Datasets:

paduraru2009

/

imdb-sample

like 0

Dressed to Kill starts off with Kate Miller (Angie Dickinson) having a sexually explicit nightmare, later on that day she visits her psychiatrist Dr. Robert Elliott (Michael Caine) for a session in which she admits to be sexually frustrated & unfulfilled in her current marriage. Kate then visits a museum & picks up a stranger, they go back to his apartment for casual sex, when done Kate is set to leave but is attacked & killed in the buildings elevator by a razor blade wielding blonde woman. Prostitute Liz Blake (Nancy Allen) discovers the gruesome scene & sees the killer but manages to escape. Detective Marino (Dennis Franz) says he suspects Liz as being the killer as there are no other witnesses so Liz teams up with Kate's son Peter (Keith Gordon) to track down the real killer, clear Liz's name & see that justice is done...<br /><br />Written & directed by Brian De Palma I thought Dressed to Kill was a good solid psychological murder mystery. The script is measured & slow at times but it likes to focus on the character's so you really know them, the entire first twenty minutes is just developing Kate as a character before she is suddenly killed off, then the film switches it's attentions to Liz & no one else gets a look in. This way Dressed to Kill is quite absorbing & engaging, unfortunately the character's themselves aren't exactly likable. I found some of the dialogue quite funny at times, especially the dirty talk that Liz spouts occasionally. The killers motives are somewhat plausible but I guess you'd have to be pretty messed up to do anything suggested in Dressed to Kill. It's a good film but it didn't excite me that much & I didn't really find any character to root for or like. The film tacks on a needless & unnecessary twist ending that I didn't really see the point of.<br /><br />Director De Palma directs with style & visual flair, from the art museum sequence to a car chase & as a whole it's impeccably filmed throughout. I'd imagine that every shot in Dressed to Kill had a great deal of thought put into it. I felt the film was a bit flat & uninspired at times though, nothing about it really excited me that much. There is a fair bit of nudity, some sex & rape along with a few bits of gore & violence, Kate's murder by razor blade in the elevator being the highlight, if that's the right word. However, it's by no means as shocking or controversial when viewed today as many would have you believe.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $6,500,000 Dressed to Kill has that glossy high production value feel of a Hollywood film. The New York locations are nice, the cinematography is good & as a whole it's extremely well made. I thought the music was inappropriate & was far to loud & intrusive. The acting is OK but despite his top billing I didn't think Caine had that much screen time. Allen was married to director De Palma at the time Dressed to Kill was made, interestingly out of the four films she appeared in made by De Palma in two of them, this & Blow Out (1981), he cast her as a prostitute... A body double was used for Dickinson as she pleasures herself in a shower at the start.<br /><br />Dressed to Kill is a good thriller that is well worth watching but I didn't think it quite lived up to it's lofty reputation. Good but not brilliant.

The rating is only a 5 because it's a movie that could have used better acting and direction (or at least music!). However, for the achievements of Walt Whitman, it deserves a 10. A previous poster calls the movie cheesy, however, I think it's a simple case of not seeing the forest for the trees. The film makers were apparently more interested in getting the story out there than to have a Hollywood shiny feature film. And for this, I applaud them - the fact it is non-mainstream reflects the life of Whitman as well. This film is more documentary than for the sake of acting. To be fascinated with a story such as this, when you rarely hear of these types of stories that shape current day mental health, is the most important thing. I found it a highly enjoyable look at history.

1940. - A visit to the Lodz ghetto in Nazi-occupied Poland, recorded by a German cameramen with the naive co-operation of the Jewish community, is combined with archival footage, clips from international newsreels, and excerpts from related cultural films to portray the World's Jews as swindlers and parasites. This 'documentary' interprets Jewish life from the viewpoint of traditional anti-Semitism and Nazi ideology. A candid, cinematically-unique expression of racial hatred. I personally find this film frightening and highly offensive. One can only hope that such pictures as this will never reach the screen again.

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

First and foremost, I loved the novel by Ray Bradbury. It's the kind of horror that gets under your skin and sticks with you later. It was one of his best books, with, you know, Fahrenheit 451 and Dandelion Wine. I as just hoping that this movie would be all right. It had lots of chances, with a great cast, like Jason Robards and Jonathn Pryce. And Bradbury even wrote the script himself. And on top of all that, it has PAM GRIER!<br /><br />How could it fail?<br /><br />There may be spoilers within.<br /><br />First of all, it was dumbed down. Much of the horror from the book was lost as Bradbury must have been forced to keep the violence to a minimum. All the visuals from the book...gone. Everything that made you squirm...gone.<br /><br />And then there's the acting. Like a lot of movies that Disney threw out in the 80s, the kids in this movie cannot act. And, this bugged me a lot, neither of them looked 13 but 9 or 10. Their strong friendship wasn't addressed. It was more like they were acquaintaces. <br /><br />You'd think Jason Robards and Jonathan Pryce could pull this off in their roles of Mr. Halloway and Mr. Dark. But here it's like they just don't care. All they want to do is somehow pay off some mortgage or something. This is far from being some of their best performances. <br /><br />Pam Grier was fine as the witch, but the charecter of the Dust Witch herself wasn't well pulled off. She's a lot less evil and doesn't have the presence as she did in the book. <br /><br />And everything that was left out of the book. The ballon night chase, the marking of Jim's house, the real death of Mr. Dark, what happened to Mr. Coogan on the merry-go-round, the fate of the lightening rod salesman, the real death of the witch, and oh so much more. <br /><br />And the special effects were bad, even for the 80s. The merry-go-round of doom for one thing with the superimposed horses going around wasn't really creepy, and that weird green mist that really had nothing to do with anything. <br /><br />I could keep going about how this movie ripped apart the original novel, but it makes blood boil. Don't see this movie but read the book. It's a classic of Bradbury.

when i first started watching these it became one of my favourite shows. Melissa Joan hart is very funny and talented so were the aunts and the other characters and the star of of the show Salem the cat, he was immensely funny. the first few season in my opinion were the best where Sabrina was a teenager in high school adapting to witch life. they were most funniest, most entertaining and most um... good. i'm not a fan of when they started introducing Brad and Dreamer cause i quite liked Valerie, but they were okay the problem was they were only in it for one season. if you're gonna have new people at least keep them. i didn't like Josh he was a tw*t, i preferred Harvey but then he disappeared. and they got rid of Libby! it would have been awesome if thy had been bickering in theses seven years. and Mr. craft as well, if him and Zelda got married that would have been gold! then Sabrina moves out of her aunts house and into Roxie/Miles/Morgan's house. i didn't like theses people either, it didn't really seem they liked Sabrina. Sabrina seemed to lose her charm and stuff and the aunts seem to be shunned out of her life and into they're own stupid story lines. i kind of stopped watching it for a while and the old re-runs were back and i was like whoo-hoo! LOL. i must say the last few seasons were absolutely terrible.they got rid of the aunts which sucked cause they were a big part of the show. then suddenly she lets those two freeloaders move in to the nice house when they treated he like dirt. and now she's working at some magazine shop so they're putting loads celebrity guest stars into the show, if they're in every episode it kind of ruins it. the programme just really went downhill and lost its luster. i saw the last episode. it had the aunts in it (Zelda was reduced to a candle) and she's about to get married but she runs off with Harvey the end. i would have liked to know what happened after. well thats my review and the only thing i can say is the only thing that stayed it's appealing self through the seven years was Salem the cat.

A great Bugs Bunny cartoon from the earlier years has Bugs as a performer in an window display at a local department store. After he's done for the day the manager comes in to tell him that he'll be transferring soon. Bugs is happy to oblige into he figures out that the new job is in taxidermy...and that taxidermy has to do with stuffing animals. Animals like say, a certain rabbit. This causes a battle of wits between the rascally rabbit and his now former employer. I found this short to be delightful and definitely one of the better ones of the early 1940's. It still remains as funny nearly 60+ years later. This animated short can be seen on Disc 1 of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 2.<br /><br />My Grade: A-

"Home Room" like "Zero Day" and "Elephant", was inspired by the recent wave of school shootings. But unlike the other two films, "Home Room" focuses on two survivors (not the shooters or those killed) in the aftermath of a shooting. Making it less exploitive and more useful because little effort is wasted in asking questions for which there are no answers.<br /><br />Don't give up on this little film during the first 20 minutes, it is supposed to set up the real story but plays like a rejected "Hill Street Blues" episode. It is lame but bear with it, at least it pads the running length enough to get the film classified as a feature. I recommend skipping this entirely and just jumping ahead to the hospital scenes-there is nothing here that you can't pick up from the remainder of the film.<br /><br />Like a lot of good little films this was creatively a one-man show as Paul F. Ryan was both the writer and the director. While this arrangement does not guarantee a good film, it is usually a good sign because it will mean a certain unity of construction and execution that is often lacking in big budget dramatic features. Because the script of "Home Room" is its real strength it is fortunate that the writer also executed the production and insured that his vision made it onto the screen.<br /><br />Ryan takes a huge chance with the ending which tests the limits of the average viewer's sentimentality tolerance. He runs it right up to the edge but against all logic leaves you crying instead of cringing. Why the ending works is some combination of the audience need for a reward at the end of this kind of journey, the song (Sarah McLaughlin's "Sweet Surrender") he goes out on, and the amazing editing of the final minute.<br /><br />The other strength of the film is the casting of Busy Phillips (Alicia) and Erika Christensen (Deanna) as the main protagonists. Although Phillips plays her standard alienated surly teen and Christensen her intelligent daughter of a good family, they both bring more intensity to their roles than ever before. The family life of both girls is more than satisfactory and of little interest to Ryan. What is happening here is all about the two of them despite a lame side story about a police detective wondering around town trying to tie Alicia to the lone shooter. If they ever re-cut and trim the film this side story should be condensed.<br /><br />A story about two extremely disparate girls bonding and helping each other is hardly a novel idea and Ryan could have easily steered this film into cliché and predictability. But instead his script has them engaging in a fascinating and convincing sparring match, slowly chipping away at each other and sharing moments of vulnerability, only to retreat back inside themselves. Deanna's "I'm dying inside" line just tears you apart-I can't think of a moment in any other film that I felt as intensely as that one. She desperately needs a connection that Alicia just as desperately resists. Deanna only makes progress when she retreats. The viewer keeps expecting the group hug that never seems to happen.<br /><br />Ultimately this not only generates a lot of suspense but leaves you admiring both characters and the two actresses who brought them to life.<br /><br />Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

This is the kind of movie England can do in its sleep, and that's meaning it as a compliment. Because of the success of very British comedies of manners situated at the end or beginning of the Twentieth Century, most notably adaptations of E. M. Forster novels, this very Merchant-Ivory like production was received in the light it brought when it was released in 1992. It was an exceptional year for actress Miranda Richardson, having appeared as the wife of Jeremy Irons who discovers her husband has been having an affair in the worst possible way in DAMAGE, and as the IRA terrorist who eventually dons a wig and gets a nasty comeuppance in THE CRYING GAME. Here, she plays a quiet, serene type of woman in Rose Arbuthnot, one who with Josie Lawrence who plays Lottie Wilkins, embarks on a trip that is filled with self-discovery. They are joined by an unlikely pair of ladies: one Caroline Dester, played by the enigmatic Polly Walker who resembles a very vamp Louise Brooks (and not just in the style of hair she wears), and Mrs. Fisher (Joan Plowright). This foursome will eventually merge together into becoming deep friends only because the story is so filled with spring and an overwhelming, dreamy sweetness it almost preordains it, but this is fine; it's the movie it wants to be. Alfred Molina and Jim Broadbent (then relatively new to American audiences) fill out the cast as the husbands of the two main characters, and all in all, Mike Newell makes with his movie a living thing of near-magical elements, full of quiet moments and wonder.

Years ago, when I was a poor teenager, my best friend and my brother both had a policy that the person picking the movie should pay. And, while I would never pay to see some of the crap they took me to, I couldn't resist a free trip to the movies! That's how I came to see crap like the second Conan movie and NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN! Now, despite this being a wretched movie, it is in places entertaining to watch--in a brain dead sort of way. And, technically the stunts and camera-work are good, so this elevates my rating all the way to a 2! So why is the movie so bad? Well, unlike the first Rambo movie, this one has virtually no plot, Rambo himself only says about 3 words (other than grunts and yells), there is a needless and completely irrelevant and undeveloped "romance" and the movie is one giant (and stupid) special effect. And what STUPIFYINGLY AWFUL special effects. While 12383499143743701 bullets and rockets are shot at Rambo, none have any effect on him and almost every bullet or arrow Rambo shoots hits its mark! And, while the bad guys are using AK-47s, helicopters and rockets, in some scenes all Rambo had is a bow and arrows with what seem like nuclear-powered tips!! The scene where the one bad guy is shooting at him as he slowly and calmly launches one of these exploding arrows is particularly made for dumb viewers! It was wonderfully parodied in UHF starring Weird Al. Plus, HOT SHOTS, PART DEUX also does a funny parody of the genre--not just this stupid scene.<br /><br />All-in-all, a movie so dumb and pointless, it's almost like self-parody!

I grew up watching Inspector Gadget. It was, and still is, one of my favorite cartoons, if not my absolute favorite. I learned a lot of geography and history from the spin-off Inspector Gadget's Field Trip. I wanted to slip on a banana peel and become the greatest detective ever.<br /><br />But the film has ruined the reputation of the wonderful cartoon.<br /><br />Matthew Broderick, an actor with potential, was definitely NOT the role for Inspector Gadget. First thing- in the film, Inspector Gadget is smart. Not so in the cartoon. In the film, Gadget solves the mystery mostly by himself. In the cartoon, it was almost always Penny, Brain, and the awesome book (I still want her book!). If Gadget solved the mystery, it was by accident. Gadget in the film seems to be a competent detective, but in the cartoon was pretty dumb, which was where the humor came from.<br /><br />Another thing is that it's too much "Good Guy v. Bad Guy" in the film. It's not just meant to be a silly Saturday morning cartoon. Also, Gadget never should have a love story, but Disney Corporation is filled with idiots.<br /><br />Also I miss the true gadgets that Gadget had, and especially the Gadget car. In the movie it was a chic convertible. In the cartoon it was a sedan police car and could turn into a van. It also barely had any gadgets and was mainly there to get him from place to place.<br /><br />But if anything, the one thing that was terrible about the movie was that it was a feature movie. Inspector Gadget was a silly Saturday morning cartoon. The movie was too serious, too overdone, had too much of a plot and wasn't even remotely as funny.<br /><br />Tip for those who haven't seen it: NEVER see it. EVER. Watch the cartoon, it's a true classic.

This is, without a doubt, the single worst movie ever created. There's no arguing here. This is it. End of story. The story is juvenile and sub-moronic, looking like it was created by a three-year-old fascinated with dinosaurs. The entire concept is just plain dumb. It's inconceivable how someone could possibly come up with something so stupid and think it was entertaining. The jokes are also completely lame. If you haven't seen this movie yet, consider yourself lucky. If your morbidly curious as to how bad this movie is, please don't make me describe it. Words can't express how completely awful this movie is. This isn't just bad as in being a bad movie. Even those have cohesion, if not entertainment value. This. . . This is. . . Ugh! Think of the worst story ever told and multiply its badness level by 5,000, and you still haven't come close to how awful this movie is. After giving Pokemon the Movie one point, giving this movie one point seems like nothing short of charity. That's how bad it is. Did the producers and directors even take film classes? Because this is a perfect example of how not to make a film. It looks like some amateur high on paint thinner made this film. If you rented this, please take it back and ask for a refund. And don't even think about renting it again.

I felt brain dead, I'll tell you. This is the worst film I have ever bought. (in my ignorance I thought this was the Peter Jackson film of the same name). The performances are so terrible they are laughable. The special effects have not stood the test of time and look dire. The script promotes that kind of TV movie, stare into the middle distance kind of acting. The cast look as if they have been taking lessons from Joey Tribbiani, they have one look each, and stick to it. Plus I have never been confused by a movie until I sat down to watch this. The is it a dream or no plot is so terrible that frustration sets in within a few minutes. Avoid like a plague.

No, this is not no Alice fairy tale my friends! This `Wonderland' fable is based on the true story of the gruesome bloody Wonderland murders that occurred back in 80's California. At the center of this bloodbath was no other than `Johnny Wad' himself. Yes, John Holmes! Daddy ding-dong used other shotguns than his infamous 13-inch milk machine. Besides being a legendary adult film actor, Holmes was as also a hardcore drug addict who befriended various Hollywood junkies. Val Kilmer was occasionally majestic as Holmes, but for once this Holmes character did not milk it through completely. The film possesses a `who's who' of supporting players: Josh Lucas & Dylan Mcdermott as Hollywood riffraffs , Kate Bosworth & Lisa Kudrow as the women in Holmes life, and Eric Bogosian as a menacing Tinsletown entrepreneur. These characters do play integral parts, directly or indirectly, in the `Wonderland' murders. Out of this support group, it was Josh Lucas who was the most fierce & impressive as the ardent Ron Launius. Lucas is gradually escalating into a major Hollywood player with such charismatic turns in `A Beautiful Mind' & `Sweet Home Alabama'. Director James Cox sometime proved to be a bit of a coxsucker by displaying a vast amount of overextended scenes, just like Holmes' famous organ. Holmes was eventually acquitted of the `Wonderland' murders. He died of complications from the Aids virus. `Wonderland' will keep you wondering what really happened that bloody night, and if Holmes really laid out his weapon. Oops! Wrong Holmes movie! Ok! That is enough before I get `penislized' I mean penalized. Bye Holmies! *** Average

I admit not being that fond of Oliver! as a young child--it's long, and the story is a little slow-moving because of all the musical numbers. As a teenager I discovered that the fun of this movie is the experience itself. Rather than thinking of it as an adaptation of Oliver Twist, think of it as a celebration of the classic story. The adaptation is loose at best, but really, if you're watching a musical, you ain't there for the story.<br /><br />The music is the core of this movie, and an overwhelming majority of it is stellar and very catchy. Most or all of the cast was involved in the stage version of the musical, and it shows in their performances--and I consider this a plus. The performances are all in a more "stagey" style of acting typical of much older films, and they are very entertaining. The exception is the kid playing Oliver, whose job seemed to be to look cute and stay out of the real performers' way.<br /><br />Fagin and the Dodger are the real stars of this movie. Oliver Reed also does a fantastic job maintaining an intimidating screen presence as the menacing Bill Sykes. Even Sykes' dog Bullseye puts on a good performance.<br /><br />This movie isn't for everyone. People who hate musicals will despise it, as will those who take musicals too seriously. Nitpicking over faulty historical details or mistaking exaggerated stage-type acting for bad acting will ruin anyone's enjoyment. Just sit back and enjoy the entertainment--it's much better if you remember that, as a musical, it's a fantasy loosely organized around the book, not a strict adaptation.

I am Puerto Rican and this is one of the worst documentary of I've ever seen of any type. You can see that the people on it are clueless. They don't know much about Puerto Rico and its culture. They claim to be Puerto Rican because they are from Puerto Rican descendants, but they probably know less than others who are not from there. You can see while they are talking that they are contradicting themselves. If you would like to see a real, and I mean a real, genuine documentary from Puerto Rico, then you must see "Mi Puerto Rico". That's a serious, real documentary. Not like this piece of junk. Rosie Perez based this documentary on herself. I thought it was suppose to be about Puerto Ricans. They keep repeating I didn't know. Well, that's about the only thing they got right on this so called documentary. I hate to see such a piece of garbage being done using the name of the Island. It brings down the standards.

The major flaw with the film is its uninspired script. It plods back and forth between vignettes of Bettie's story and re-creations of the Klaw short films. While the Klaw re-creations are well done, it is unnecessary to recreate them in their near entirety. Page Richards, while not an amazing actress, does a decent job overall. And, at times, she does bear a remarkable resemblance to Bettie. Also of note is some faithful attention to detail. Costumes and clothing well done, as is some of the set direction. The sets are generally sparse and feel stage-y, but do feel of the era. It is sometimes surprisingly well lit, and the color palette was clearly thought-out to give the overall look a vibrant, retro feel.

Michael Jackson would have claimed a spot for the top-billed character in THE GOLDEN CHILD, and because he loves kids. That didn't work (and why should it?), so instead we have Eddie Murphy out to save the world by rescuing "Kid Midas". I would strongly suggest all future scriptwriters to please thoroughly study the actor's inane dialogue in this quirky fantasy - adventure - comedy that's a step closer to ISHTAR. Whatever Murphy says or does can be best liked, but don't get me wrong about his exquisite comical talent; he doesn't belong in this movie, and the same went for DR. DOLITTLE! The violence and visuals combined are reasons to stamp it as a cult camp classic, and that wouldn't have made any sense as Hollywood and movie fanatics kept cashing in on the guy. Speaking of visuals, they were pulled off amazingly well at the time of Ronald Reagan's presidential fame. Murphy is far better at COMING TO AMERICA and 48 HRS, but this stale movie isn't my touch of golden honey for a sweet crunchy taste.

Many King fans hate this because it departed from the book, but film is a different medium and books should change when they make the jump. That notwithstanding, the movie does fail completely, but it fails entirely on film terms. I'd like to smack the people who tell me it's the scariest movie ever made. I always follow up with the question "Really... exactly what scene scared you?" Every fan I've asked, goes silent. Occasionally someone, at a loss for a decent scare (There are none...), names the "Grape-juice-shooting-out-of-elevators" shtick. If you're afraid of that, I don't know what to tell you, except maybe that you're easily scared. I just rolled my eyes watching these z-grade horror ideas play out in this schlocky, incoherent movie.<br /><br />One place it diverts from the book and really is insipid is the tedious work the movie does to get Mr Halloran up to the Overlook only to kill him; with the dumbest member of the audience knowing that Jack is waiting behind one of the columns in the corridor that it takes Halloran FOREVER to walk down. Really one of the stupidest sequences ever put on film. <br /><br />Oh, and nice choice for Mr. Halloran's artwork Stanley! Black light afro-nymphomaniacs really add to the mood and character development of a horror movie. Has there ever been a more "off," out-of-place shot in any movie ever made?<br /><br />I consider it a miracle that I was eventually able to bypass this turd, and agree that Kubricks 2001 is a truly important film, given the immense 'bad will' generated by both this stupid, stupid movie, and the cult of fawning but inarticulate Kubrick fan-boys, who couldn't describe an idea at work in it with every film resource in the Library of Congress in front of them. <br /><br />Toss in the grotesque overacting of Jack Nicholson, the introduction of dumb one-liners at tense moments, and the Razzie nominated performance of Shelly Duvall and you have a very crappy movie.

I can understand how fans of filmmaker Roman Polanski could love this movie- and I could understand how some could totally hate it (Ebert was one of the few who couldn't understand why people weren't running out of the theater). After a first viewing, I'm not sure I could fall into either category, however as someone who can't get enough of Kafka and bizarre dark comedies of paranoia The Tenant is effective enough for its running time. Or maybe not- this is one of those cases where it might have been more of a masterwork if it were a half-hour Twilight Zone episode, with Serling delivering the coda as Terkovsky (or whomever it might be(?)) writhes in his bed in bandages. It's very similar in the treatment of the doomed protagonist as Repulsion was, however it could be argued that there was more ambiguity, more of a sense of the surreal coming out through a sustained disintegration of character and location (and, quite frankly, a better lead performance) than the Tenant.<br /><br />As it stands, The Tenant does have an intriguing premise, the kind that one doesn't tire telling about to other people: Polanski is a Polish émigré to Paris who takes an apartment that was most recently acquired by Simone Choule, who jumped to her near death out of the window and died soon after. But the other tenants are conservative to the max in terms of noise; after a Saturday night at Terkovsky's with a few friends, there are complaints of too much noise. It won't happen again, Polanski's good-natured but slightly nervous tenant says, but there is no peace even in moving a cabinet or a chair. Soon complaints get registered against another tenant, but from him? Can he register complaints? This is a case of not so much mistaken identity but of there being a lack of peace of mind with oneself and the surrounding people. As the downward spiral goes on, Polanski ratchets up tension (and, dare I say, black-comedic laughs) by showing Terkovsky in the midst of a horrible dream- one of Polanski's strongest scenes from the period- and in finding teeth in the wall, not to mention the bathroom across the way (which, I might add, is always a cinematic lynch-pin of horror and surreal madness).<br /><br />But somehow, the film never really feels all that significant aside from its excessive design as a would-be mind-f*** machine, with Terkovsky's tenants only seeming to not be what they seem for a little while: there's not as much suspense when finding out that they really aren't out to get him, which makes the paranoia more self-fulfilling. At least once or twice I thought to myself as well 'why did Polanski take the title role for himself?' It's not that he's at all a bad actor, and he has appeared in several films and plays that aren't of his own direction. But aside from being great at looking awkward and tense, like in the church, or in his moments of sort of flipping out when thinking that they really are out to get him to kill himself, his transformation is less creepy than tongue-in-cheek, a test of himself to see if he can pull it off, which he doesn't entirely do. Despite Polanski working at it well to look like the meek and frazzled Terkovsky, I could see at least a few other actors who could pull it off with more subtlety and affecting personality. By the time one sees him in drag, it goes between cringe-worthy and true camp, particularly when he goes for the double-climax at the end (which, of course, is of little surprise).<br /><br />And yet there is pleasure for the film-buff and Polanski fan to see the supporting cast try and dig into the much more ambiguous characters (Winters and Douglas do this the best, even as they have to strain through limited characters), and the unexpected moments like Polanski and Adjani getting hot and heavy during a Bruce Lee movie, or when he gets really drunk, or in one almost random scene where he slaps a kid near a fountain, are rather brilliant in and of themselves. It's a very good film, and one that could maybe stick my attention up when on too many coffees after midnight. But an essential film? Not exactly.

While I have a great respect for Disney's animated films, as of late they haven't really been what I would call "must-see". Atlantis looked intriguing from the first movie poster and trailer, and thankfully lived up to my expectations.<br /><br />Atlantis is a more "mature" Disney film in the sense that it lacks songs (a very unusual trait for a Disney film indeed), and is focused more on action and discovery than any other recent Disney offering. The world of Atlantis, hidden beneath the earth's core, is fantastic, presented as desolate caverns with ruins, and then slowly developing into actual ecosystems, which, while usually containing some reminder of harshness, become more and more intriguing until the tropical paradise itself is reached. The presentation of simply Atlantis' landscape and setting, without some expendable cheery song, gave the kingdom a much more beautiful and intriguing appearance. The inclusion of an Atlantean language, as well as attempts to connect it into the mythology of real-life ancient civilizations adds to this, and works fairly well.<br /><br />Also, with the exception of some scenes involving Mole's practical jokes, there didn't seem to be much of a "childish" element that I usually associate with Disney films. Instead, the main elements were the struggle to get to Atlantis, and the constant discovery that occurred at Atlantis, as Milo the outsider was able to learn all he ever needed to know about the place by helping the Atlanteans discover parts of their own history that they didn't know about. Part of this involves the Atlantean "weaponry", which is used in a very action-packed climax which is, for lack of a better word, quite exciting.<br /><br />Granted, not all of the story makes full sense, and the film doesn't feature any amazing new computer-generated visual effects, but, aside from the Toy Story movies, this is the most entertaining Disney film I've seen in years.

When i first saw this film i thought it was going to be a good sasquatch film. Usually when you have these types of movies there's generally ONE sasquatch, but in this one there is like what? 7 or 10 of them?. Acting was good, plot was OK, i liked the scenes where the sasquatch is killing the first few victims, very good camera work. I was expecting it to be a gory film but it was very little. This movie was way better than Sasquatch. The SCI-FI channel really needs to make more sasquatch films, i mean i really liked Sasquatch Mountain, Abominibal was not good, the one i'm reviewing is OK, but the movie Sasquatch was not, but I'm not reviewing that so let me get back on track. This movie is good for a rainy Saterday afternoon, but for any other occasions, no.

When the remake of When A Stranger Calls was out, obviously I was interested in watching the original. Then when I read about the original (which I recall had my sisters totally freaked out back in the day) I saw that the real money is on Black Christmas, which apparently beat everyone to the "the caller is in the house" punch. So I Netflix that, and it sits at the top of my list for months due to its "very long wait." All this time I am getting more and more eager to see it! Then one day, out of the blue, it finally arrives! ...And it's a total snore.<br /><br />Sure, maybe I had elevated expectations, but I don't think it would have gained more had I seen it fresh. The thing is it's Christmas in some Canadian college town, and there's this sorority having a party. We see some killer-POV shots as he climbs this trellis and sneaks into the attic. So we KNOW he's in the house. Then we're introduced to our characters—-Olivia Hussey as the mousy, whiny, Canadian-accented Jess. Margot Kidder as the annoying, overtly aggressive alcoholic Barb. She's so annoying even her mother dis-invites her for her Christmas festivities. There's also this irritating Janis Ian clone ("Phil") and this alcoholic den mother Mrs. Mac, seen taking nips from the various bottles of booze she has stashed all over the house. We also meet Jess's highly-strung boyfriend Peter, played by Keir Dullea of 2001 and Bunny Lake is Missing fame, though halfway through the film I was still asking myself "Which one's Keir Dullea?"<br /><br />So it seems that the house has been receiving obscene phone calls, but this was before email, so they couldn't ask him to send a photo. Then—-well, you know how they say those plastic dry-cleaning bags are not a toy? One of the sisters finds that out the hard way. Don't worry if you don't catch the first 14 shots of the plastic-encased corpse face as it reposes in the attic—-there'll be 28 more interspersed throughout the film, obviously there to make you say "Oh my God! There's a corpse in the attic!" Though after the first hour that changes to: "How come the dumb police haven't found the rather prominently-placed plastic-encased corpse in the attic?" Especially as it is made abundantly clear that it is clearly visible from outside the house. Really, any time before CSI came on the air must have been such a golden age of crime; the cops are so dumb. Fortunately some of them look like John Saxon.<br /><br />Anyway, after a lot more darn boring human drama, the house mother fears that her precious kitty has ascended a vertical ladder and has pushed open a heavy-looking trap door that rests atop it (those wily cats!), for she sticks her head in there and ends up with a hook pulley in her neck for the trouble. Now we have two corpses up in the attic—-hey, why don't we have 75 more shots trying to chill us by the fact that there are now TWO corpses in the attic?<br /><br />So by now the police have begun to take the situation seriously, and tap the houses' phone and station a cop outside. They inform Jess and her pal Janis Ian that if the obscene caller calls back, they need to keep him on the phone. Jessica, who has grown even more whiny, mousy and annoying keeps asking the caller "Who is this? What do you want? Who are you?" after like the first 89 calls, when it is clear that he is not going to answer her. Isn't that like a sign a developmental disability? The inability to learn from unsuccessful attempts at something? And what's he going to do, suddenly say "Oh yeah, hi, it's Bob from the Laundromat?" Dumb Jess.<br /><br />Spoilers! Anyway, soon Janis Ian and Lois Lane (Kidder) are piled in bed with ketchup splashed on their faces (this film's idea of gore), and idiot Jess realizes that not a single door or window in the house is locked. Hello? Are you being stalked or what? Then the cops realize that the killer is in the house, and call Jess and tell her "don't ask questions, just do as I say… walk to the front door and get out." So what does moron Jess do? Starts screaming "Phil? Barb? Phil? Barb?" Hey, great idea sister. Now why don't you go right upstairs where you know a psychotic killer is lurking? Of course she does, and sees her former friends, all splashed with ketchup, prompting this viewer to scream at the screen: "Have a clue now?!"<br /><br />Now, obviously one needs to be understanding and realize that this movie was made before the classic slasher movie tropes were solidly in place, and that it doesn't move to the same pace we're used to, and seeing a plastic-covered corpse in the attic like 206 times probably WAS scary back in the day, and people weren't used to being stalked by psychopaths, so they wouldn't think to, you know, lock the doors or windows. And they might be tempted to wander upstairs when they have just been told that a rabid killer is up there. You see, people were stupid back in the 70s. We have to understand that. One of the big shocks is that we don't even see our proto-Final Girl kill the psycho. But believe me, that fact is more interesting being read in this review than sitting through the movie for. Spoilers end! <br /><br />------ Hey, check out Cinema de Merde, my website on bad and cheesy movies (with a few good movies thrown in). You can find the URL in my email address above.

People are being too hard on the film. Sometimes we should just sit back and enjoy the story without attempting to "review" it.<br /><br />The whole thing comes together when Hackman decides not to pull the trigger but his target still goes down. Then the fun begins as everyone about him also "go down".<br /><br />Just think JFK and all the people associated in any way with his assassination, who's lives ended abruptly and in questionable ways and you'll appreciate what is implied in this film.<br /><br />I think it's an excellent interpretation of what may well have occurred. Though the EXACT story line my not have been followed (hindsight here after reading Jim Maars "Crossfire") but it's what is implied that is of interest.<br /><br />I'd love to get a copy of it to view it again. In light of what is known today, The Domino Principle is right on.

Disney? What happened? I really wish the movie had been set in the 60's ;like the book was. And I really could have dealt with cheap special effects in order to save the budget for a more accurate adaption..... I'm glad that, maybe, someone might be influenced to read the books..... but, The Man With Red Eyes interchangeable as IT? And what's up with the volcanic upheaval? Where was THAT in the book? Peter Jackson! Save us!!!! A long time ago (1978) I heard that there was European version of this film. I sure wish I could id it. I can only imagine it might be closer to the real story than this poor adaption. This movie needs to be X'd.

Buster absolutely shines in this episode, which is the only vehicle I've seen towards the end of the career that allowed him to do the physical (and silent!) comedy that made him famous. It's still a shock to hear his gravelly voice in the talkie sequences - his voice is about the only thing I don't care for, as far as Buster is concerned - but his ability to take a pratfall is still unparalleled. He even repeats some of the gags used in his early two-reelers with Roscoe Arbuckle.<br /><br />My deepest gratitude to Rod Serling for presenting us with this episode, and for giving Buster's genius full scope. He didn't have much time (one episode) to do it in, but this is a touching tribute to Hollywood's greatest genius.

~~I was able to see this movie yesterday morning on a early viewing pass~~<br /><br />I am a mom of 2 children, who range from 11 down to 6. So I'm sure plenty of parents can relate to having to see many many "kids" movies. This was refreshing for me. I haven't read this particular book, so I don't know if it stayed true to the book or not. But it sure took the grossness factor to a high level. This is the story of the "new" kid in town and it just so happens that there are a group of boys who have formed a club of sorts and love to pick on kids ....sound familiar? Haven't we all suffered this one time or another. He has the little brother who he cant stand and parents that he is embarrassed about. What I enjoyed most of all was seeing how each character was totally different from another they all stood out. The bully (why do they always make the bully a red head? My daughter has red hair! and she is no bully!..lol) is well a great bully, who finds himself being yelled at by his own big brother. It took twists and turns and well you fall in love with all of them and really find yourself routing for all the characters! Even the parents, great connection between father and son. All around enjoyable, sweet,funny, gross etc......Take your kids!!! You will enjoy it as much as they do!

Louise Brooks gives a wonderful performance in this well-made French melodrama. She plays a typist named Lucienne who, despite being in love with a man named Andre, dreams of rising above her position in life. She sees opportunity in a beauty contest for Miss Europe, but Andre is furious when he discovers that she's entered, then demands that she withdraw. She tries to take back her entry only to discover that she's already been chosen as Miss France and will now go on to the main pageant.<br /><br />This is a story of love, loss and decision played out to its passionate end. The movie is very energetically filmed by director Augusto Genina and cinema tographers Rudolf Mate and Louis Nee. The filming style is more like modern movies than the Hollywood flicks of the '30s, and shows the different style employed by Europeans. There are many fast cuts and traveling shots, mostly done with great skill and verve. The high energy of the movie's first third dwindles a bit in the middle but picks up again in the last 15 minutes.<br /><br />The performances were very good by all the principals, but that of Louise Brooks is especially memorable. Louise leans heavily on her silent screen skills even though this is a talkie, but because her silent style had a surprisingly contemporary, understated feel, she makes the transition to talkies very well. The long early scene at the fair was especially poignant as Louise used her remarkably expressive eyes to convey her growing sense of misery and alienation, of being trapped in a life she no longer wants. I doubt it's ever been done better.<br /><br />The film builds to a superb finale, artfully shot, powerful and stylish. This is really some of the best stuff of the early days of film. And the tragic storyline only underscores the greater tragedy that this is the final starring role for Louise Brooks. She wasn't just a great beauty who looked fantastic in a swimsuit, she really was a major acting talent who basically threw it all away. We are all the poorer for that.<br /><br />This movie is less well known than her German films with G.W. Pabst, but I think it's a better one. I think this crew is just better at storytelling than Pabst, and while Prix de Beaute may lack the deep moral complexity of the Pabst films, it's much easier to follow and is overall a more streamlined, focused piece of work. And it doesn't hurt that Louise's singing parts are done by Edith Piaf, either.<br /><br />Bottom line, this is a classic Louise Brooks film well worth looking for.

I strongly disagree with "ctomvelu" regarding Jim Belushi's talent. I happen to like Belushi very much. Admittedly, I was skeptical when he first appeared on the scene, because I was such a HUGE fan of his late brother John. But Jim has an on-screen charm that has gotten him very far -- and he has developed it well over the years.<br /><br />Curly Sue is one of his earlier films -- his weight is a giveaway (ain't that true for most of us?) -- and I like the film. Yes, it is touching and heartwarming, so if you're into car chases, explosions and gratuitous sex, then you might want to pass on this one -- it is a warm film of three lost soles who find each other. Don't get me wrong, I am all for the three aforementioned keys to a successful film, but I also like a nice, solid tale like this one.<br /><br />And although Belushi and Kelly Lynch deliver excellent performances, the real star of this film is Alisan Porter -- who is absolutely adorable.<br /><br />I don't know what happened to her career, but whoever is responsible for dropping the ball (agent? parents? herself?) should be shot. You couldn't ask for a more perfect introduction to fame than this film, and yet nothing of note has been heard from her since.<br /><br />Another sad Hollywood story ...

This film was slow but tedious and the acting often drifted into the land of ham. Redgrave's character was unappealing as the 60 something woman trying to compete with Thurman's 20 something for the love of Fox's character (why is beyond me). The title of the movie should have been "Shallow people on the lake". The actors played like they were in a rehearsal. A dreadfully predictable ending to boot. I can't believe this is on this website as a comedy!

this movie offers nothing but the dumbest conversations possible. as a matter of fact i most probably could not have imagined how meaningless a film, how synthetic the dialogs could be until an hour ago, but then again i saw this video. in a movie that does not depend on a powerful script, one expects to see at least good acting and tasty conversations and even some humor maybe, yet this movie lacks them all. you heard me it lacks them all. there is not a single point i like about this movie, none. i hate it. i'm sure anyone will do so too. the name is intended to give the target audience some thoughts of nudity and stuff, yet it fails even at the nudity. i don't know how but i beared to watch this thing for an hour or so, and i definitely recommend you don't do so. worst movie i've seen in my entire life. if someone offers you to watch it, ruuun awaaaaay saaaaaave your liiiiiiiiife

THE RINGMASTER stars Jerry Springer as a TV talkshow host called Jerry , but it`s not THE JERRY SPRINGER SHOW , his guests are trailer trash , but not the trailer trash you get on THE JERRY SPRINGER SHOW, they attack one another , but not like on.....What is the point of making a movie about THE JERRY SPRINGER show and pretending it`s not THE JERRY SPRINGER SHOW ? And on top of that this is a very boring film

Barbara Stanwyck gives this early Douglas Sirk-directed, Universal-produced soap just the kick that it needs. Not nearly as memorable as Sirk's later melodramas, it's easy to see by watching "All I Desire" where Sirk would be heading artistically in the next few years. Stanwyck is a showgirl who returns to her family in smalltown, U.S.A, after deserting them a decade earlier. Her family and community have mixed emotions in dealing with her shocking return. Some of the cinematography is amazing, and Stanwyck is tough-as-nails and really gives this film a shot of energy. Overall, a fairly good show.

Like 'First Blood', this attempts to make a point about the treatment of Vietnam vets, but there really isn't much time for that in between the monotonous gunfire, burnings, stabbings, torture and explosions as an impossibly indestructible Rambo takes out half of Asia, a ton of Vietnamese soldiers, most of the Russian army, various vehicles and anything else he can point a rocket launcher at. The only woman in the middle of all these boys toys is soon bumped off, allowing the testosterone to reach dangerous levels and the script to degenerate into a succession of loud noises. Helpfully supplying a few hackneyed musical cues is Jerry Goldsmith, who carefully checks off all the clichéd themes from Russian rat-a-tat to Chinese ching-chang-chong just in case we don't quite understand who we're looking at. Stallone has a brain in his head; this empty nonsense is beneath him.

This film seems to be well remembered as the time Tom & Jerry signed a peace treaty. Things are idyllic for a time but, predictably, it goes sour. Probably the most memorable moment was the endless fight involving a pipe, a frying pan, and a baseball bat that the two plus Butch the dog engage in at the beginning and end of the short. I enjoyed one a bunch and you should try to catch it on Cartoon Network.

I made the big mistake of actually watching this whole movie a few nights ago. God I'm still trying to recover. This movie does not even deserve a 1.4 average. IMDb needs to have 0 vote ratings possible for movies that really deserve it like this one. A 1.4 is TOO HIGH.<br /><br />I had heard how awful this movie was, but I really did not think a movie could actually be that bad, especially in this day and era. I figured all of the cheesy god awful movies were only from the 1950s and 1960s. My god was I wrong. Trust me folks, this movie REALLY IS THAT BAD. It is beyond horrible; it is beyond pathetic; it is beyond any type of word that I can think of for it. BATTLEFIELD EARTH looks like Best Picture of the Year compared to this movie. SNAKE ISLAND (which up until now was the worst movie I'd ever seen) looks like it deserves a few Oscars compared to this pathetic effort.<br /><br />I seriously can not believe that the makers of this movie thought this was a legitimate serious effort of producing a Hollywood movie. This has no business being called a movie. In the first 25 seconds of the film, I seriously thought I was watching some high school theater class attempting to make a short movie. Or better yet, I thought it was some Saturday night Live ripoff skit of the real thing. I mean, it looks exactly like that. The acting is horrible; the whole movie almost looks like it was shot with a 20 year old VHS video camera. the special effects.......well good lord Bewitched from back in the day had better special effects than this movie. The scene where he gets shot at the door is beyond laughable and beyond cheesy. I mean seriously, my Intro to Acting class from 4 years ago in college, all of us could have put together a better movie than this. And the worst part of the entire movie, where Arthur is naked in the bathroom. Oh my god I almost thew up right there. I have a strong stomach, but wow that was horrible. Some people should never be naked, and he's one of them. The plot of this movie just seems to go absolutely nowhere. They talk about legal issues that we never hear about again; Ben talks about getting into music that we never hear about again; arthur says he is looking for a job and money for college and the next thing we see is he's running a porn shop. Everything about the movie is just horrible.<br /><br />This really doesn't have much to do with my critique, but just so everyone knows, I am not a gay man. I DO however support gay rights and believe we should all be treated as equals. And I would support any gay person in my church, unlike the cruel priest in this movie, who by the way seems to cuss every other word. (WHERE IS THE F*(#*ing white out?) hahaha But I didn't want anyone to think I hated this movie just because of it being about two gay guys. It has nothing to do with that: This would have been just as horrible of a movie if it was Ben & Jill instead of Ben & Arthur.<br /><br />I just watched this movie to see if it really was as bad as they say. And yes it was even WORSE than I had read. Let this be a warning to everyone: ONLY watch this movie if you want to just sit back and laugh at how pathetic some movies in the 21st century can still be. If you watch this movie and are actually expecting a good movie or some entertainment, I have no sympathy for you whatsoever.<br /><br />On a final thought: How in the world are there 7 movies ranked BELOW this on IMDb? There is no way there are 7 movies out there that are worse than this!

To be a Buster Keaton fan is to have your heart broken on a regular basis. Most of us first encounter Keaton in one of the brilliant feature films from his great period of independent production: 'The General', 'The Navigator', 'Sherlock Jnr'. We recognise him as the greatest figure in the entire history of film comedy, and we want to see more of his movies. Here the heartbreak begins. After 'Steamboat Bill Jnr', Keaton's brother-in-law Joseph Schenck pressured him into signing a contract that put Keaton under the control of MGM. Keaton became just one more actor for hire, performing someone else's scripts. Then his alcoholism got worse. After 'Steamboat Bill Jnr', Keaton never again made a truly first-rate film. A couple of sources describe a would-be masterpiece comedy that Keaton claimed he *almost* got to make at MGM: a parody of 'Grand Hotel'. Biographer Tom Dardis has offered convincing evidence that Keaton made up this story.<br /><br />The heartbreak increases because, among the many years of Keaton's long steady decline, he just occasionally came up with a good film ... such as his short comedy 'Grand Slam Opera'. I continue to search for the lost footage of Keaton's dramatic scene with Spencer Tracy in 'It's a Mad Mad World': a sequence in which embittered cop Tracy telephones an old retired crook (Keaton) and tries to recruit his assistance in stealing Smiler Grogan's cash. That footage is almost certainly gone forever, but I keep looking.<br /><br />'Speak Easily', alas, is one of Keaton's films from the beginning of his decline. MGM were trying to build up Jimmy Durante (who, coincidentally, played Smiler Grogan three decades later) as a new comedy star. Unfortunately, MGM tried to build up Durante by teaming him with Keaton, whose style of comedy was simply incompatible with Durante's. (I'm a fan of both.) Throughout his career, Durante was a merciless scene-stealer: commendably, he knew that he was being built up at Keaton's expense, and Keaton was the only co-star whom Durante never attempted to upstage.<br /><br />Keaton was often cast as the victim of extremely cruel machinations. In 'Speak Easily', he plays a didactic and humourless Midwestern college professor named Post (because he's as wooden as one) who receives a letter informing him that he's inherited $750,000, which he must travel to New York City to claim. Does he make a 'phone call to verify this? Does he even check the postmark? No; he takes his life's savings out of the bank and rushes to New York. As soon as he's gone, Post's manservant confesses that he wrote the (fake) letter to jostle Professor Post out of his rut!<br /><br />Post, who thinks he's a 3/4-millionaire, crosses paths with Jimmy Dodge (Durante), who's trying to produce a musical revue but hasn't any money. The characters which these two brilliant comedians are playing onscreen simply fail to intermesh. Keaton is playing one of those eggheads (like Mister Logic in 'Viz') who intellectualises everything. Durante plays one of those annoying hepcats who is incapable of making any straightforward statement because the script requires him always to speak in slang. There's a painfully unfunny dialogue scene in which Durante is trying to talk to Keaton about money, but - instead of coming straight out with it - Durante has to use increasingly contrived slang terms like 'kale', 'cartwheels' and so forth ... while Keaton of course has no idea what Durante's on about. I'll give Keaton credit: his own dry and dusty prairie voice, his flat Kansas accent, is absolutely perfect for the character he's playing here.<br /><br />Sidney Toler, looking much leaner and more handsome here than he would be just a year later, is impressive as the excitable director of the revue bankrolled (on tick) by Professor Post. Henry Armetta, whom I've never found funny, is even less funny than usual here, offering a running gag with a stupid payoff. Thelma Todd impressed me here, in a more villainous version of the role she played in 'Horse Feathers' (a much funnier movie). Edward Brophy, one of my favourite character actors, is wasted.<br /><br />Part of the problem with 'Speak Easily' is that supporting characters behave in completely inappropriate ways. Keaton's lawyer shows up at Durante's theatre with an urgent message for Keaton ... but he isn't there, so the lawyer proceeds to divulge Keaton's personal business to the first total stranger he meets. (Fire that lawyer, Buster!) In another scene, Professor Post - the guy who's perceived as bankrolling this musical - blunders into the chorus girls' changing room, and all the chorus girls immediately squeal and cover themselves. I know for a fact that *modern* chorus girls would never react this way, and I seriously doubt that chorus girls in 1932 behaved that way either ... certainly not in response to the 'angel' controlling their show's pursestrings.<br /><br />SPOILERS COMING. About half an hour into the unfunny 'Speak Easily', the great Jimmy Durante seats himself at the piano, grins into the camera, and does that distinctive little shake of his head as he starts to play a tune. This is the moment when I thought that, at long last, this movie was finally going to settle down to its purpose of entertaining us. Alas, no. Most annoying of all is the ending of this film, which uses the single most hackneyed and implausible cliche in all of comedy: the one in which an utterly incompetent dimwit becomes a star comedian through his own ineptitude. (Keaton would be forced to replay this cliche in a 1955 episode of 'Screen Directors Playhouse'; Chaplin had already used it in 'The Circus'.)<br /><br />I very nearly wept - in anger and sorrow - at the wasted opportunities in 'Speak Easily'. Mostly out of respect for the work that Keaton, Durante, Toler, Brophy and Miss Todd have done elsewhere, I'll rate this movie 2 points out of 10.<br /><br />

This movie was so poorly written and directed I fell asleep 30 minutes through the movie. The jokes in the movie are corny and even though the plot is interesting at some angles, it is too far fetched and at some points- ridiculous. If you are 11 or older you will overlook the writing in the movie and be disappointed, but if you are 10 or younger this is a film that will capture your attention and be amazed with all the stunts (which I might add are poorly done) and wish you were some warrior to. The casting in this movie wasn't very good, and the music was very disappointing because it was like they were trying to build up the tension but it didn't fit at all. On a scale of 1-10 (10 being excellent, 1 being horrible) the acting in this movie is a 4. Brenda Song is talented in comedy, but with this kind of movie, in some of the more serious scenes, her acting was laughable. When she made some of her "fighting" poses, I started laughing out loud. I think the worst thing about this movie is definitely the directing, for example, the part where her enemy turns out to be the person the evil villain is possesing, how her voice turns dark and evil, I think that was incredibly stupid, and how Wendy's (Brenda Song)teachers were all her teachers at school being possessed by monks, that was pretty ridiculous to. So to sumamrize it all, a disappointing movie, but okay if you're 10 or under.

I first saw the film when it landed on US cable a year after it came out. It blew my little head away, I was only 16 and it was the first new wave music I'd heard, having been a strictly folky, classical kid growing up. The music mesmerized me, as did Hazel O'Connor's amazing look and charismatic vocal performances, and Phil Daniels' tough but soft Cockney manager just stole my heart. But I think my favorite character was Jonathan Pryce's drugged out sax player. He was so out of place in the band and so harmless and pathetic, he just begged for sympathy. Favorite scenes, the performance when the lights went out, and the love scene on the train.<br /><br />Okay, so the movie isn't the Rose! But it was really excellent for its limited budget and for its portrayal of the Britain of the early 80's, exploding with rebellious youth, looking for a way out of the dole queue. I went to Britain only a couple of years later and found the movie to have been very reflective of the atmosphere I found when I was there.<br /><br />If you get a chance to, see it. It is a great movie, with some wonderful performances, and the music will blow you away.<br /><br />

Superbly developed characters into the lots of funny situations full of spirit, absurdness and Serbian mentality. Movie is a great comedy, enjoyable, interesting, unpredictable. Best point in a film: characters, then humor itself, story and dialogs. Humor has 'inner development' , rare in Serbian movies. So, it is consequence of characterization, is well motivated, spontaneous and cogent. Also it is sharp, intelligent and lucid. Most of the movies, unfortunately, had constructed humor (devise a joke and put it into a characters's mouth) or ordinary situation comedy, burlesque, farce. Some of the 'art immortality' are incorporated in this movie. Little masterpiece, hardly reachable.

Geordies...salt of the earth characters...bricklayers...beer...Geordies...happy go lucky...adventures working abroad...salt of the earth characters...warm wonderful people...Tyne Bridge (tear in the eye)...brown ale...salt of the earth characters...cute little Red Indians children in Newcastle United tops...emetic...Geordies...salt of the earth characters...<br /><br />etc etc etc....<br /><br />Please. This is so poor. And you should know better Timothy Spall. They can't have paid you that much.<br /><br />As for Jimmy Nail. Well the kindest thing that can be said is that he is every bit as good an 'actor' as he is a singer and writer. Come on Jimmy, the joke's over. 'Crocodile Shoes' and 'Spender' were very funny, unfortunately I don't think they were supposed to be. With 'Auf Wiedersehen Pet' the opposite applies.

Dr Tarr's Torture Dungeon is about a journalist who travels to an insane asylum to write about a new technique they use with their patients. However, the journalist soon finds out that things are not what they seem to be, and the asylum is being run by the patients, and the doctors are in cages. First of all, some parts of the film are just plain boring and just makes you want to fall asleep, and the interesting parts are interesting for all the wrong reasons(A guy who thinks he's a chicken, for instance). I have to admit that the story is actually pretty good, but the film itself bombs. The music of the film is really odd and like something you would hear in some insane comedy, and yes, there is a scene involving dancing chicken men, which pretty much made me want to shut off the screen. Watch this film at your own risk! <br /><br />Rated: R for Violence and Nudity.

I realize that living in the Western Plains of Wyoming during the 1900s was brutal, in fact, it probably is still brutal today, but was it monumental enough to transform into a seemingly "made-for-TV" movie? Also, women's rights were still budding in this nation during this time, so to find an independent woman determined to start fresh in this harsh territory, and still show the realism of the era … would it make for good viewing? Honestly, I don't know. I have thought about this film for the past two days, and I still can't seem to muster the strength to say that it was a horrible film, yet I can truthfully tell you that it wasn't the greatest I have ever seen. From several hodgepodge styles of acting, to two mismatched actors playing devoid of emotion character, to some of the most gruesome PG rated scenes to ever come out of late 70s cinema, it is hard to fully get a good grasp on Heartland. Was it good? Was it bad? That may be up for you to view and decide yourself, but until then, here are moments I enjoyed and desperately hated! <br /><br />This film continues to be a struggle in my mind because there were some very interesting scenes. Scenes where I wasn't sure what the director was doing or which direction he was headed, but somehow still seemed to work well as a whole. I thought the story as a whole was a very interesting, historical tale. I do not know much about living in Wyoming, especially during the early 1900s, so this film captured that image in my mind. The thought of very cold winters, no neighbors for miles upon miles, and this Polaroid-esquire view untouched by corporate America. It was refreshing to witness and sheer breathtaking to experience (though the television). There were scenes that really stood out in my mind, like the cattle-branding scene, the pig slaughtering scene, and the saddening homesteader that didn't survive their journey, that just brought a true sense of realism to this story. Director Richard Pearce did a great job of bringing the view of Wyoming to the viewers, but I am not sure he brought decent players to accompany the view.<br /><br />While I will constantly compliment the scenery of this film, I had trouble coping with the actors that seemingly walked on the set and read their lines from cards on the side. Rip Torn seemed out of place in his role as Clyde Stewart, a loner that somehow finds a connection with Conchata Ferrell's Elinore Randall. The two as actors have no chemistry at all. Their scenes that they share together are pointless and honestly void of any emotion. The pregnancy scene nearly had me in stitches because of the way these two "veteran" actors portrayed it. The brave Elinore does what she has to do to get the child out of her, while Clyde gives an approving nod when she is done. This is love? Was it supposed to be love? I don't know, I think with stronger characters we would have seen a stronger bond, but with Torn and Ferrell, it felt like two actors just playing their parts. Other scenes that just seemed to struggle in my mind were ones like when the frozen horse "knocks" on the door for food or shelter, the constantly fading and growing compassion that Clyde had for Elinore's daughter (I just didn't believe it), the lack of true winter struggle, and the entire land scene. The land scene especially because I needed more explanation on what Elinore was doing, why she was doing it, and why Clyde would build her a house if they were married! It was these simple events that if taken the time to explore, would have made for a stronger film.<br /><br />Overall, I will go middle of the road with this feature. There were definitely elements that should have been explored deeper, such as the relationship between these two strangers and the ultimate homesteading goals of Elinore, but they were countered with some beautiful scenes of our nation. These panoramic scenes which, in the span of 100 years, have changes from vast mountains to enormous skyscrapers. While there were some brilliant scenes of realism (starring cattle and pigs), I just felt as if we needed more. Depth was a key element lacking in this film, which was overshadowed by marginal acting and a diminishing story. Pearce could have dove deeper into this untapped world, but instead left open loopholes and clichéd Western characters. Ferrell carried her own, but Torn was completely miscast. Decent for a viewing, but will not be picked up again by me.<br /><br />Grade: ** out of *****

If you delete the first twenty minutes or so of this film, you will be left with a fantastic comedy. As it is, I still found it to be a pretty good movie, which is no small feat considering the coma I was put in by the opening scenes. To put it mildly, this film has a dreary beginning that wasn't even remotely funny, or even upbeat. Once things get sillier, however, you are left with a comedy that still holds up well after more than three decades. Definitely worth checking out, especially if you're a younger fan of Lemmon and Matthau who wants to see their earlier work.

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

The 1980s TV show, updated with fresh female flesh, and raunchy language. "The Dukes of Hazzard" passed me by; it was not repeated whenever I was in front of the television in either New York or California; or, I probably would have watched. Still, from somewhere (like the clips accompanying this film's updated 2005 release), I knew it was about a fast, orange Dodge Charger - and, the "General Lee" is still good to go. <br /><br />Hunky cousins Seann William Scott and Johnny Knoxville (as Bo and Luke Duke) are the New Riders of the Orange Sage. Beautiful Jessica Simpson (as Daisy) fills her skimpy short well - but, even her arousing pink bikini can't beat off the competition from a dormitory full of bouncing, topless coeds. The too stupid plot involves a graying Burt Reynolds (as "Boss" Hogg) threatening to turn Hazzard County into a strip-mine.<br /><br />** The Dukes of Hazzard (7/27/05) Jay Chandrasekhar ~ Seann William Scott, Johnny Knoxville, Jessica Simpson, Burt Reynolds

Shamefully, before I saw this film, I was unfamiliar with Helena Bonham Carter.<br /><br />I had to do some research, in order to assure myself she wasn't actually afflicted, as was her character, with (well?), what she was afflicted with. I was in absolute awe of this beautiful lady. She pulled it of flawlessly.<br /><br />Who would have thought that sexually explicit circumstances involving the final wants, and needs, of a unique young lady, could be interpreted as tender, and romantic? Well, they can be, when the right performers present them in the proper manner, as they did in this wonderful movie. I forgot to mention how dynamically beautiful Miss Carter looked in this movie. I have often said she was the most beautiful creature to have ever graced the face of our earth, but she seemed to have out done herself in this particular movie.<br /><br />I hope any of you who watch this movie enjoy it as much as I did. Thank you for letting me express my opinion.

The Woman in Black (1989) is a TV adaptation of Susan Hill's modern classic ghost story, published only a few years earlier than the film was made. Sadly, this film has not been released on DVD, and as far as I am aware it has been deleted on VHS. It's availability is in direct contrast to it's popularity amongst those in the know about horror films. The story revolves around events in a seaside community in the early 20th century where a young solicitor is sent by his firm to conclude the affairs of a recently deceased widow, who died on her isolated marshland estate. What he thought would be a routine and probably tedious task turns into a nightmare as he discovers that the old woman was haunted to her death, and that the ghosts of her past are not content to rest. The story is told in a subtle but concise way, never being self-indulgent, flashy or over-expositional. The obviously tight budget may have contributed to the no-nonsense approach, but it's just what the story needs, and why it works so well. It's what you don't see that scares. Having said that, there is one particularly terrifying scene that relies on the visual, and it works to perfection. I watched this film during the day, and it still gave me nightmares nearly a week later. If you love being terrified, do what you must to get hold of and watch a copy of The Woman In Black.

Enchanted April is a tone poem, an impressionist painting, a masterpiece of conveying a message with few words. It has been one of my 10 favorite films since it came out. I continue to wait, albeit less patiently, for the film to come out in DVD format. Apparently, I am not alone.<br /><br />If parent company Amazon's listings are correct, there are many people who want this title in DVD format. Many people want to go to Italy with this cast and this script. Many people want to keep a permanent copy of this film in their libraries. The cast is spectacular, the cinematography and direction impeccable. The film is a definite keeper. Many have already asked. Please add our names to the list.

Definitely spoilers in this review! I **adore** American Gothic and have done since I first saw it late at night when it first aired on Ch4 in the UK when I was 14. The comparisons made to Stephen King are just about right. It's small town supernatural eeriness but with fantastic layered characters. Best of all, and the reason I love it so much, is it had the guts to never be black and white! Lucas Buck though lacking any conscience often works by, as he says, giving people enough rope to hang themselves with. His manipulation only works because of other people's weak morals. Caleb though generally a thoughtful, kind, insightful boy can at times show the latent dark side inherited from his father. None of the characters are wholly good or bad with even the angelic Merlyn showing a wrathful side through reckless vengeance in The Plague Sower. Not only that but having Gail, the closest thing to a mother figure for Caleb, not only sleep with but fall in love with Lucas despite all she knows made me realise this show would just go there and not apologise for it. I'm a huge Buffy fan, but when that show tried to go really 'dark' in later seasons it failed miserably because it lost it's humorous side and didn't commit fully to its ideas. AG shows that you can have a morally bankrupt character right at the heart of the show, and still have a hell of laugh doing it.<br /><br />I can't even think about why it was cancelled as I'll just get too angry at the ridiculousness of it all. So much rubbish on TV and good, original shows get kicked around and stamped on. Thanks to the emergence of DVD at least I can see the show in it's entirety! Yes some of the visuals look dated now, but the creepy strange atmosphere is provided well enough by the story lines. The actors also all give such perfect performances that it more than makes up for some odd camera work.<br /><br />The only reason why I think someone may not like this show is that it isn't like the X-files where there are cases to 'solve' or Lost where there's huge unanswered questions. It's pretty obvious from the get go that Lucas Buck has some kind of evil powers, and that the show is all about fighting for Caleb's soul. So this show might frustrate people looking for a purpose or an unknown 'truth' to find. Yes there are some mysterious unanswered aspects, with some such as the truth about Gails parents getting resolved, but unlike Lost and X-files this show isn't about trying to find out more 'facts' about what's going on IMO. It's all about the characters and the way they have to confront moral choices in the twisted world of Trinity. Personally I would just get such a kick out of seeing Lucas turn every situation to his advantage.<br /><br />All in all the main thing I have to say is CHECK IT OUT. I'm pretty certain most fantasy/horror fans will LOVE it. Also even though it got cancelled all characters have arcs and there is enough in the finale to give some small sense of closure. The only hanging thread I felt was Dr Matt. Having him not be in the final episodes is strange. <br /><br />I would have done anything for a second season, but at least the full 22 episodes exist and perhaps given how brainless some TV execs appear to be I should be glad this wonderful show got made at all!!!

This movie is an eye opener for those who can only the glamorous lifestyles of the stars. It tells you how people who would like to do good are not able to. Plus the bomb blast scene is very real.<br /><br />What you read and are taught just does not happen!!!<br /><br />Can raise your BP level by 10%<br /><br />All actors played their role very well.<br /><br />Some scenes may / could have been avoided to include teenagers.<br /><br />This movie is quite adult in nature.<br /><br />Not a movie that can be seen with family.<br /><br />Casting is great!!!

1928 is in many ways a "lost year" in motion pictures. Just as some of the finest films of the silent era were being made in every genre, sound was coming in and - while reaping great profits at the box office - was setting the art of film-making back about five years as the film industry struggled with the new technology.<br /><br />"Show People" is one of the great silent era comedies. The film shows that William Haines had comic skills beyond his usual formula of the obnoxious overconfident guy who turns everyone against him, learns his lesson, and then redeems himself by winning the football game, the polo game, etc. This movie is also exhibit A for illustrating that Marion Davies was no Susan Alexander Kane. She had excellent comic instincts and timing. This film starts out as the Beverly Hillbillies-like adventure of Peggy Pepper (Marion Davies) and her father, General Marmaduke Oldfish Pepper, fresh from the old South. General Pepper has decided that he will let some lucky movie studio executive hire his daughter as an actress. While at the studio commissary, the Peppers run into Billy Boone (William Haines), a slapstick comedian. He gets Peggy an acting job. She's unhappy when she finds out it is slapstick, but she perseveres. Eventually she is discovered by a large studio and she and Billy part ways as she begins to take on dramatic roles. Soon the new-found fame goes to her head, and she is about to lose her public and gain a royal title when she decides to marry her new leading man, whom she doesn't really love, unless fate somehow intervenes.<br /><br />One of the things MGM frequently does in its late silent-era films and in its early sound-era films is feature shots of how film-making was done at MGM circa 1930. This film is one of those, as we get Charlie Chaplin trying to get Peggy's autograph, an abundance of cameos of MGM players during that era including director King Vidor himself, and even a cameo of Marion Davies as Peggy seeing Marion Davies as Marion Davies arriving at work on the lot. Peggy grimaces and mentions that she doesn't care for her. Truly a delight from start to finish, this is a silent that is definitely worth your while. This is one of the films that I also recommend you use to introduce people to the art of silent cinema as it is very accessible.

A complete waste of time<br /><br />Halla Bol is a complete waste of time. The script and dialogues are poorly written, the direction is lacklustre and the acting borders on hammy.This movie was clearly aiming for the Rang De Basanti crowd but it falls far short of the mark because it does not have even one of the elements that made RDB connect with its audience_great script, terrific acting, good direction and a powerful social message that was never preached but shown.<br /><br />Compared to that near-masterpiece, Halla Bol takes a step backwards by resorting to scenes such as the hero taking a leak on the villain's Persian rug and the hero's mentor staring down bullets in a truck no less! All of this might have been acceptable in the 80s when there was a downturn in movie quality and bad movies like DivyaShakti and Phool Aur Kaante became big hits, but movie-making has become_should have become_more subtle and thoughtful of late.<br /><br />Rajkumar Santoshi is a capable director and I appreciate that he wants to give a social message in every movie he makes but maybe he simply does not know how to do it! He resorts to sermonizing without a care as to the audience's intelligence in understanding what he is trying to say. Maybe he should just concentrate on entertainment and leave the social messages to the Rakeysh Mehras and Aamir Khans.<br /><br />Even if you don't agree with everything I say, you will agree that throughout the screening you will be thinking that Rang De Basanti was much much better and Mr.Santoshi should have left the industry-bashing to Om Shanti Om. Industry-bashing? That's right!!Santoshi has depicted the industry as a place of back-biting, bitching and the casting couch which the hero happily indulges in with a starlet curiously named Sania. There are some people who will think that these portions show the real face of the industry. Don't believe everything you see!<br /><br />All in all, raise your voice against movies like this and don't spend your hard-earned money on this bomb.<br /><br />* out of ****.

I have always been a huge James Bond fanatic! I have seen almost all of the films except for Die Another Day, and The World Is Not Enough. The graphic's for Everything Or Nothing are breathtaking! The voice talents......... WOW! I LOVE PIERCE BROSNAN! He is finally Bond in a video game! HE IS BOND! I enjoyed the past Bond games: Goldeneye, The World Is Not Enough, Agent Under Fire, and Nightfire. This one is definitely the best! Finally, Mr. Brosnan, (may I call him Mr. Brosnan as a sign of respect? Yes I can!) He was phenomenally exciting to hear in a video game....... AT LONG LAST! DUH! I've seen him perform with Robin Williams, and let me tell you, they make a great team. Pierce Brosnan is funny, wickedly handsome ( I mean to say wickedly in a good way,) and just one of those actor's who you would want to walk up to and wrap your arms around and hug, saying: "Pierce Brosnan, thank you for being James Bond," "If it wasn't for you, I wouldn't know who James Bond is." He's a great actor! I am a huge fan of Willem Dafoe even though I've seen him in a couple of movies. His role as Nikolai Diavalo was brilliant. (Did I spell the character's name right?) LOL!!!! He does a great job with an accent. Sometimes I can't even hear an accent. I have seen Willem, I mean Mr. Dafoe, perform in two movies: Finding Nemo, and Spider-Man with my favorite actress: KIRSTEN DUNST! SHE ROCKS! Anyway, He never ceases to amaze. And Richard Kiel, wow, he's definitely got the part of Jaw's nailed. I've seen him in the movie's and he's awesome! As a matter of fact, my Grandparent's have met Mr. Kiel, and I was jealous when they told me. But, Kirsten Dunst is at the top of my list of Celebritie's that I want to meet. John Cleese was breathtaking. I have never seen a better person play as the wisecracking, and gadget creating Q! Mr. Cleese was hilarious! I've seen him work with Pierce Brosnan in Goldeneye and Tommorow Never Dies. He's awesome! John Cleese's most recent project is Shrek 2 starring Mike Myer's, Cameron Diaz, Julie Andrew's and Eddie Murphy. ( Shrek 2 is now in theatre's!) GOOD LUCK 007! Oh, yeah, and as Q alway's says: "Grow up 007!"

I was watching this movie at one of my usual time, which is real real late at night. Usually if a movie doesn't interest me, I start falling asleep and have to raid the fridge to stay awake.<br /><br />At first I thought that's what I had to do since this movie's pacing started off slow, along with the fact that its shots tended to linger with the character for a long time. But after a bit, I start getting more into the movie, as more is revealed about the main character through his story telling. By the end, you feel like you've known him your whole life. The movie kept my interest so much that I didn't even know the sun was about to rise.<br /><br />Not much of Lynch's bizzare style, but there is enough of quirky characters to make the film amusing.

"A scientist discovers signals from space that appear to carry information concerning a series of seemingly unrelated natural disasters, occurring across the globe. Hoping to discover the source of these signals and who's behind them, the scientist and his wife set out on a trek to locate the intended recipient of the signals. What the couple eventually discovers is a small remote convent with occupants who are not really who they appear to be," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />Kirk Scott (as Andrew Boran) is the scientist who intercepts alien messages on his computer. He suspects a series of "Large Earth Disruptions" may be connected to the weird space static. Mr. Scott and pretty blonde wife Sue Lyon (as Sylvia Boran) investigate the mysterious signals from outer space. They discover priestly, but creepy Christopher Lee (as "Father Pergado"), and other silliness. Given that, "End of the World" is remarkably dull. <br /><br />*** End of the World (1977) John Hayes ~ Kirk Scott, Sue Lyon, Christopher Lee

Jeux d'enfants or how the film was wrongly translated into English Love me if You Dare is a film made by stupid people and about stupid people. I just don't know how I could expect something worth a look from a film with such plot: Two stupid ignorant kids make a bet that each of them will do something (certainly extremely idiotic) to prove to each other (wtf?) that they are "cool dudes". I know that i exaggerated some aspects but that is what the entire film is about. They grow older...and instead of realizing that they are just a couple of alienated weirdos continue to perform their crazy things, thinking that they are great people.<br /><br />One could expect such a film from Hollywood, but France? It is even more offensive to watch the film from the country which created Amelie a couple of years ago, which, btw, the film tries to look like but is far, extremely far away from.<br /><br />Avoid. Avoid. Avoid.

I'm going to write about this movie and about "Irreversible" (the (in)famous scene in it). So you are warned, if you haven't seen the movie yet. This are just my thoughts, why I think the movie fails (in the end - pun intended).<br /><br />Acting wise, Rosario Dawson is really good and almost conveys portraying someone almost a decade younger (a teenager in other words). The villain guy is good, but loses his "evil" touch right before the end. If he really never changes, then why would he let a woman tie him up? He wouldn't, period. Then we also have the bartender/2nd rape Dude. Actually I don't think you would need him. At least not for the 2nd rape, but more about that later on.<br /><br />Let's reprise the story. Rosarios character is sexually insecure, might even have lesbian tendencies (see her scene with a female friend). This wasn't intentional, as Rosario states herself, but there is sexual tension between them. Rosario's character meets a guy, who is a sexual Predator, in all the bad senses. But he makes an impression on her.<br /><br />Rosario commented that her character had a boyfriend before. I beg to differ. Because she acts, as if it is her first boyfriend, which also underlines her phone conversation with her mother. Talking about her mother, here's another problem. After the first rape takes place, Rosarios character doesn't tell anyone what happened. Seiing that her relationship with her mother is a very close one, nothing of that gets explored after that. If Rosarios character wouldn't call her mother anymore or would behave strangely, the mother would be worried like crazy. There was so much potential here. Also her female friend: We see her at the party, it's obvious there is something going on and "boom" she is gone.<br /><br />The first rape is almost unbearable to watch. But feels like a pinch, when you compare it to the ending (rape), which feels like you're getting hit with a sledge hammer! After rape no. 1 we get too stretched out scenes. Threads are opened (such as her construction work is an indication that she might be lesbian, as one guy states who tried to hit on her ...), but left in the open. No real social contact is established, if you leave the bartender guy out, who is involved in the 2nd and last rape scene. It's apparent that he isn't a "nice" guy and his character get's fleshed out a bit. But when Rosarios character meets her rapist in class again, his being in the movie seems pointless. We get the point that Rosarios character isn't the same anymore, that she went "bad" and is able to hurt people. (Too) Many scenes show exactly that, her being without emotion just doing drugs and other stuff. Back to Rapist #1 who cheats on a test, gets caught by Rosarios character and they decide to hang out together again (really?). As absurd as that sounds, the guy meets up with her, not without us having seen him beforehand, with another girl (very likely that he raped her too, although we never see anything of that, fortunately) and his football career. Well career is a stretch and he is bullied. This is an attempt to give his character some depth and it almost works, but then again is too cliché to stay with you. So Rapist #1 submits to Rosarios character ... why exactly? Because he promised her, it was her day? Again, really? A guy like that never loses control, especially with a woman he raped before ... I guess this is supposed to show us how stupid he is. The bartender guy would have worked as someone who could have hit him over the head or something, but letting him submit like that, just feels wrong. Another possibility would have a drug in his drink.<br /><br />So rapist #1 undresses and get's blindfolded and let's Rosarios character tie him on a bed .... seriously, that's just crazy! But what comes next, is even crazier. First she talks to him, then she "shuts" him up and forces an object into him. This is as difficult to watch as rape scene number one. This isn't about what this guy deserves or not, it's just intense. And of course that was what they were aiming for. Now after she is "done" the bartender guy comes in and rapes ... rapist #1. If this really should work as a revenge movie, it would have been better if Rosarios character herself would have been doing all the "revenge". Having a henchman doing the job, takes away everything that was built up.<br /><br />This isn't supposed to be entertaining/enjoyable, it's a hard watch & it is Art-house. But the 10 minute (I didn't count ) rape scene at the end, just smashes everything. Rosarios character is more or less, only watching what happens. Which brings me to the biggest disappointment.<br /><br />Irreversible comparison: "Irreversible" had the rape scene, but the movie went on (even if it was back into time). Rosario is looking into the camera in the end and says something about having to get over this. First, that comes a bit too late, that should see her say that after the initial rape. And secondly and most importantly, this is where the Art-house movie should've come in. It is more interesting seeing were Rosarios character would go after the second rape scene and how she would cope, with what she had done. But then again, she didn't actually physically do that much (see above) ... a broken character that the movie cuts off ...<br /><br />Good intentions (Talia and Rosario had worked before), but failing to convey most of the things, they set out to do (even if you can see what they meant, it has to be convincing, otherwise it doesn't work) ... not to mention the overlong rape scenes as they are ...

I searched out this one after seeing the hilarious and linguistically challenging "Clueless" (1995), perhaps Alicia Silverstone's best known effort from early in her film career. "True Crime" has Kevin Dillon, which should be helpful in improving most film projects. In fact everyone in the cast does a good job . The only disappointment I think the movie has for me is an awkward "feel" to some of the scenes, coming from the need to run a quite uncompromising, grown up theme as part of what in tone starts out as a schoolgirl adventure.<br /><br />Alicia Silverstone is pretty good in this one. She carries off well the naive enthusiasm and growing unease that affects Mary Giordano as she manoeuvres towards the truth behind the serial murders. I reckon her characterization of MG has some mileage in it too. The inference of the story line is that she goes on to a career in law enforcement. It could be really interesting for an older Silverstone to revisit Giordano at a time of crisis later in the officer's life. Just a thought!<br /><br />"True Crime" shows its director in a good light. Pat Verducci also has the writing credit. I don't know of any other film work PV has done. I can only wonder what happened after such a promising start.<br /><br />Like most productions, this one has a largely unknown supporting cast, although Bill Nunn (Detective Jerry Guinn) is hardly that. Over the past decade he seems to have been able to secure an impressive number of screen appearances. I recall seeing him recently in "Carriers" (1998), a made for TV presentation with a military theme. Bill Nunn played "Captain Arends". Fans of the classic US TV comedy show "Who's the Boss" may also have an interest in "Carriers" because the leading player is Judith Light, remembered with affection by many because of her lengthy involvement with the show.<br /><br />"True Crime" could easily not have worked, but it does OK. I think it is an entertaining story worth seeing.

In my case I liked this movie because when I saw it I found more than I expected. I mean, this is one of the few animated movies that made me think about its themes even long after I finished. It talks about death, vengeance and hell in such a way that it gets to you like a punch in your face, even reaching to suffer with the dream sequence in the mid-point of the film. That's what makes this movie so good: the ability, unique in Don Bluth (director), to play with the people's feelings and make them love or hate a character in no time. That, and the fact that it has so many good characters like Charlie and Ann-Marie, that in the sad but happy ending you have to say "I have something in my eye" to hide the others that you cried. All I've said are just only some of the good points of this movie. As for the rest, you have to see them for yourself in a film extremely honest. Don Bluth, thank you.

This is certainly one of the most bizarre films ever made - even for Fellini. About the only one more bizarre is his SATYRICON. This is a two and a half hour romp through a strange nightmarish world of decadence, opulence and sexual challenge. Sutherland makes a curiously unappealing Casanova and the odd goings on in a series of unrelated vignettes taken from the great lover's autobiography fail to engage the viewer. The art direction and costume design are however OUTSTANDING. The Academy missed on not even nominating the former but did itself justice by rewarding an OSCAR for the latter. Also nominated (oddly) was the disjointed, pointless and almost inacessible screenplay. Go figure!! The film on video is only 150 minutes, 16 minutes short of the original running time. This viewer was grateful.

In my years of attending film festivals, I have seen many little films like this that never get theatrical distribution, and they end up in the $3 bins at WalMart. I just found DVD of Yank Tanks there, great doc, but how sad for it to end up as a rock-bottom remainder.<br /><br />I loved this film, wish I'd seen it at the cinema in it's everything. I'd have preferred that New Yorker Films had translated the title directly. It's good for Americans to stretch a little. If the film's title helps the US audience to explore random chaos, all the better. Cinema imitates life & visa versa.<br /><br />Also, I found it distracting that the subtitles put prices in dollars. Come on! The euro is not hard to figure out, make the gringo audiences do the math. Seeing a film, especially one shot in Paris, the viewer should not have the effect spoiled by being reminded: I am an American watching a movie and they are translating the Euros into dollars for me. <br /><br />Looking forward to seeing more of these actors and more from the writer & director as well.

The DVD for "Danaza Macabra" (Castle of Blood) is very odd. That's because parts of the film are in French with subtitles and the rest is dubbed into English from the French. Sometimes, characters switched between the two in the middle of a scene! When I tried to get the film to be JUST subtitled or just dubbed, it made no difference! Odd, but still watchable.<br /><br />The story purports to be based on a Poe story, though I can't recall which one. In fact, the character of Poe appears in the beginning and end of the film--though it didn't look especially like him.<br /><br />A rich man makes a bet with a guy down on his luck that he cannot stay the entire night in a manner home. It seems like an easy bet to win--even if the house is very creepy. However, it can't be that easy, as the rich guy says that all those who previously took the bet died--yet this fool STILL wants to make the wager! While in the home, he meets lovely Barbara Steele within and falls madly for her. Later, however, he learns that she died more than a decade earlier! How can this be?! I could tell you more about the plot but don't want to spoil any of the suspense. See it for yourself to find out the rest of the story.<br /><br />This film gets very high marks for creating a creepy atmosphere. The house, black & white cinematography and music work together to make for a scary looking film. As for the plot, it's interesting--especially because there are many twists and turns--so many that you are wondering just who is and who isn't among the undead by the end of the film.<br /><br />The only negative is that I felt sorry for the poor snake that was needlessly killed. Crazy as it might sound, I felt sorry for it and it hardly seemed necessary.<br /><br />Also, parents may want to know that towards the end there is a bit of nudity. A strikingly beautiful woman appears topless, but it's hardly necessary for the plot.

Oh dear, Oh dear. I started watching this not knowing what to expect. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. There were times when I thought it was a comedy. I loved how the government's plan to capture the terrorist leader is to air drop in one man, who is unarmed, and expect him to capture him and escape with a rocket pack. If only it were really that easy. I've finally found a movie worse than "Plan 9 From Outer Space".

There is no way to describe how really, really, really bad this movie is. It's a shame that I actually sat through this movie, this very tiresome and predictable movie. What's wrong with it? Acting: There is not one performance that is even remotely close to even being sub-par (atleast they are all very pretty). Soundtrack (songs): "If we get Orgy on the soundtrack then everyone will know that they are watching a horror film!"; Soundtrack (score): Okay, but anyone with a keyboard can make an okay soundtrack these days. Don't even get me started on the "What the hell?" moments, here are a few: Killer can move at the speed of light--door opens actress turns, no one is there, turns back, there is something sitting in front of her.; Out of now where The killer shows up with a power drill, a really big one! The filmmakers get points for at least plugging it in, but can I really believe that the killer took the time to find the power outlet to plug it in. I feel like one of the guards at the beginning of Holy Grail and want to say "Where'd you get the power drill?". I could go on and on about how bad this film is but I only have 1000 words. I will give this 2 out of ten stars. One star for making me laugh and another star for all the cleavage. Seriously, do not waste your time with this one.

Three girls (an all-female media-crew, including cult-actress Barbara Bach, no less) visiting a small town to cover a festival, end up renting rooms in a house they should have avoided like the plague. Well-made little shocker, suffering a bit from some redundant dialogue-scenes and a rather thin plot-line (that doesn't do very well in hiding its secrets). One underlying theme in particular is quite disturbing (as in: vintage shock-material), and this is basically what the film thrives on. Performances & cinematography are pretty much above par (compared to many other late 70's/early 80's films in the same vein), but what really makes me recommend this film is the fairly long climax-scene in the basement-setting. From the moment that "Keller Junior" character was introduced, his performance made my jaw drop open and it didn't close until the end of the film. A very pleasant surprise to see actor Sydney Lassick (who was funnily wacko in "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's nest", and now utterly demented in "The Unseen") take on one of the leading roles.

Why do movie makers always go against the author's work? I mean, yes, things have to be condensed for the sake of viewer interest, but look at Anne of Green Gables. They did a wonderful job of combining important events into a cohesive whole that was simply delightful. I can't believe that they chose to combine three novels together for Anne of Avonlea into such a dreadful mess. Look at all they missed out on by doing that . . . Paul Irving, little Elizabeth, the widows, Windy Poplars . . . and Anne's college years, for heaven's sake!!! Wouldn't it have been delightful to meet Priscilla and all the rest of the Redmond gang? Kevin Sullivan should have taken things one movie at a time, instead of jumbling them all together and combining characters and events the way he did. This movie was good, if you leave the novels out of it!! But L.M. Montgomery's beautiful work is something that should not be denied. This movie was a let down after seeing the successful way he brough Anne of Green Gables to life.

This movie was highly entertaining. The soundtrack (Bian Adams) is simply beautiful and inspiring. Even more impressive is Brian Adams doing all the songs in French as well. The score is also uplifting and dramatic.<br /><br />The movie is made from a mix of traditional animation, combined with computer generated images. The result is truly stunning. I watch this film at least once a week with my kids and we never tire of it. The story is compelling and well narrated.<br /><br />I don't understand anyone who would rank this movie less than a 7. Definately a keeper in my household.

This warning against anti-semitism is well-meant and may have had its purpose at the time, but it is made without the slightest notion of how to make a film. The director has no idea about mise-en-scene; the cast varies from bad till even worse.<br /><br />The great Austrian comic Hans Moser is wasted. In his part he ends in an asylum for the crazy, that is designed as a set from Das Kabinett des Dr. Caligari; one wonders whether the makers had all their mental capabilities.<br /><br />The restored copy I saw (Dutch Filmmuseum) gives the impression that some scenes were not put into the right place, but may be the original editing was bad as well.

I was in a bad frame of mind when I first saw this movie. For some reason it clicked on all my levels, tensions in a family, loneliness and the want of someone to share your life with. It didn't hurt that the someone to share your life with was such a beautiful girl as Claire (Cyndy Preston). I also bought the sound track to this movie (very hard to get). Loved it and hope it will someday come out on DV

An unusual take on time travel: instead of traveling to Earth's past, the main trio get stuck in the past history of another planet. They beam down to this planet, whose sun is scheduled to go nova in 3 or 4 hours (that's cutting it close!). In some kind of futuristic library, they meet Mr. Atoz (A to Z, get it? ha-ha) and his duplicates. It turns out, instead of escaping their planet's destruction via space travel, the usual way, the inhabitants have all escaped into their planet's various past time eras. Mr. Atoz uses a time machine to send people on their way after they make a selection (check out the discs we see here, another Trek prognostication of CDs and DVDs!). When Mr. Atoz prepares the machine (the Atavachron-what-sis), gallant Kirk hears a woman's scream and runs into the planet's version of Earth's 17th century, where he gets into a sword fight and is arrested for witchery. There's an eccentric but good performance here by the actress playing a female of ill repute in this time, using phrasing of the time ("...you're a bully fine coo.. Witch! Witch! They'll burn ye...!"). Spock & McCoy follow Kirk, but end up in an ice age, 5000 years earlier.<br /><br />Kirk manages to get back to the library first. The real story here is Spock's reversion to the barbaric tendencies of his ancestors, the warlike Vulcans of 5000 years ago. This doesn't really make sense, except that maybe this time machine is responsible for the change (even so, Spock & McCoy weren't 'prepared' by Atoz - oh, well; it also seems to me Spock was affected by the transition almost immediately - he mentions being from 'millions of light years' away, instead of the correct hundreds or thousands - a gross error for a logical Vulcan). In any case, Spock really shows his nasty side here - forget "Day of the Dove" and remember "This Side of Paradise" - McCoy quickly finds out that his Vulcan buddy will not stand for any of his usual baiting and nearly gets his face rearranged. Spock also gets it on with Zarabeth, a comely female who had been exiled to this cold past as punishment (a couple of Trek novels were written about Spock's son, the result of this union). All these scenes are eye-openers, a reminder of just how much Spock conceals or holds in. It's also ironic that, only a few episodes earlier ("Requiem for Methuselah"), McCoy was pointing out to Spock how he would never know the pain of love - and now all this happens. Kirk, meanwhile, tussles with the elderly Atoz, who insists that Kirk head back to some past era ("You are evidently a suicidal maniac" - great stuff from actor Wolfe, last seen in "Bread and Circuses"). It all works out in the end, but, like I mentioned earlier, they cut it very close. A neat little Trek adventure, with a definite cosmic slant.

An interesting idea involving an alternative dimension inside a hospital. It recalled - Stephen Kings "Langoliers", "Kingdom Hospital" and old twilight zone episodes. Atmospherically strong, the set up was great. There were also some very clever 'time loop' moments which always have that head-melt appeal. The story had plenty of vague references which led me to believe that all the ensuing weirdness of - time slips / ghosts / a weird bat winged demon and a rather silly heavy metal attired ghoul-thing would be explained. And THAT was were Dark Floors severely let me down. Based on my viewing the movie gives NO EXPLANATION as to what is behind the events. Whilst, some ambiguity is always expected/welcome in these kind of films. Dark floors took it to new heights of vagueness. I don't expect things wrapped up in a pretty ribbon, but neither should I be left feeling "Huh? .. is that it? ... Did I dose off? Maybe, I hit chapter skip by mistake?" Dark Floors left me with a deeply unsatisfying suspicion that "It was all a dream" which is a shame because up until the last reel I was very much on board and enjoying the movie.

It seems that the people behind Envy realised that recent comedies - especially ones involving Ben Stiller and to a lesser degree Jack Black - have been situation spoofs, which have steadily declined in originality and generally laughs. I found the sheer absurdity of Zoolander utterly hilarious when it was released, Starsky and Hutch was also enjoyable, and then Dodgeball kept the laughs going for a lot of people, although personally i was a bit tired of the over-the-top characters - especially when the scenario wasn't quite so funny (perhaps the comedy of a Dodgeball tournament doesn't quite translate to Australia, where it's rarely played). So in an attempt to do something a little more original, Envy moves away from an absurd scenario and instead revolves around the absurd creation of Jack Black's character (i won't spoil what it is for those who intend to see the movie). The problem is that the movie seems to drag, i'm not a big enough movie buff to be able to think of examples, but it seems like this set up has been done a thousand times before - and very rarely successfully. So instead of a nice, crisp, enjoyable and fresh comedy, you get a film that seems to just go through the motions. Sure the motions can be quite amusing, and they're centred on an idea that is quirky enough to provide a few laughs - especially with Jack Black playing the excited and amusing, though a bit 2D, creator. Ben Stiller on the other hand seems a bit lost, he's asked to play a fuller role than the ridiculous characters of his Zoolander breed of movies, but he struggles as a family man, whether his fault or the scripts, there isn't enough depth to the character and the result is a movie of Ben Stiller doing those typical mannerisms and generally becoming tedious. The performance doesn't leave an imprint on the viewer (he's just Ben Stiller, Jack Black manages to actually portray a character - though not a challenging one). The last annoying element of the movie is Christopher Walken's role as 'The J Man', which is about as typical and two dimensional as characters come, and naturally he becomes monotonous and frustrating very quickly.<br /><br />It's really not as unbearable as some people would have you think, it's watchable, especially if you're in the right mood (feeling silly would be a good prerequisite for seeing this film). Hire it on a movie night with friends and watch it after you've watched a scary film and feel like something light - hopefully you'll also be somewhat tipsy by then too. In that scenario i can imagine it would be quite enjoyable, but generally it provides too few laughs to carry itself and most of the time just drags along.

I, like many horror fans, have been force fed the same banal big budget Hollywood remakes and MTV high school slasher tripe for the last 20 years. Here, at last, is an original horror genre movie that ticks all the right boxes.<br /><br />You want a hot lead actress, you want vampires, you want cool weapons, you want cool vehicles and you want blood, lots of it, by the bucket load - you got it.<br /><br />With excellent fight choreography and a supporting role from the Hammer Horror scream queen herself Stephanie Beacham, this really is fantastic stuff.<br /><br />Despite it's low budget, by opting to use 35 mm stock and adding quality CG effects to the mix, director James Eaves has created something that feels much bigger.<br /><br />A must for old school horror fans.

Gruveyman2 (comment below)you are a complete idiot...blinded by ignorance by the very city you have allegiance to. Its that whiny arrogance, that you are ironically claiming the film exudes about SF, that makes you seem like such the typical LA A**hole! The only reason you felt the film was so self congratulatory about SF is because you are jealous. Of course you don't know it because you are so LA jaded. First of all the film was completely factual about a beautiful city; what has been filmed there and what has been filmed by some of its more famous locals. It says nothing bad about LA; and these accomplished directors choose to live in a beautiful city over LA. They recognize that they went to film school in LA and are obviously proud of that fact. They recognize that SF is close to LA which is a benefit. The only negative thing that was said that relates to LA, was about the studio executives. The same studio executives that hated these guys movies when they first saw them, but then those same movies went on to be huge world-wide grossing films. So why wouldn't they have animosity towards the studio executive establishment and studio system? These are the only people they are trying to "disassociate from" and for good reasons! Don't be so sensitive! How can you say that Francis Ford Coppola is the "so called" San Francisco director? How is he not to be considered that? And who directed The Godfather? Coppola did. It was his vision that told the story on the screen that won it a best picture award. So what who gave him the job? He admits it in the documentary that he didn't even want to do the movie....so what's your point? And so what if Sophia wants to live in LA? And that proves your point how? And tell me how they are not truly independent when they are funding a lot of their own movies. Movies that are now considered classics. And, when they made movies from studio funding, one, it was LA that came to them and said we want you to make these pictures and two, they used the money that they made from doing these pictures to fund their own. They said exactly that in the film.<br /><br />"Your bitchy and self congratulatory whining would take on an air of greater self respect and credence if you never set foot on the ground you so claim to be superior to in this film."<br /><br />How the hell can "bitchy-ness" and "self-congratulation" suddenly have an "air" of self respect and credence....if they never go to LA again? What a stupid and senseless comment! You inserted some big words in there....and just don't know how to use them! And, by the way, they never claimed nor implied they were superior to LA! So what if they are giving a guy from New York an award in LA....again what the hell is your point? So if they go to LA or New York they are hypocrites by simply preferring to live in SF? You make no sense.<br /><br />San Francisco is proud of itself and its heritage and the people who make it what it is today. This film just focused on one aspect...film-making. For you to take the time and type up such nasty comments about the city (not the movie! But the city and its people) only proves what it is we Northern Californians hate about people from LA! THIS IS A GREAT DOCUMENTARY...VERY INTERESTING, ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE FROM THE BAY AREA...BUT I RECOMMEND IT TO ANYONE.

Having not seen all the films released in 2002, I can't say that this is the best film of the year. I can say that it is the best film I have seen all year. <br /><br />Most American films featuring black people either obsess over the American preoccupation with "race relations", or fall into the cliches of the inner city ghetto, with every sterotype imaginable spouting ebonic-phrased slang. Antwone Fisher stands proudly alone in this regard: race is irrelevant, save for one fight that may, or may not, have been provoked by a racial slur.<br /><br />Antwone Fisher's story is one that should find resonance with any empathic individual. He is understatedly, and thoughtfully, portrayed by Derek Luke. Denzel Washington, while obviously using his star power to have the film made, sticks to the background for the most part, and allows the film to be the Antwone Fisher story. <br /><br />At a time when BET, and popular culture in general want to maintain the ghetoization of a large number of Americans (and Canadians too, you know), this is a film that speaks to the humanity in all of us. I just hope that the non-Black audience will go see this film for that humanity, rather than avoiding it because they feel that there are no characters or actors in the movie whom they can identify with. That would be a sad commentary on race-relations in North America in and of itself. <br /><br />

Sydney Lumet, although one of the oldest active directors, still got game! A few years ago he shot "Find me guilty", a proof to everyone that Vin Diesel can actually act, if he gets the opportunity and the right director. If he had retired after this movie (a true masterpiece in my eyes), no one could have blamed him. But he's still going strong, his next movie already announced for 2009.<br /><br />But let's stay with this movie right here. The cast list is incredible, their performance top notch. The little nuances in their performances, the "real" dialogue and/or situations that evolve throughout the movie are just amazing. The (time) structure of the movie, that keeps your toes the whole time, blending time-lines so seamlessly, that the editing seems natural/flawless. The story is heightened by that, although even in a "normal" time structure, it would've been at least a good movie (Drama/Thriller). I can only highly recommend it, the rest is up to you! :o)

Like many of you I am a great fan of the real thing - the 1940s noir films - but Red Rock West was a real treat for all of us longing for the past. The term 'neo-noir' has been so often used inappropriately in the last ten years that it has lost its meaning and its impact. John Dahl's film on the other hand, truly deserved to be described as such. The casting is perfect all around and would have felt right at home with Tay Garnett or Jacques Tourneur. The plot is so tight that you are hooked within the first fifteen minutes. James M. Cain would have appreciated it. Many contemporary films leave me wondering why they don't make them like they used to, and I'm not even that old. Movies such as Red Rock West give us hope for the future while paying tribute to the past.

I second the motion to make this into a movie, it would be great!! I was also amazed at the storyline and character build in this game. I have played it again and again (over 20 times) just to try something different and it gets more interesting every time. Final Fantasy eat your heart out!! THIS SHOULD BE MADE INTO A MOVIE!!!!! If anyone out there wants some help to start a petition to have this made into a movie, please contact me. I would love to help with that project any day. The graphics are great for PS1 and even make you forget it is PS1 most of the time. The multitude of side quests makes it different every time you play.

You don't expect much from a PRC picture, and with rare exceptions--mainly from Edgar G. Ulmer and a few by Joseph H. Lewis or Lew Landers--that's exactly what you get: not much. This "epic" about Nazis in Africa trying to incite an Arab revolt against the British isn't much different. The script, by longtime PRC hacks Arthur St. Claire and Sherman Lowe, is trite, laughable, full of unfunny "wisecracks" and plot holes the size of Outer Mongolia. The direction, by longtime PRC no-budget specialist Al Herman, is semi-comatose at best. The performances, though--except for spectacularly incompetent and irritatingly hammy lead Walter Woolf King--aren't really half bad. Veteran comedian Parkyakarkus is actually the best thing about the film. He plays a guy from Brooklyn masquerading as a razor-blade salesman and brightens up the screen considerably when he shows up. He's got great comic timing, charm to spare and seems to be having a heck of a good time. Duncan Renaldo is fairly convincing as an Arab sheik--despite his Spanish accent--and veteran bad guy George J. Lewis as Renaldo's Arab rival does his usual fine job of villainy, even if he goes a bit over the top sometimes. Joan Woodbury is quite pretty and has a nice light touch, and she and Renaldo have great chemistry together, although--like the rest of the cast--she has none at all with King. H.B. Warner, whose career stretched back to the silent era, lends a shred of dignity to the low-rent proceedings, even though he blows his lines several times and, PRC being PRC, they weren't cut out. There's a great deal of stock footage spliced in from a big-budget silent movie with a similar Arab theme--although I have no idea which one it is--and, PRC being PRC, no effort was made to try to make it inconspicuous: I've seldom seen stock footage that was so blatantly obvious.<br /><br />"A Yank in Libya" isn't very good, of course--well, OK, it stinks--but it would be worth a look just to see Parkyakarkus in his prime. I had heard of him and knew that he was the father of actor/director Albert Brooks and Super Dave Osborne, but had never actually seen him in anything before. It was worth watching this tenth-rate PRC "extravaganza" just to see him in action. Otherwise, forget it.

Revolt of the Zombies has no redeeming features. I'm tired of people arguing that it's not that bad, and that the effects must have packed more of a punch in 1936. I suspect this isn't true: it's not like IQ's have risen sharply in the last 7 decades. The average viewer in 1936 was probably just as bored by this rubbish as the average viewer today. Why? Just try watching the first scenes, and count the pauses between things happening, the awful choice of when to cut to close-up, the slapdash editing that seems to include an extra two seconds on every shot to pad out the running time. Pay attention to the utterly redundant dialogue: "I'm going to make some tea/go outside/read my book now." "Are you?" "Yes, I am." That sort of exchange happens several times. Normally I would love that, being a HUGE fan of bad movies, but watch the listless actors mumbling their trite and tedious lines, and all desire to laugh at the movie slowly fades away. This sort of disinterested, pot-boiling time-waster is far worse than energetic, imaginative mind-blowers like Plan Nine From Outer Space or Santa Claus Conquers The Martians. Those who claim that this is "better" than those more interesting movies have a backwards idea of entertainment. This movie is not bad in the sense that your jaw hangs open in astonishment: it's bad in the sense that your eyes slowly close in boredom. Which is far worse.

NATURAL BORN KILLERS (1994)<br /><br />Cinema Cut: R <br /><br />Director's Cut: NC-17<br /><br />It's an unusual Oliver Stone picture, but when I read he was on drugs during the filming, I needed no further explanation. 'Natural Born Killers' is a risky, mad, all out film-making that we do not get very often; strange, psychotic, artistic pictures.<br /><br />'Natural Born Killers' is basically the story of how two mass killers were popularised and glorified by the media; there is a great scene where an interviewer questions some teenagers about Mickey and Mallory, and the teenager says 'Murder is wrong.... but If I was a mass murderer I'd be Mickey and Mallory'. Mickey describes this with a situation of 'Frankenstein (the monster) and Dr. Frankenstein' - Dr. Frankenstein is the media who has turned them into these monstrous killers<br /><br />Most Oliver Stone films examine the flaws of the America, the country that the director loves and admires. I guess 'Natural Born Killers' is about the effect of mass media, technology and how obsessive as a nation, Americans are (and most of the world) over things such as mass killers and bizarre situations.<br /><br />The killers played by Woody Harrelson (Mickey) and Juliette Lewis (Mallory) are executed astonishingly by two excellent actors who step into the lives of two interestingly brutal killers. Mickey and Mallory believe that some people are worthy of killing, perhaps in the cruel theory of Social Darwinism (survival of the fittest) - Mickey says in his interview in prison, that other species commit murder, we as humans ravage other species and exploit the environment; the script is interesting, but it is questionable how much this film amounts to, in the sense of making us think about society and human behaviour, rather than the intensity of a 2 hour bloodbath that we have seen.<br /><br />The last hour of the film takes place in a maximum security prison; we see the harsh realities of prison life; the attitudes of the warden etc;overfilling of prisons - maybe Stone is questioning the future, the path that society is leading to.<br /><br />Two other interesting characters; First, a reporter who runs a show about 'America's Maniacs' and is obsessed with boosting ratings, that he goes to any length to capture the story of Mickey and Mallory. The other is police officer Scagnetti, an insane, perhaps sadistic officer that is in love with Mallory - he also has some weird obsession with mass killers, since his mother was killed during the massacre at Waco, Texas by Charles Whitman.<br /><br />The cinematography is superb; different colours, shadows, styles create a feeling of disorientation; the green colour most evident of all is green, to resemble the sickness of the killers (in the drugstore when they are looking for rattlesnake antidote).<br /><br />The camera work is insane; shaky, buzzy, it takes some determination to get use to it and accept it. Highly unorthodox, psychedelic and unusual.<br /><br />'Natural Born Killers' does not glamourise the existence of insane murderers, it questions it and how we as the public may fuel this attribute...<br /><br />Although the above review sound quite positive, I did dislike the film. Quentin Tarantino, who originally wrote the script for the film, was not pleased with the altered screenplay and he asked for his name to be removed. I can see why. While mildly interesting at times, Natural Born Killers is a mess of a picture.<br /><br />4/10

Lulu (Louise Brooks) works as a typist and is missing something in her life. She enters a Miss France contest against the wishes of her boyfriend Andre (Georges Charlia) and she wins. She sets off for the Miss Europe title leaving her boyfriend behind. She wins again but returns home to Andre because he has asked her to. Once back together, her life becomes mundane again so one night she writes a note to him and leaves to experience the fame that is waiting for her as Miss Europe. Andre follows her.....<br /><br />This film is a silent film with a piano music-track all the way through. It is also sped-up so everything seems fast. Limited dialogue has been added on afterwards and it is very phony. The cast are alright bearing in mind that it is a silent film. The best part of the film comes at the end but the story goes on a little too long. After watching this, I'm not really sure what the big deal was over the looks of Louise Brooks - she has a terrible haircut that makes her face look fat. I don't need to watch it again.

First off, let me say that I am a great believer in Fanpro stuff. I see it as a way to continue a good show long after it has been cancelled. Star Trek Voyages and Star Wars Revelations are examples of decent efforts. So I have a soft-spot for fanpro stuff that means I'll overlook things that I would ordinarily slate badly.<br /><br />So on to ST: HF. Well, first off the good things. Enthusiasm is a major part of making any show believable and, for the most part, the crew of the various ships all seem to be having a good time with their roles. Next, the effects aren't bad for a home-brew effort, with nothing to make you really wince. The stories aren't too bad either. Nothing particularly innovative, but solid enough stuff and at least there are ongoing story-arcs.<br /><br />But it has a lot of faults.<br /><br />First off, although they quite obviously HAVE to rip-off Star Trek footage, set backdrops, music and effects, I see no reason why they proceeded to rip off virtually every other sci-fi musical score ever made. Everything from Aliens to Starship Troopers rears it orchestral head at one point or another. Likewise, much of the footage is from other movies, dutifully CGI'd over to make it look different. The Grey warships, for instance, though disguised, are quite obviously Star Destroyers from Star Wars. And the station is also rather obviously Fleet Battle Station Ticonderoga from Starship Troopers. Likewise, sound effects from various Star Wars movies appear in space battles between fighters, as does animated over footage. In one scene in either first or second season, I think, you even see two TIE fighters fly past during a battle, which hardly does your suspension of disbelief any favours.<br /><br />Acting varies from the reasonable to the hideously painful to watch. Everyone does improve as the seasons progress, though, but expect to grimace at the screen a lot, especially in the early seasons. They've also made some interesting acting choices. Let's just say that the food replicators on this show seem permanently set to "cake" and leave it at that.<br /><br />Make-up effects are generally quite effective on the whole. But they really ought to mercilessly club to death the person who decided to use cheap Ferengi and Cardassian masks for anything other than background use or "passing" shots. They are just beyond unrealistic. Every time I saw one of these (apart from trying not to laugh too much) I kept expecting the unfortunate soul wearing it to pull out a gun and announce that "This is a stick-up!" In one scene a "Cardassian" actually talks whilst wearing one of these. Not only do the lips not move, but the mask doesn't even have an opening where the mouth should be. Someone needs to be slapped hard for that. Couldn't they have taken a craft knife to it, for goodness' sake! There are also some well-done, but unintentionally funny make-up jobs, such as the Herman Munster look alike.<br /><br />The writing, though coherent, is nothing new. Instead the script runs like a continuation of DS9, with the ships heading out from DS12 on various missions. The new enemy, "The Grey" aren't very menacing and the plot line involving them is effectively a reworking of the Borg threads. i.e. Starfleet meet the Grey, the Grey are hugely powerful, Starfleet barely escape with their lives, then through technology they begin to find ways to combat the enemy etc etc. All done before with the Borg.<br /><br />Another bone of contention is the dialogue. Star Trek writers have long had the ability to write "insert technobabble here" into a script. It usually means an exposition of the latest plan to combat the enemy using "quantum phase discriminators" or "isolytic charges" etc. In other words, nonsense that tells you that they are on the case and a resolution is at hand.<br /><br />The words are just gibberish really. I've no problem with this, but where ST:HF makes a mess of it is where they include real-world comments into this concept.<br /><br />Tactical advice such as "We need to regroup" sounds good, but not when uttered by trio of characters already standing in a group. Likewise when asked what the situation is, a tactical officer is heard to reply "We count three battleships". He actually needed to count them? C'mon! I expected the questioner to ask him "Are you sure?" or "Can you double check". But my all-time favourite comment is this: <br /><br />Captain: "Can we establish two-way communication?"<br /><br />Comms officer: "No, we can only send and receive.."<br /><br />Well, duh!.....<br /><br />Having said all the above, the show does improve as it goes along. Seasons 1 and 2 are pretty bad, 3 shows an improvement but 4 & 5 are where it starts to get noticeably better. Season 6 so far looks quite reasonable.<br /><br />I do have a problem with their choice of media for the shows though. Quicktime sucks, quite frankly and the sooner they move to divx/avi format the better. Some of us like to actually take our downloaded shows and watch them on decent size screen and not peer at a tiny QT window on a computer monitor. Not only does Quicktime make this difficult, but the 320x180 resolution the shows are in does not scale at all well. In fact, it makes the shows pretty unwatchable, like they were a tenth-generation VHS tape copy. The least they could do was to include a hi-res downloadable option.<br /><br />Anyway, the show has promise, and I'm even beginning to like some of the characters. But that's 40 episodes on, so I'm not sure this says that much about character development at all.<br /><br />But what can you say, it's free....<br /><br />PS: Out of 28 votes, 19 people rated this show as a 9 or 10. Hmmmm... were we watching the same show? Or are you 19 all three year olds?

This movie is a fantastic movie. Everything about it in my opinion was top notch from the acting to the directing. I know Mr. Garfield was blacklisted in the 1950's but the majority of his other films are on video if not DVD. That being the case,why isn't this one? A friend recorded it off of TCM for me but to have it on DVD would be great. For special features they could have say a Marine historian talk about the battle and if Mr. Schmid's wife or son are still alive they could be interviewed as well. Anyway this is a great movie and I highly recommend it.If it ever is put out hopefully it won't be colorized. Colorizing it would in my opinion just ruin the whole effect of the film. The battle scene was quite realistic as far as a 1945,film would go. Mr. Garfield did a superb job of portraying Mr. Schmid. Some actors might have been tempted to overact the part of Mr.Schmid's disability but I feel he got it just right. I sincerely hope they come out with this movie on DVD someday as a tribute to the courage of Al Schmid and all the other marines who sacrificed so much for us in World War Two.

As did others in this forum, when "Fobidden Planet" was offered in 1956, I rushed to see it. This story is an interesting phenomenon I suggest because young, old, male, female, sci-fi experts and people who find such fare 'way out" all can follow and enjoy this film's story and plot lines very well. This is the first movie set on a planet other than Earth in the 20th Century other than serials such as "Flash Gordon". Leslie Nielsen was vocally a bit weak for his role, at that time, but Walter Pigeon, Marvin Miller, Anne Francis, Richard Anderson, Earl Holliman and especially Warren Stevens all acquitted themselves very well. There are so many visual splendors in this one, it's hard to choose a favorite from the film's scenes. The approach to Altair-4, the starship itself, the landing on the planet's alien surface, the descent via extensor stairs, the first view of the landscape, the approach of the rocket-sled, Dr. Morbius's house seen from without and from within, the underground complex and its wonders, the setup of the weaponry, the battle with the monster, the final approach of the unseen destroyer,the escape from the doomed planet--all these scenes are etched into the viewer's mind because we discover them along with the participants. Veteran Cyril Hume's literate script was filmed intelligently by long-time director Fred McLeod Wilcox with clarity and imagination. it is a shock to realize there's no music at all; the film is carried by the words, the actors and the mystery-revelation storyline. It can be watched again and again with pleasure--I have been doing so for nearly fifty years. Until this famous and well-loved film was created, no film had tried to imagine a world beyond Earth; and for decades afterward, ships kept crashing back on the planet--as if the writers' imaginations were failing and causing the crashes. Still the best, many say. That says something negative about this nation's so-called intellectual leaders' imaginations--and something very positive indeed I suggest about those who made this gem.

Geniuses William Cameron Menzies and Herbert George Wells craft this extraordinary anticipation film, with ambition and scope hard to find today. They predict World War II and the way Great Britain was attacked, and also the fact that the war would be followed by a space race. They change the timing; in the film the war and the space exploration are much longer, but there are so many qualitatively correct things that it's amazing. We even see an helicopter (the film is older than them).<br /><br />Unforgettable giant planes and a futuristic meritocracy of scientists that seem Romans with bubble-helmets: if you can see through those funny costumes you may appreciate the state of the art architecture by masters from the 30s, Well's vision of a rationalistic society, interesting reflections on the nature of power, and John Cabal as archetype of the adventurous and inventive human being, the one that chooses to shape reality and not to be shaped by it.<br /><br />9 1/2 out of 10. Inspiring like that final monologue by John Cabal.

Pecker is another mainstream film by John Waters done on a smaller than Serial Mom. The title character of Pecker has a hobby of taking pictures of anything he sees. It doesn't matter if it's dirty or shocking when he takes pictures. He soon uses the pictures he taken and puts them on display at his work. Pecker live in a semi-normal middle-class family. His dad works at a drinking bar with a claw machine, but doesn't make enough money with a lesbian stripper bar across the street. His mom runs a thrift shop and loves to dress-up poor people. His older sister, Tina, works at a gay bar where her specialty is trade. His younger, Little Chrissy, has a habit of eating sugar, sugar, and nothing but sugary food. His grandmother, Memama, has a small statue of the Virgin Mary and plays ventriloquist with it. He also has 2 friends. On of his friends, Matt is a chronic shoplifter and his girlfriend, Shelley, runs a laundry mat as if she was a dictator. Soon, a tourist from New York buys his pictures and displays them at an art gallery. With the picture comes fame, but the pictures expose the unusual life style of his friends and family's simple life. For an R-rated film, Pecker is sure tamer than most of Waters previous R-rated films and even Pink Flamingos. Another 10 out of 10!

This is an interesting treatment of a subject that is quite controversial, (just read the other comments on this film). Apparently, you either love it or hate it and it seems most people make that distinction based on whether they believe the tribulation and end times will happen as portrayed in the movie.<br /><br />Basically, the film - and its sequels - were made for about $1.30 each. The production values are right down there with "Plan 9 From Outer Space" and the acting is about on the same level as "Glen or Glenda", (my apologies to Ed Wood). Putting aside the religious message, the story is as scary as they come. Add in even the slightest thought that the story might actually be close to something that might happen in the future and it becomes even scarier.<br /><br />This movie, and its sequels, didn't try to bring in the reasons why the tribulation happened when it did. "Left Behind" and "The Omega Code" tried to get in everything "Thief" did and to explain all the politics and maneuvering in the Middle East leading up to it. The net effect was "Thief" did a much better job on the scary part of movie, instead of spreading itself too thin trying to explain what was happening in the Middle East at the same time. <br /><br />Forget the politics and watch this movie, and its sequels, for what they are - horror stories. That they may be horror stories told, indirectly, by God makes them just that much more frightening. If it makes you think about the subject, it has done its job - even if you never believe.

I used to always love the bill because of its great script and characters, but lately i feel as though it has turned into an emotional type of soap. If you look at promotional pictures/posters of the bill now you will see either two of the officers hugging/kissing or something to do with friendships whereas promotional pictures of the bill a long time ago would have shown something to do with crime. This proves that it has changed a lot from being an absolutely amazing Police drama to an average type of television soap. When i watch it i feel like I'm watching a police version of Coronation Street or something similar. I have to say i still like the bill as I'm interested in Police work and that type of thing but i really miss the greatness that The Bill used to have. I want to rate it as 2 out of ten because you have to admit it has been totally ruined by the people who took the bill over.<br /><br />As for the script and characters they have both gone downhill, most of the great characters are gone now (although a few still remain i think) and I'm not saying that the newer characters are poor or anything because they definitely aren't, its just that they lack the tough looks, personalities and script lines that all of the old characters used to have because most of the new ones are at the moment involved with silly relationships and family trouble.<br /><br />Overall being one of the only Police programs on television these days, The Bill will always be a crappily interesting thing to watch, but like i say it has lost a lot of its uniqueness (if thats the right spelling) and would now be classed as a terrible, unreal television soap.<br /><br />Recommended to watch for a good laugh over the stupidity of the police officers involved - 2/10

STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning <br /><br />This second instalment of the Che films moves the story forward to the late 60s, where the man has now moved his resistance fighters into the hills of South America, surviving without enough food and water and with tensions mounting between the group. Everything comes to a head when he crosses the border into Bolivia and the government forces step up their campaign to bring him down.<br /><br />Without the flitting between time and places of the last film, Soderbergh's second instalment focuses solely on the action in the hills, and manages to be an even duller experience. And more pretentiously, the score has been drowned out, giving the second instalment more of an unwelcome air of artsieness that proves just as alienating. There's just an unshakeable air of boredom to the film that never lets up. You can't fault Soderbergh's ambition or Del Toro's drive in the lead role, it's just a shame that somewhere in the production things managed to take such a disappointing turn. **

This Hal Roach comedy short, A Tough Winter, is the ninety-ninth in the "Our Gang/Little Rascals" series and the eleventh talkie. Bascally a showcase for black comic Stepin Fetchit who gets special billing here, we see him going to his shack where the gang hangs out. Farina retrieves a love letter from the mail for him and is told by Stepin to read it since he can't read it during the day as he goes to NIGHT school. It happens to be from his sweetheart in Tennesse so now Farina has to have his ears stuffed with cotton since it's too hot for him to hear! In another room, Weezer relays instructions to Mary Ann of making taffy from the radio but because he keeps running back and forth to the kitchen, he misses the lady announcer's segue to rice pudding and Spanish tamale confusing Mary Ann with additions of Tabasco and Lux! After the concoction is completed, Jackie and the rest of the gang help themselves with the awful tasting but very sticky substance as everyone gets stuck on the walls as a result. As they all try to clean the mess, Stepin works in the basement on various pipes and electrical outlets that mixes variable appliances' functions such a telephone that vacuums, a vacuum that rings, and a refrigerator that plays music! The End. What I've just described portends the meandering nature of this "Our Gang" short that served as the pilot for a potential Stepin Fetchit movie short series. It's just as well that it never took place as Fetchit's characterization of the lazy Negro was amusing only in small doses and would be considered highly offensive today. Many of the scenes I've just described are good for some laughs though the final sequence was so confusing that the results were just too blah for me. So in summary, A Tough Winter is a curio worth seeing at least once. By the way, Stepin's real name was Lincoln Theodore Perry.

I will be short...This film is an embarrassment to everyone except its cinematographer. The very fact that it is a critique of the sex tourism industry seems valid until we are "treated" to a lingering dance scene. The plot is ridiculous no one except the most ardent fan of BAD horror will get anything out of it. And for the love of God please stop saying this film is a tale of innocence lost or even of female empowerment because it is quite clearly not (childish fumbling lesbians, what the hell?). this was by far the worst film at the Edinburgh festival (that i saw anyway), someone even collapsed halfway through the film probably because they couldn't take any more of it. this may seem like an overly critical rant but i genuinely cannot find a redeeming feature of this film except for perhaps if you take it as pure comedy. In short this film is best watched on a cocktail of class A drugs.

Story of Ireland in the 70/s. This film is a beautiful reconstruction of small time Ireland in the 1970/s. All the gang are there see below. Master Boyle , The Boys , The Cannon , SP O'Donnell , Senator Doogan's Daugter , Rose , Agnes , Maura and Una. See this film.Feel Ireland as it was.<br /><br />

I found this movie to be very funny, I loved how it made of the politics of modern day sports. This movie is not as funny as South Park but it is pretty funny. And since I am a sports fan I loved how they made fun some of the more ridiculous things in sports. This movie is great for non sports lovers too, probably better for them actually since they have to go through life wondering why people follow sports so closing when there are so many insane rules and intricacies to sports and the fact that it means absolutely nothing. I also found the actual game they came up with to be interesting, it is sort of like horse with bases and psyche outs (for the person shooting). Overall I highly recommend you see this movie, and believe that you will end up loving this movie. However if this style of comedy is not your favorite you probably won't like it. (but that is with any comedy movie)

"I'm a cartoon!" "You're an illustration!" what does that suppose to mean?! This plot could not be worse as a boy, who's afraid of everything, becomes very brave at the very end of the film because he went into a library. The only purpose of this waste of celluloid was to encourage American kids to read, when a cheaper, and more effective way of doing this could have been a series of adverts! Even the talents of Macaulay Culkin(as the kid), Christopher Lloyd (as the so predictable "that he's a the Page Master" librarian), could save this pointless film from the dull plot. Even the voices of Whoopi Goldberg, Patrick Stewart,(even) Leonard Nimoy, or the Hollywood God of voices, Frank Welker as the cartoon characters don't save it ever. I can only describe it as a 1990s equivalent to the even ghastly 1978 adaption of the Water Babies, because the bland animation makes the film worse, not improving the dull plot!

This movie had so much potential. Anyone who followed the story of Jeffrey knows that there are so many details overlooked in this movie it's ridiculous. Too much time and effort was spent in the movie on Dahmer's homosexual tendencies and his alcohol consumption. Where was the character development? The origins of any villain are always interesting and Dahmer was no exception. Where in the movie does it address his adolescence when he began killing and mutilating small animals? Instead we are giving a dizzying array of flashbacks that seek to explain the origin of the killer, but fail to address the major point in Dahmer's development. Also, the reason why the country became so intrigued with this story was the details - how he stored the bodies in his apartment and the lengths and measures he went to to accomplish this; his cannibalism and his desire for flesh, etc. I could go on, but to sum up, too many lagging points in the film, focused on his sexuality and not enough of the gore - the good stuff you would expect to see when the title of the movie is "Dahmer."

Original Claymation Rudolph: Pretty good. Original Frosty cartoon: Needs a little work, but could be worse. But Frosty and Rudolph together on the Fourth of July? C'mon! Give me a BREAK!!! This was one movie that shouldn't have been made. It was bad. It didn't really go for any holiday in particular, except July 4. That made it especially bad since Frosty and Rudolph are usually associated with the Christmas season. And any movie can be ruined by too much singing. The frequent songs made this movie seem a lot longer than it really was. The movie tried mixing two familiar Chirstmastime characters with an American traditional holiday (which almost seems to "limit" it to America), too many pointless songs, and a lousy plotline. The result? A bad movie that can't really be watched at any time of year. I would suggest you forgo this movie even if you like Frosty and Rudolph.

Halfway through Lajos Koltai's "Evening," a woman on her deathbed asks a figure appearing in her hallucination: "Can you tell me where my life went?" The line could be embarrassingly theatrical, but the woman speaking it is Vanessa Redgrave, delivering it with utter simplicity, and the question tears your heart out.<br /><br />Time and again, the film based on Susan Minot's novel skirts sentimentality and ordinariness, it holds attention, offers admirable performances, and engenders emotional involvement as few recent movies have. With only six months of the year gone, there are now two memorable, meaningful, worthwhile films in theaters, the other, of course, being Sara Polley's "Away from Her." Hollywood might have turned "Evening" into a slick celebrity vehicle with its two pairs of real-life mothers and daughters - Vanessa Redgrave and Natasha Richardson, and Meryl Streep and Mamie Gummer. Richardson is Redgrave's daughter in the film (with a sister played by Tony Collette), and Gummer plays Streep's younger self, while Redgrave's youthful incarnation is Claire Danes.<br /><br />Add Glenn Close, Eileen Atkins, Hugh Dancy, Patrick Wilson, and a large cast - yes, it could have turned into a multiple star platform. Instead, Koltai - the brilliant Hungarian cinematographer of "Mephisto," and director of "Fateless" - created a subtle ensemble work with a "Continental feel," the story taking place in a high-society Newport environment, in the days leading up to a wedding that is fraught with trouble.<br /><br />Missed connections, wrong choices, and dutiful compliance with social and family pressures present quite a soap opera, but the quality of the writing, Koltai's direction, and selfless acting raise "Evening" way above that level, into the the rarified air of English, French (and a few American) family sagas from a century before its contemporary setting.<br /><br />Complex relationships between mothers and daughters, between friends and lovers, with the addition of a difficult triangle all come across clearly, understandably, captivatingly. Individual tunes are woven into a symphony.<br /><br />And yet, with the all the foregoing emphasis on ensemble and selfless performances, the stars of "Evening" still shine through, Redgrave, Richardson, Gummer (an exciting new discovery, looking vaguely like her mother, but a very different actress), Danes carrying most of the load - until Streep shows up in the final moments and, of course, steals the show. Dancy and Wilson are well worth the price of admission too.<br /><br />As with "Away from Her," "Evening" stays with you at length, inviting a re-thinking its story and characters, and re-experiencing the emotions it raises. At two hours, the film runs a bit long, but the way it stays with you thereafter is welcome among the many movies that go cold long before your popcorn.

This film got terrible reviews but because it was offbeat and because critics don't usually "get" offbeat films, I thought I'd give it a try. Unfortunately they were largely right in this instance.<br /><br />The film just has an awkward feel too it that is most off putting. The sort of feel that is impossible to describe, but it's not a good one. To further confound things, the script is a dull aimless thing that is only vaguely interesting.<br /><br />The immensely talented Thurman just drifts through this mess creating barely an impact. Hurt and Bracco try in vain to add something to the film with enthusiastic performance but there is nothing in the script. It may have been less embarrassing for them if they had merely chosen to drift and get it over with like Thurman.<br /><br />One thing the "esteemed" film critics did fail to mention however is that the film is actually quite funny. Whether it be moments of accurate satire or some outrageously weird moments like when the cowgirls in question chase Hurt off their ranch with the smell of their unwashed...ahem...front bottoms.<br /><br />Because of the chortles acheived throughout, while I wouldn't recommend this film, there is entertainment to be had and watching Even Cowgirls Get the Blues is worthwhile for something different.