great if you wanna see probably the first Driveway Skatepark, a civil war, Johnny Knoxville, a pirate ship and Don Vito actually winning one of Bam's reindeer games.<br /><br />Season 4:- Great if you wanna see them in Europe, them getting Jobs, the building of a State and a bayou and The Dudesons Season 5:- Great if ya want to see them in Brazil, Ape's Birthday, Mike Vallely, The Metal Mulisha, Bams Lambo disappearing, Bams Hummer being destroyed, a playboy party in bams swimming pool and the very Last ever Viva La Bam :(

Let me start out by saying I can enjoy just about any bad Italian horror movie or jungle exploitation flick from the 1970's. Seriously. This one was downright awful.<br /><br />There are way too many elements that Martino tries to inject and none of them work (except for the croc-gone-wild thing) very well at all. There are some ignorant Westerners, of course, who set up a resort in the jungle somewhere. I don't even remember where it takes place...how sad is that... Basically, people come to the resort to see this native tribe and its' ceremonies but eventually they upset the 'Alligator God' of the river who then proceeds to go on a rampage, killing said vacationers and some tribesmen as well. Sounds good, yeah? Well, don't get your hopes up. There is minimal violence until the end, the special effects are so bad it was like a kindergarten class performed them and the love story thrown in is laughable.<br /><br />There is seriously a few scenes where it appears they set up a camera underwater in a pool and threw a toy alligator, like a dart, into the water and that is supposed to be the gator attacking. I'm not kidding. In another wonderfully crafted special effect, a Matchbox van is targeted by the incredible sinking plastic gator, who all of a sudden is five times the size of a van. (A few minutes ago, he was only big enough to eat a human, but now he dwarfs a full-size cargo van...) It is really pathetic. The only other flick I can think of where the effects were so bad I was pulled out of the story was Bruno Mattei's masterpiece, "Rats," what with the plastic rats on the conveyor belt and all who COULDN'T be terrified.<br /><br />Normally I'd say anything Sergio Martino was a solid must-see but this one is a must-pass. Waste of time and definitely not worth buying for the $15+ sticker price from No Shame. This one is a SHAME.<br /><br />2 out of 10, kids.

The actors in this dark film are truly believable and well cast. The quality of the camera work makes you feel as if you are there The screenplay is intense and does not wander. The plot is one that makes you want to watch it a second time from the new perspective gained by the ending. We showed this film to a small group of patrons at Gadsden's Center for Cultural Arts. After the film, ever patron was eager to discuss the film and one person called me the next day to say that they were still "bothered". While we put an 18 and up age restriction on the film, I would watch the film with a youth group as it is a very real portrayal of an ugly situation and sets the stage for great conversation.

It's hard to believe, after waiting 14 years, we wind up with this piece of cinematic garbage. The original was a high impact, dark thriller that achieved "cult" status demonstrating the fine art of cinema as directed by Paul Verhoeven. This film adds nothing, delivers nothing, and ultimately winds up in the big box of failed sequels.<br /><br />The opening sequence could have triggered an intriguing set of plot developments using a considerably talented and able cast. Unfortunately we are treated to a 90 minute dissertation in the self-indulgent life of Catherine Tramell... or is it Sharon Stone. Possibly a copulation of both.<br /><br />If the desire is too see a continuation of the sensually provocative stying of sex as in "B.S.1", forget it. You wind up with soft-porn boredom which ultimately upholds the old adage that a woman can be more alluring in clothes than out of them. It's interesting to note that the wonderful Charlotte Rampling was romping around in her skivvies, via the 1966 GEORGY GIRL, when Ms. Stone was only 8 years old. A very talented actress and quite adept at holding her own even here.<br /><br />If you're a true cinema fan then you must see this film and judge it using your own rating system. If not, you might as well wait for the DVD release in the "rated" version, "unrated" version, "collectors" edition, or "ultimate" version, and perhaps in another 14 years we will be saturated with news of "Basic Instinct 3" at which point Ms. Stone will be 62 years old and nobody will really care.

This movie brilliantly captures the atmosphere of a D&D group. While watching, I could not help but notice how vividly characters reminded me of myself and my gaming friends to the point where they acted literally the same as we do. Including the bickering, the fighting, the internal jokes, driving the DM crazy. EVERYTHING.<br /><br />It has it all. Jokes that made me cry, action scenes which, even filmed in low-budget, I found uncannily awesome. The story is pretty straightforward and unsurprising, but that doesn't really matter, since the best part of the movie is to see the characters react and interact with each other and the NPCs.<br /><br />Seriously, if you're playing D&D or any similar RPG, I cannot stress this enough, WATCH THIS MOVIE, it captured beautifully the spirit of D&D.

Why Lori Petty was cast as tank girl, I'll never know. Her acting performance is lack-luster. Her voice is grating. It's almost impossible for me to put into words how bad this movie is.<br /><br />There are several "modern-pop" references in the film, which I found to be very strange, given that the movie was supposed to take place far in the future. It wouldn't have been hard to make this premise interesting either. Some better writing would have helped loads.<br /><br />Naomi Watts makes an appearance in it as a mild mannered techno-geek. I think they should have probably switched roles.<br /><br />I'll never know why anyone would like this movie, unless they were a Petty fan.<br /><br />Try not to see this movie. Total waste of time.

Lots of scenes and dialogue are flat-out goofy, but when you add it all up, i.e. Machine's daily cycle from depressing walkup to depressing bar to depressing burlesque hall to depressing smoke-filled poker games and back home again, you get a weird sense that somebody, somewhere is trying to give a faithful depiction of the junkie's life circa-1955. Whether it's Sinatra, who obviously would have bumped up against this type of character growing up in Hoboken and working in numerous bands, or Preminger, who uses the soundtrack and the Frankie-Zosch subtext to slip the addict's interior worldview past the Hays Code cage, you get a good companion piece to On the Waterfront, which was filmed almost exactly the same time. Sort of a faux-realist work that leaves you realistically wondering how deep the drug culture is embedded in American life.

"Subconscious Cruelty" has to be one of the most beautiful films I have ever seen.Still it's extremely grim and gory at times,so fans of politically correct mainstream horror garbage shouldn't bother.The film mixes many wonderful visuals with plenty of sleaze and gore.It is extremely odd,vicious and disturbing,so fans of bizarre cinema won't be disappointed. My favourite segment from "Subconscious Cruelty" is "Human Larvae" which shows us a twisted relationship between a young man and his pregnant sister.The birthing scene is particularly nasty and not easily forgotten.The last segment "Right Brain/Martyrdom" has to be seen to be believed.It's incredibly harsh and blasphemous with scenes of genital mutilation and grisly torture.We see Jesus Christ captured by three naked females who mutilate him,ripping flesh from his chest,licking a wound on his knee and pissing on him.There is also a Jesus statue with a projection of a swastika on it."Subconscious Cruelty" is a truly memorable film that should be seen by fans of extreme cinema.Check it out.

I am a HUGE Adam Sandler fan, and one day I was looking at the Cast&Crew selection on one of his DVD's and saw 'Going Overboard' and decided to go out and rent it. So I went out with a few buddies of mine and rented it. We put it on and we were shocked to see an Adam Sandler that didn't hit puberty yet, he looks as if he was 12 when this movie came out. I couldn't even watch 30 minutes of this crap, I didn't laugh, chuckle, or even smirk at this movie, actually the only time I smirked was when I saw how horrid this movie was. I could not believe how hard he tried to make the viewers laugh in this movie...and it didn't work once. Although from seeing the horribly awful camera angles and hearing the disgusting script I realized why I had never heard of this movie,...because it sucks more than anything has ever sucked before. This movie, in my opinion, was the WORST movie EVER made,....EVER!

What can i say about a tale such as this? This magical tale has followed me from my early childhood,evoking warm memories in my heart.The characters take you to to so many whimsical places making you want more of each scene. For example in the market there were so many different flavors of lore. I loved the exotic dancers that accompanied the steel drums.<br /><br />The story line was wonderful.I wanted so badly for Landsbury to decide to keep the precocious children and for her to also stay with Mr.Brown,and find the other half of the spell so that the men less armor could win the war.<br /><br />I am still a child inside,and this movie appeals to my inner child like no other. This movie is my definite favorite of all times. I hope that all children will be able to watch this classic and be swept away,and transported into another time.

Bring a box of Kleenex to this funny, engaging, and moving weeper. The two leading actors give tour de force performances - there was considerable debate afterward about whether they are really disabled (they are not.) I appreciated that for once the filmmakers dared to be politically incorrect by depicting people with severe physical disabilities as fully developed people, character flaws and all. As a result, their believability engages us and makes us grow to like them and care about their conflicts. The story structure is formulaic, and many of the secondary characters are merely types, but the two central characters are so riveting that it doesn't matter. <br /><br />Interesting - the original title, INSIDE I'M DANCING, reflects the viewpoint of the character Michael, while the new title for USA release suggests that Rory is the central figure.

It's not hard to imagine what the main problem for a screenwriter is who wants to have 18 equally well written characters with about the same amount of screen time in a movie that last around 90 minutes. It's almost impossible not to fall back on stereotypes and that is also what writer-director Ralf Westhoff does here. Very few of the characters can be recognized as people that you and me know in real life, many of them are just characterized with two or three attributes and stay vague. I am aware of that but still think that "Shoppen" is successful, namely that it accomplishes just what it wants to. It is a film with very well written dialogue, extremely good acting and a film that made me laugh out loud really often. I don't think that this film wants to make a deep going analysis of loneliness in our modern society, or that it wants to be moral commentary on speed-dating. It's a movie about something that exists and people and their motivation to use it. Funny and entertaining.

Every kid has that movie that he pops into VHS when he has nothing to do, or when there is a babysitter around. This was that movie for me.<br /><br /> I can tell you the whole plot exactly, I must have seen it 100 times at least, and I can say it is a good kids/family movie.<br /><br />I still have the tape, I haven't watched it in 5 years, but maybe I'll get around to it this week, and be a kid for the day.<br /><br /> You just have to love the care bears, and their messege.<br /><br />

To solve a challenging problem, you need to start by asking the right questions. Without these, even the biggest library of information is useless. This movie does just that - where other movies guide your thinking along a story board, this film pulls at your emotions and your understanding of justice and what's permissible. These questions will tug at you throughout, challenging your assumptions as the characters develop. This movie is important. It's relevant, and a must see for anybody who stays informed of current affairs. The fact it's highly entertaining and includes a slew of movie stars only improves the execution. My advice: watch it with a serious crowd or better yet, by yourself, not unlike how you'd read an editorial from your favorite news magazine. In this case there is one difference: the answers will be your own.

I would never have thought I would almost cry viewing one minute excerpted from a 1920 black and white movie without sound. Thanks to Martin Scorsese I did (the movie was from F. Borzage). You will start to understand (if it's not already the case), what makes a good movie.

Pepe le Moko, played by Charles Boyer, is some sort of international criminal mastermind wanted in countries throughout Europe, and to stay free he holes himself up in the Casbah, a mysterious part of Algiers where even the police are reluctant to go, until a senior officer is sent from Paris to capture le Moko once and for all. For le Moko, although the Casbah allows him to remain out of police custody, it also becomes a sort of prison at the same time - a place he can't leave, because the moment he does, he knows he'll be arrested.<br /><br />Boyer's performance was good, and I can understand why he was nominated for an Oscar. He captures the essence of such a character - a perfect combination of very dangerous and yet very classy at the same time. The movie itself, unfortunately, was quite a letdown. A number of parts of the story seemed inconsistent, of which I'll mention two. First was the idea that the police wouldn't enter the Casbah. That was stated pretty clearly at the beginning of the film by the local commander, and yet repeated references in the movie suggest that in fact the police did enter the Casbah fairly regularly. So, neither the suggestion by Commissioner Janvier that the police wouldn't enter, nor the statement by Inspector Slimane (also a decent performance by Joseph Calleia) that they could get into the Casbah but not out seemed to make much sense. I also found it difficult to believe that le Moko - hardened criminal mastermind that he was - could be so quickly swept off his feet by Gaby (Hedy Lamarr) to the point where he entertains the local populace by singing love songs and then leaves the Casbah to find her, essentially giving himself up. I understand the irony of the final few scenes, of course, as Pepe leaves the freedom of his prison (the Casbah) only to find real freedom in his capture (because he's shot and killed by the police.) I just found it impossible to believe that someone like le Moko would fall into such a trap.<br /><br />This is worth watching for Boyer, and to a lesser extent Calleia, but the story is disappointing and inconsistent. 3/10

This film, though ostensibly a comedy, is deadly serious. Its subject is Imperialism (with a capital I): how Britain, foolishly, humiliatingly, tries to convince itself that it's still a great power after World War II. At home, the Empire is run by amiable dolts, benevolent Tories who are so in-bred that they can't distinguish close relatives; the Offices of Government consist of long forgotten archives (a dig at Orwellian paranoia?), inhabited by indolent rats, and ante-rooms wherein lounge bored synacures, reading popular novels.<br /><br />Abroad, Britain clings to the old pomp; but pomp out of context looks threadbare and silly, especially when its embodied in bumbling twits. Carlton-Browne is an unsentimental picture of decline, with none of the lachrymose rot that marred the supposedly anti-imperialist Jewel in the Crown.<br /><br />The film is also about the Cold War, bravely admitting that it's a dangerous farce, whose participants deserve mockery and contempt, not fear and respect. It's about how colonialism, characterised more by neglect than tyranny, destroys the colonies it deserts, robbing them of amenities, power, and, most importantly, self-respect, leaving them vulnerable to the machinations of dangerous cowboys.<br /><br />It's the seriousness, of course, that kills it. That's not to say that weighty subjects can't be treated in comedy - The Miracle Of Morgan's Creek, Dr. Strangelove and The Life Of Brian have all proved that. Indeed, one might suggest that serious themes should only be treated by comedy - it allows for a clearer-eyed view.<br /><br />The problem with Carlton-Browne is that every situation must have a significance beyond the merely comic, so that it becomes weighed down and unfunny. In the three films mentioned above, much of the comedy arises from character reaction to an extreme situation, not the extreme situation itself. Here, the script is too poor to sustain rich comic characterisations, and some of the greatest comedy talent ever assembled - Peter Sellers, Terry-Thomas, Raymond Huntley and John le Mesurier - are criminally wasted.<br /><br />Terry-Thomas, sublime so often, shows that he couldn't handle lead parts, and that he needed to play sneering, arrogant bounders, not brainless toffs. The music is made to carry much of the comedy, but its heavy irony only draws attention to the lack of hilarity on screen. (To be fair, unlike the majority of British comedies of the period, which were stagy and underproduced, the Boultings often try to make their points through film itself, by montage and composition) Only Huntley manages to raise genuine laughs, and that's by essaying a character he could have played in his sleep.<br /><br />None of the Boultings' farces have dated well - they're never thought through enough. Although Carlton-Browne revels in the decline of the Empire, it also seems to be anti-democratic and militaristic. I'm sure this wasn't intended, but these blunders are bound to happen if you allow worthy intentions to take precedence over comic intelligence and film form.

(some spoilers) - as if you wouldn't know how it'll end<br /><br />My expectations for HOLLOW MAN were high. A very good commercial, a director like Paul Verhoeven and actors like Kevin Bacon and Elisabeth Shue, plus a very interesting theme - invisibility. Every premise for a great movie was accomplished. Unfortunately these things didn't matter at all. The movie was very very week, without suspense and awfully predictable. <br /><br />It's all about a bunch of scientists who discovered invisibility. After the tests on animals succeeded, Kevin Bacon decides to test it on himself. Once he's invisible, he changes completely, realizing the advantages of not being seen. From this to murder there's a very thin line.<br /><br />Hollow Man is an ill movie. It suffers of the disease that many new movies have: the special effects. From a challenging theme that could have lead the producers to a great tensed psychological thriller, Verhoeven ruins everything focusing only on special effects, without giving a damn about the real value of the movie. I must admit, the fx are awesome, probably the best i have seen since Matrix, but that's not enough to make a movie good. Actually that's the problem with the movies today. Just like Verhoeven, most directors care only about spectacular scenes - and nothing more. The exceptions are very few, and probably the Matrix is the only movie that combines perfectly fabulous special effects and great plot.<br /><br />After Starship Troopers, Verhoeven disappoints again. In stead of a great film, HM is cr*p. There are only 2 reasons why you could watch this movie: 1. the special effects 2. the joke with Superman and Wonder Woman (i won't spoil this moment for you...)<br /><br />Okay, so what went wrong with the movie? Everything. Let's see what i can remember.<br /><br />--- It's not tensed at all. It should've been, but it's not.<br /><br />--- It's too predictable . You know from the beginning who will die and who will live.<br /><br />--- In stead of focusing on the psychological part, Verhoeven cares only about the effects.<br /><br />--- Very many cliches. <br /><br />--- Of course the bad guy wakes up a few times before dying.<br /><br />--- Just like in every low quality horror, the first rule is to let the characters separate as much as possible. Every time there is somebody alone in the lab, perfect victim for Bacon.<br /><br />--- Some holes in the plot. Example: at the beginning, Bacon has to scan his finger to enter the lab. After he's invisible, how can he do that?<br /><br />--- The ending: absolutely horrible.<br /><br />--- After Shue hits Bacon in the head, Bacon falls down to the ground. Then Shue and Brolin leave quietly and slowly, without looking back. Is that normal? Then Bacon gets up, attacks them, they "kill" him again. And then Shue screams "I heard an explosion" (happened minutes ago), and they suddenly run inside. Didn't she hear that explosion some time before?<br /><br />--- There's a scene in which you can see the microphones hanging above the actors. Come on, Mr Verhoeven , i expected much more from you!<br /><br />So that's about Hollow Man. What was supposed to be a great movie turned into a scam. <br /><br />Vote: 4 out of 10 (for the special effects)

Lush cinematography, beautifully written and edited, John Boorman's Beyond Rangoon is a must-see for anyone interested in world politics and the arc of personal transformation. It interweaves a personal and political tale that continues to haunt me, popping up in my mind's eye with frequency. The story line is gripping, and the inner and outer journeys are paralleled carefully and delicately both cinematically, and in the story line. I've watched this film at least six times, and it really holds up to scrutiny. It is particularly relevant today, given world events. Check it out, you won't regret it! BTW, NetFlix does not yet carry it, but you can request that they do.

This movie was the biggest piece of garbage I've seen in a long time.<br /><br />It's marketed as as Sci-Fi when in fact it's nothing more than a Christian recruiting tool.<br /><br />It tells you quite a bit about the state of the Christian church, when they have to resort to deception just to get you to listen to their sales pitch. But then again what do you expect from an organization that would go through such great lengths to help protect such an enormous amount of child molesters in their organization.<br /><br />Religion is full of nothing but sexual deviants, hypocrites, and war mongers. Let's not forget, our bumbling former President actually came out and said that "God told him" to invade Iraq. And nobody questioned if he was hearing voices, or seeing things? <br /><br />Anyway, going of the subject here. No this movie has nothing to do with UFOs whatsoever, it's nothing more than a religious production.

'Thriller' remains the greatest of the pop music promos to have a plot, great visuals, and a tip-top song to wrap the film around. Michael Jackson was at the top of the tree at this time (and not so altered in his plastic surgery regime for it to matter). Here he is in good form - the song is terrific, he leads the zombies in dance like no other.<br /><br />Ola Ray plays the girl who watches with incredulity as her sweet boyfriend (Jackson, natch) turns into a werewolf! Then to the pulsing rhythms of the opening line 'It's close to midnight', he stomps around the graveyard with the other zombies and creatures of the night.<br /><br />The crowning glory of all this is the fruity voice of the great horror star Vincent Price speaking in the middle of the record. Terrific.

Jean Paget, Joe Harman, and Noel Strachan--all are unlikely heroes and survivors. Petite but strong Jean whose strength and resolve help save lives, marching hundreds of miles and with calm self-discipline and persuasive powers, Joe Harman ("oh my word") who took risks for Jean and the other prisoners, only to suffer the worst pain imaginable, and Noel Strahan, who trusted Jean regardless of the odds. Her good humor and hardiness inspire everyone around her, and those with the courage to go in with her are rewarded. The beautiful scenery and musical score adds to the adventure. Despite the length it was never boring to me. These ordinary people did extraordinary things and it is based on a true story. Someone borrowed my VHS a few years ago and I never saw it or them again. Learned my lesson, mates, and will buy another copy when it can be found. It's a shame the miniseries is not on DVD.

CRAP! I accidentally watched this film-thinking that it was the Swimming Upstream that was released in 2003. I seriously regret wasting an hour of my life sitting through it. Shame on whoever gave this junk an award. I thoroughly loathed this film-in fact I didn't see it through to the end. After an hour I could no longer stand it. I am disgusted that people are amused by such a lousy script-which tries and fails to rip off a dozen other human interest stories and such BA-AD acting. PAINFUL. I rate it 1 star out of 10. An amateur could make a much, much greater movie.

I'm seeing a pattern here. If you see a movie on Mystery Science Theater 3000, chances are if you go to IMDb.com there will be hordes of lovers of the film, yet it was picked to be on that TV show because it was sooo bad. I'm sorry but I read a lot about Rocketship X-M as being some landmark sci fi film that stressed realism. Well if that is the case I could write for several paragraphs about how even with 1950's knowledge this movie is utterly flawed. Gravity might be the first obvious observation, or as MST3K did as a skit "selective gravity", also what about when they are plunging to their death and they are just standing there looking out of the window, um would'nt the ship being upside down effect that scene? I would like to think that they started with good intentions and that it ran over budget or something but I think this movie was just plain cheese as in the from under type. Just compare this to "When Worlds Collide" which was released in 1951 to see the true place where this movie ranks, there's no comparison. The movie gets a 2 or maybe 3 on its own, its not even funny to watch on its own. It gets about a 5 or 6 as a MST3K episode as there is no action or much to make fun of, just bad, bad, bad, oh did I mention, it's bad.

I really don't see how anyone could enjoy this movie. I don't think I've ever seen a movie half as boring as this self-indulgent piece of junk. It probably would have been better if the director hadn't spent most of the movie showcasing his own art work, which really isn't that noteworthy. Another thing I didn't really like is when a character got punched in the face, a gallon of blood would spew forth soon after. I don't know how folks bleed over there in Japan, but I hope they have plenty of blood donors.

As is the case with many films of this ilk, my non Catholicism got in the way of my understanding it. The church has this mass of rules which have been put together over centuries. We have a short time to learn them and have to accept them at face value. Then, throw in some bad guys getting revenge for a long distant act against them, working under these rules and attempting to circumvent them, and you have this book and movie. I found myself thinking, "That's pretty cool. Why did they do that?" There's this casual thing in the Robert Langdon character where no matter what the issue, he seems to always make the right first move. I suppose it's like watching CSI where they solve incredibly complex cases in a matter of days. They know the lay of the land. In this film, there is so much land and so little time to really understand everything that is going on. But if you create Robert Langdon, you need to set him to work. That's OK because heroic nerds like him have been saving the day forever. I thought the film was fun. I thought the Da Vinci Code was fun too. Interesting and not as bad as people seemed to think. This is a marvel to look at and never stops for a second.

A friend lent me this DVD, which he got from the director at a festival, I think. I went in warned that some of the technical aspects of the movie were a bit shaky and that the writing was good but not great. So maybe that colored my judgment but I have to admit that I liked this movie.<br /><br />The standouts where the actors. Youssef Kerkor was really good as Ernie, the main character, kind of pathetic in a likable way. Adam Jones (who also directed) and Justin Lane were excellent as the roommates who drive Ernie mad. The Bill character (Justin Lane), who spends a lot of the film dressed like a panda, was by far my favorite; he seemed the least one-dimensional, and reminded me of an old college roommate so much I called the guy after watching the DVD. Really kind of lovable, and very funny. Some of the other acting was good, some was so-so, but none of it was bad. I also really liked the vigilante duo. Ridiculous and funny.<br /><br />I'm giving this one high marks, even though it has some issues, because you can tell when you watch it that these people cared, and decided to make their movie their way. Well done to Adam Jones and crew.

Indeed, Cynthia Watros is in this movie as Elizabeth talking to Desmond. Though I'm just wondering how she ended up as a 'rehab patient'(?) where Hurley is also in there trying to reduce his weight (as seen from the previous episodes).<br /><br />Anyway, this last episode is really suspended. The ending is not so understandable. I think the writer did expect the audience that there is a season 3 coming.<br /><br />I just hope the next season will give light to more unclear/hanging events that were happened.<br /><br />Just can't wait further for season 3.

This is not an entirely bad movie. The plot (new house built next door seems to be haunted) is not bad, the mood is creepy enough, and the acting is okay. The big problem I had is that, being familiar with Lara Flynn Boyle (from Twin Peaks and other shows), I couldn't get over how different she looks with her apparently new, big lips. I kept staring at them. They look so out of place on her face! They make her look completely different (and not better).<br /><br />Mark-Paul Gosselaar, the actor who plays Kim the architect who designs and pours his heart and soul into the house, does a fine job. And Lara (as Col) is also quite good (but those lips!) as the owner of the house next door. Her husband, Walker (Colin Ferguson) is appropriately wooden. The various characters who live in the house were also fine. I particularly liked Pie (Charlotte Sullivan) and her husband, Buddy (Stephen Amell), the first people to move into the house. The attempt to involve us in the overall neighborhood vibe fails, unfortunately, as the other neighbors are not particularly likable.<br /><br />For some reason the director was unable to make the "haunted" house particularly ominous. Other movies (such as Amityville Horror, The Legend of Hell House) manage to achieve that spooky feel, but it just doesn't happen here. The closest is when Col paints a depiction of the house.<br /><br />Another thing that didn't work for me is the plot twist that occurs with Kim, the architect. Initially, he appears to be a victim of the house like the others (it has sucked him dry of inspiration), but later he seems to have joined forces with it in evil.<br /><br />Overall, not a bad movie for horror fans if you can take your eyes off those big lips!

Let me start by saying that there's really no reason to watch this movie. I only sat through it because I was trying to kill some time before going to work.<br /><br />Basically, it's your typical sophomoric "comedy" aimed at the teenage set. There's nothing remarkable about it other than the complete ridiculousness of the story, not to mention that there are plot holes big enough to sail a Carnival cruise-liner through. Obviously this isn't supposed to be a realistic movie, it's supposed to be funny. Sadly, it mostly fails on that count as well. I must admit that I laughed a few times, but mainly in a "holy sh*t, I can't believe how stupid this is" kind of way.<br /><br />If you never see this movie you're not missing a thing.

Many movies try to take universal themes and make a comedy; but few will rise to the occasion like "Checking Out." The movie is brilliant. The dialogue is well written and true to form. The acting is absolutely prima. Peter Falk has given a truly great performance - as an actor; as an actor. He is able to carry the cast to greatness. Another great performance is given by Laura San Giacomo. She is such an intriguing actress. Her performances take one by surprise. She delivers no matter what role she is asked to give - from wacko in Stephen King's "The Stand" to her television performances. However, "Checking Out" allows her to shine. It is a role she is meant to play. The film is brilliantly directed by Jeff Hare. He was able to bring out the best in his cast and his direction - in every aspect - made the film a wonderful treasure. Jeff Hare was able to make a difficult theme laughable and yet profound. He gives us an up close and personal look at why indie films need to be made. The directors knowledge of his cast and script are extended to the finished film. The results are superb.<br /><br />Hopefully, it will be made available to large audiences because this is one you won't want to miss. It has the potential of being the sleeper hit of 2005 - in the fashion of "My Big Fat Greek Wedding."

This has got to be one of absolute worst movies I've ever seen in my life. The writing and acting are just pathetic. It ranks right up there with Uncle Sam on the all time worst movies ever made. However, when I see crap like this able to make it to video, it really inspires me to pursue my wild dreams of making films because I know I could do a better job than what the makers of Killers did.

Otto Preminger, completing a noir cycle at Twentieth Century Fox, reunited his "Laura" leads for this stark, gritty detective drama. Dana Andrews again portrays a cop, but this time he's hardened, cynical and has been accused of police brutality by his superior - "You don't hate hoods, you liked to beat them up!". Mark Dixon (Andrews) despises criminals, as his own father was a crook. He doesn't want to be "Sandy Dixon's kid" so he became a policeman, but his methods are harsh and hated.<br /><br />One night, investigating a murder, he unknowingly punches a suspect, Ken Paine (Craig Stevens) so hard that it kills him. A shaken Dixon does his best to cover it up, intending to frame a hated thug, Scalise (Gary Merrill) for the crime. However, the blame falls on Paine's father-in-law, Jiggs Taylor (Tom Tully), whose daughter, department store model Morgan Taylor (Tierney) is estranged from her husband but keeps getting drawn into his gambling schemes. Paine had slapped his wife, enraging her father, who did show up at his son-in-law's apartment, but not until Dixon had departed with the body. With no better suspects, Jiggs is arrested and charged.<br /><br />Riddled with guilt, Mark falls for Morgan and offers money for an attorney. He decides to take on Scalise anyway but leaves a letter to be given to the department in the event of his death, confessing everything. In the end, he cannot live with the knowledge with what he has done, and he permits the letter to be read by his superior and by Morgan. Despite all the tragic circumstances, Morgan professes her love for Mark and will wait for him.<br /><br />It was great to find this film on DVD, after so many years of televised obscurity. Eddie Mueller, a film noir historian, provides the commentary and does a good job, but I find his assertion that audiences wouldn't have caught the significance of the casting of the two leads, since "Laura" had been made six years earlier. In that respect, he is mistaken because they had appeared in "The Iron Curtain" two years prior to WTSE and the film was a box-office success.<br /><br />Andrews and Tierney were fabulous together, and Ruth Donnelly is tremendous comic relief as restaurant owner Martha, fanning the flames between the detective and the dame.<br /><br />The night cityscapes give the film an air of menace. Gary Merrill is great as the low-life Scalise, who had a criminal past with Dixon's dad ("Your father liked me," he taunts Mark). Karl Malden and a young Neville Brand are terrific also. And Tom Tully is just touching and funny as Morgan's unjustly accused pop.<br /><br />A watchable film noir with a fantastic cast.

In the U.S., very few films have been made about Rome that were not set in the time of Julius Caesar or shortly thereafter. Hollywood's sword and sandal epics mostly have a Christian theme, which makes it difficult to get into earlier Roman history (Spartacus was probably the first exception to this rule, and encountered some resistance in Hollywood because it did not have Jesus in it).<br /><br />It's interesting to see at least one picture that not only takes place before the time of Caesar and Christ, but is set when Rome was only one city among many on the Italian peninsula, and had just ousted the hated King Tarquin and formed the Republic.<br /><br />However, this is not a historical film; it's peplum, and while the production values aren't rock bottom, the acting and characterizations are cardboard. I can only imagine what the dialogue was like in Italian, but with wooden English dubbing it's very campy. I got a few good laughs out of it at first.<br /><br />I haven't seen many films of this genre, having missed most of the Hercules movies of the 60s. It's amusing up to a point, but as the film goes on, it gets somewhat boring.<br /><br />One thing's for sure: if I'd seen this movie when I was ten years old, I would have loved it. At that age, I went for anything with Romans and swordfights in it. So at least, this flick brought back some childhood memories.