Datasets:

paduraru2009

/

imdb-sample

like 0

One reason Pixar has endured so well, and been so successful, is that while their films remain technical marvels and visual mosaics, they have a story to match their style. And often very moving style at that: affecting, charming and cross-generational. That a lot Anime (speaking in broad terms) and a great many other animations fail to match their technical virtuosity with real substance is, I think (and I might be wrong) partly because either the makers aren't bothered with character and plot and focus far too much on sound and image, or the sheer effort that goes into making some animations is so enormous, so enervating that they don't have the energy to create a really engaging story.<br /><br />That same cannot be said of Renaissance. There are flaws in its plot, but I'll get to that later. Those same flaws, however, are not reflected in the visuals - Renaissance is nowt short of stunning. The ultra-high contrast images (sometimes so high-contrast that is nothing but one face or one beam of light visible) and incredible detail are always impressive, always a joy to behold. The futuristic Paris on display is the grim offspring of Blade Runner and Brave New World; dark, murky, quite affluent and even clean, but shrouded in intrigue, corporate malfeasance, obsessed with beauty (capital of the catwalk, after all) and disguising the squalor and neglect of its labyrinthine passages with a veneer of monumental, sophisticated architecture.<br /><br />It's a compelling environment, not entirely original, but great all the same. The film's much-touted 'motion-capture' technology and incredible attention to human and design minutiae result in images a black-and-white photographer would die for. Not that the detail prevents entertainment, because Christian Volckman crafts some superb action sequences: a hell-for-leather care chase, a couple of gruesome(ly imaginative) murders, several tussles in the dark and a nasty dust-up in a gloomy apartment. The locations are great, too (I want to visit the nightclub). While the central character of Karas is your regular off-the-shelf maverick cop, the other two female characters (who are sisters) are the real motors of the movie. Coming from war-torn Eastern Europe, products of a war, diaspora and a family spat, they're a compelling metaphor for Europe as a whole.<br /><br />The film is tremendously atmospheric, its dizzying, swooping faux-camera moves and adult tone making for a very engaging experience. However, the plot... It never becomes more interesting than the initial hook, in which indefatigable plod Karas must find Ilona Tasuiev, a drop-dead gorgeous and pioneering scientist, after she's snatched from the street. The sinister corporation Avalon (is ANY corporation ever not sinister?), which she was working for on 'classified', projects are hell-bent on her retrieval, and soon Karas is up to his neck in official reprimands, dead bodies, cigarette-smoke and narrowly-missed bullets, and falling in love with Ilona's sister Bislane (very sympathetically voiced by Catherine McCormack), as he plumbs the depths of the city's sordid underbelly (and his own past).<br /><br />Text-book noir, in other words, but while I enjoyed the film a lot more than Sin City (to which it bears a passing visual resemblance), the plot and resolution are dull, the theme of immortality being raised but never examined, and the shenanigans of high-rolling Avalon CEO Paul Dellenbach are also dull , undercutting a lot of the dramatic tension. The basic ideas are familiar sci-fi genre materials, and there's a nagging sense that the visuals and atmosphere are disguising the mundane material.<br /><br />However, the film as a whole is lucid and perfectly coherent, even if some of the scenarios the characters get into occasionally feel like excuses for displays of technical wizardry. But it's the projection of life in Paris circa 2054, the vision of community and creation of another city from the ground up that makes this film something to behold. I may be taking it too seriously, and if that's the case I can at least say that it's superbly made, extremely entertaining (and pretty mature, too), and with an ambiance like no other.

Here's a decent mid-70's horror flick about a gate of Hell in NYC that just happens to be an old brownstone. Seems like there's lots of gates of Hell around, but of course this unwitting model happens to decide she needs some space from her boyfriend/fiancée and so she just happens to pick one, which is disguised as a nice and reasonably priced apartment. She meets several strange neighbors, and even attends a birthday party for a cat. Upon meeting with the Realtor because she hears strange noises at night from upstairs, she finds out that she and an old priest are SUPPOSED to be the only tenants. Whoa! Then who are all these weirdos? Her boyfriend (a slimy lawyer, played by Chris Sarandon) starts poking around and finds that things are not what they seem, not by a long shot. This has some decent creepy scenes and the idea of the creaky old folks that are her "sometimes" neighbors being other than what they appear is fairly intriguing. A bit of decent gore and even a parade of less-than-normal folks towards the end make this a decent watch, and while I've seen this many times on TV the uncut DVD version is much better, of course. Not a bad little horror flick, maybe a good companion piece to "Burnt Offerings". 8 out of 10.

"Semana Santa" or "Angel Of Death" is a very weak movie. Mira Sorvino plays a detective who is trying to find a killer who shoots arrows in people. Mira has an Italian accent which falters from time to time. Couldn't she just speak English? All the other characters have a forced Mexican\English accent which is distracting. The dialogue is very bad and the delivery of it is wooden. The cinematography looks nice, but that's not enough to save this tripe. THIS NEXT PART OF THIS REVIEW DOES CONTAIN SPOILERS!!!! <br /><br />During the climax it looks like the villain is going to get away, but then he comes back down stairs to get shot and do a cool stunt down the railing. That just shows this script has no originality whatsoever. AVOID!

After buying the DVD in a Bargain Bin due to the impressive amount of features listed on the cover, I popped it in the DVD player and everything looked good. Nice animated menus and a whole lot of extra features...but when I played the movie itself, what a let down. It is the worst thing I have ever seen and I have seen some bad movies in my time. The comment that praises the movie here at IMDB is actually from the people who made the film. So Don't Believe It unless you like to waste your cash!

This has always been one of my favourite movies, and will always be. Over the last few years I have become a 50's / 60's Sci-fi freak, trying to collect all of the better ones that were made back then. I love lots of things about them from how corny they could be to how technically correct some of them were. The great colours and the sets get me going too. It's a pity when they re-make some of these good old movies; they nearly always stuff it up, - just look at the recent re-do of The day the Earth stood still, it's utter garbage!! Forbidden Planet is one of the benchmark space films of all time, and now they're trying to re-make it too, and I shudder to think what the new one will be like! To my mind, some things, such as fantastic classic movies, should just be left alone to be what they are, classic examples of great attempts at telling simple stories, and giving people a thrill in the process. Once they add all the techno-crap that we have available now, the film just seems to be more dog-meat from the Hollywood sausage factory, - nothing special at all. By the way, I notice that the astronauts' uniforms in Forbidden Planet were also used for "Queen of Outer Space"! That just tells you that the budgets were a bit lower back then, doesn't it? Hey, less money and better films, hmmm....<br /><br />Great performances in this movie from Leslie Nielsen, in a serious role, and Anne Francis, Walter Pidgeon (who has always been one of my favourite actors), Earl Holiman, and of course Robby the Robot!<br /><br />The special effects are fantastic, and the storyline is not too far-fetched. This is a great sci-fi experience!

As a child I always hated being forced to sit through musicals. I never understood why people would break out into song like that, and I was far too young to appreciate the artistry (choreography, set design, costumes, pacing) behind it all. Carol Reed's "Oliver!" was the one musical I remember oddly enjoying as a child, probably because it is one of the darker ones and is appropriately drenched in the spirit of Dickensian squalor. This is a musical about ghetto life in Victorian London, and while the scenery and set designs are stark, dark, and true to that way of life, it is flat out bizarre for people to be breaking out into such ridiculous songs amidst their misery. Upon a recent viewing, my first since childhood, I have some new thoughts and insights into why this musical "works" in that bizarre breaking out into song kind of way, and why most just don't do it for me.<br /><br />When musicals work or really say something, it is because they realize their own inherent strangeness. Lars von Trier's "Dancer in the Dark" as tragic and operatic and over reaching as it was, worked as a musical because the musical numbers were the products of the imagination of the protagonist, an immigrant obsessed with Hollywood musicals. Likewise, the very cynical and enjoyable "Chicago" worked on a similar level because the musical numbers were the products of a homicidal ingenue singer/dancer. Musicals don't work when they take their own musical-nature too seriously (like in "Moulin Rouge") or are simply too much fluff about nothing (i.e. something pointless like "Mary Poppins"). Upon viewing "Oliver!" for the first time as an adult, I saw it in a new light. Told mostly from the point of view young Oliver, I saw the musical numbers as the products of his childhood imagination and his way of coping with the horrors of ghetto life around him. The best musical number was probably when Nancy got everyone in the tavern signing and dancing about the joys of getting drunk (as a cover to help poor Oliver escape the clutches of the evil Bill Sykes). It was undeniably catchy and sounded like a real pub tune that drunks might start singing around a piano. There are other great and classic tunes to be heard here, and the direction and acting from the leads to the dancing extras are all top notch.<br /><br />Still, for all its bleakness (although it does have a happy ending for Oliver at least, though certainly things didn't end happily for Nancy, and unless you think a life on the streets being a pick-pocket is fun, it wasn't a necessarily a good ending for Fagin or the Dodger, despite their peppy closing tune) I wouldn't really classify this as a family film, though I don't think showing it to kids over the age of seven or eight will do any harm. This is a harsh tale about an unfortunate orphan trying to survive on the streets and find some happiness. I think it would be very interesting to see a modern update on this some how, perhaps a revisionist take on it, where people on the streets of Compton break into happy songs about their horrible lives. I'd like to see a hard-edged hip-hop version of "Oliver!". I always thought Dickens would translate well in those regards. As it stands, "Oliver!" was probably the last of the great film musicals and maybe the strangest G-rated film I've ever seen.

Jeremy Brett is simply the best Holmes ever, narrowly edging out the great Basil Rathbone of course, and this is probably the best adaptation of a Conon-Doyle short story.<br /><br />A length adaptation includes some new plot strands that fit in well to the surrounding drama and heightens the hatred one feels for Milverton.<br /><br />Excellent performances all round, especially from Robert Hardy, and both Brett and Hardwick fully rounded and comfortable in their roles makes this a superb piece of drama.

Even if you subscribe to the knee-jerk anti-free-trade politics of this movie, it is still just the same tired note, played again and again and again. Clink clink clink. Even if you can accept a preacher with peroxide hair who advocates a return to first principles, the Reverend Billy is pretty hard to look at as a serious figure. The clownish reverend is the sort who wakes every morning with no aspiration more ethereal than to see his own face on TV before he climbs back into bed that night. He has a pretty wife, I have to admit, but it would take tons more than that to save this dreary mess of a movie. The interminable bus rides are the worst part--with progress shown--can you guess?--by a colored line moving across a map. Aww, you guessed. Oh well, it has the virtue of being short. Is that the only favorable thing I can say? Hmmmm. Yep, afraid so.

I sat through both parts of Che last night, back to back with a brief bathroom break, and I can't recall when 4 hours last passed so quickly. I'd had to psyche myself up for a week in advance because I have a real 'thing' about directors, producers and editors who keep putting over blown, over long quasi epics in front of us and I feel that on the whole, 2 to 2.5 hours is about right for a movie. So 4 hours seemed to be stretching the limits of my tolerance and I was very dubious about the whole enterprise. But I will say upfront that this is a beautifully – I might say lovingly – made movie and I'm really glad I saw it. Director Steven Soderbergh is to be congratulated on the clarity of his vision. The battle scenes zing as if you were dodging the bullets yourself.<br /><br />If there is a person on the planet who doesn't know, Ernesto 'Che' Guevara was the Argentinian doctor who helped Fidel Castro overthrow Fulgencio Batista via the 1959 Cuban revolution. When I was a kid in the 1960s, Che's image was everywhere; on bedroom wall posters, on T shirts, on magazine covers. Che's image has to be one of the most over exploited ever. If the famous images are to be relied on, then Che was a very good looking guy, the epitome of revolutionary romanticism. Had he been butt ugly, I have to wonder if he would have ever been quite so popular in the public imagination? Of course dying young helps.<br /><br />Movies have been made about Che before (notably the excellent Motorcycle Diaries of 2004 which starred the unbearably cute Gael Garcia Bernal as young Che, touring South America and seeing the endemic poverty which formed his Marxist politics) but I don't think anyone has ever tackled the entire story from beginning to end, and this two-parter is an ambitious project. I hope it pays off for Soderbergh but I can only imagine that instant commercial success may not have been uppermost in his mind.<br /><br />The first movie (The Agentine) shows Che meeting Castro in Mexico and follows their journey to Cuba to start the revolution and then the journey to New York in 1964 to address the UN. Cleverly shot black and white images look like contemporary film but aren't. The second film (Guerilla) picks up again in 1966 when Che arrives in Bolivia to start a new revolutionary movement. The second movie takes place almost entirely in the forest. As far as I can see it was shot mostly in Spain but I can still believe it must have been quite grueling to film. Benicio Del Toro is excellent as Che, a part he seems born to play.<br /><br />Personally, I felt that The Argentine (ie part one) was much easier to watch and more 'entertaining' in the strictly movie sense, because it is upbeat. They are winning; the Revolution will succeed. Che is in his element leading a disparate band of peasants, workers and intellectuals in the revolutionary cause. The second part is much harder to watch because of the inevitability of his defeat. In much the same way that the recent Valkyrie - while being a good movie - was an exercise in witnessing heroic failure, so I felt the same about part two of Che (Guerilla). We know at the outset that he dies, we know he fails. It is frustrating because the way the story is told, it is obvious fairly early on that the fomentation of revolution in Bolivia is doomed; Che is regarded as a foreign intruder and fails to connect with the indigenous peoples in the way that he did with the Cubans. He doggedly persists which is frustrating to watch because I felt that he should have known when to give up and move on to other, perhaps more successful, enterprises. The movie does not romanticise him too much. He kills people, he executes, he struggles with his asthma and follows a lost cause long after he should have given up and moved on, he leaves a wife alone to bring up five fatherless children.<br /><br />But overall, an excellent exercise in classic movie making. One note; as I watched the US trained Bolivian soldiers move in en masse to pick off Che and his small band of warriors one by one, it reminded me of the finale to Butch Cassidy. I almost turned to my husband and said so, but hesitated, thinking he would find such thoughts trite and out of place. As we left the theatre he turned to me and said "Didn't you think the end was like Butch Cassidy………………!"

Oh dear me! Rarely has a "horror" film bored me, or made me laugh, as much as this one. After a spirited start with an intriguing premise, it descends into not much more than a slasher flick, with some supernatural and sexual asides. The usually excellent Alice Krige is wasted in this one, and the plot twists are ludicrous. Don't bother unless you're really desperate. Rating: 3/10.

The plot doesn't begin to describe the film: a man is writing a film, or rather, *this* film. It's totally self referential to the point that you think it's going to fold in on itself like a black hole. The writer writes something and it happens, or something happens and he writes about it.<br /><br />It's very philosophical, like "Waking Life" but more Zen oriented and for that matter, much better, in my opinion. At one point there are person-on-the-street interviews and then you see shots of these people being filmed, and then you discover that their responses are scripted when one keeps flubbing her lines. There is beautiful scenery and optical illusions.<br /><br />I hope it comes out on DVD so I can watch it again more carefully. Seen at Cinequest (the San Jose, CA film festival) on 2/25/2002.

These slasher pics are past their sell by date, but this one is good fun.<br /><br />The valentine cards themselves are witty, and well thought out.<br /><br />The film has one Peach of a line... "He's no Angel...." when he in fact IS Angel!!! Watching Buffy reruns will never be the same!<br /><br />The cast is a sizzling display of young talent, but the story does not give them enough real depth. Denise Richards on the DVD extras seemed to think the girls on set bonded well together and this would give the feeling that you empathised with their characters. Sorry but NO!<br /><br />The direction is very good, managing to show very little actual gore, and relying on your imaginations implied threat. Much can be said also for the similar manner in which Miss Richards and Heigel do not remove their clothes...:-(<br /><br />Essentially, the main directorial plus, lies within the "borrowing" of various other ideas from previous slasher flicks. Psycho's shower scene is tributed, along with Halloween's "masking". <br /><br />Murdering someone hiding in a bodybag though is a pretty original one as far as I know!!!<br /><br />Light viewing, not very scary but a few good jump moments. If it was a choice between The Hole and this though, choose The Hole. Slasher movies have had their day, and this is just another slasher. A very good slasher, but nothing groundbreaking!!!

There's really not much need to begin this little review with a plot synopsis. I mean it's Shakespeare's Hamlet for goodness sake – probably one of the best known plays ever written. I'm not embarrassed to admit that I came to this version of Hamlet the way most people on IMDb have – through Mystery Science Theater 3000. While the show may not be the best venue to use to judge a movie, in this case I cannot imagine attempting to watch it without the comedic quips. In a word, this German, made-for-TV version of Hamlet is dreary. 152 minutes? No way! It's too dark and depressing to be anything I want to spend almost three hours on. I've said it any number of times, but entertainment is the thing for me. And this wrist-slitter is far from entertaining. I will, however, give it a couple of points for what I felt was some reasonably good acting. A 3/10 sounds about right to me.<br /><br />As much as I enjoy MST3K, their comments don't help to make Hamlet any more palatable. There are a few good riffs here and there, but overall, Hamlet is just the wrong movie for MST3K. Shakespeare is far too talky to allow the comedy to have any sort of rhythm or flow. As much as it pains me, I've got to give Hamlet a 1/5 on my MST3K rating scale.

Three writers made a valiant attempt to adapt Jane Stanton Hitchcock's novel for the tube, yet this television movie has ultimately been injected with too much melodrama and just doesn't know when to quit. Struggling artist Meg Tilly suddenly finds herself employed by wealthy, enigmatic Ellen Burstyn, who desires a mural painted on the walls of her unused ballroom. After learning about the last gathering held there--Ellen's daughter's coming-out party--Tilly decides on her artistic theme, never dreaming the daughter died mysteriously before the function even began, nor that she and the deceased bore a striking resemblance to one another! Two superb actresses lend their services to an incredible yarn which doesn't bear close scrutiny, one that fails to match either lady in emotional intensity. Burstyn's role teeters on camp, while Tilly gets stuck doing the dreamy-eyed-waif routine. Only one sequence late in the film (the morning after the mural is finished) is charged with honest feeling, anger and betrayal. The rest is piffle.

You know a movie is bad when the highlight of it is being able to see a brief moment of "Jeopardy!".<br /><br />The saddest thing about White Men Can't Jump is that it had tremendous potential. For several years, I lived in area quite like that portrayed in this film; racial tensions were high, and basketball meant everything to everyone. A film about the members of this "basketball culture" could have been very interesting, but the mediocre acting and poor script in White Men Can't Job left something to be desired.<br /><br />The movie's sequence of events is cyclical. First, Billy either wins or loses money by playing a game of basketball. He then returns to his home and lounges around with his girlfriend; and the process is repeated. Most stories build up to a climax of some kind, but the "climax" I saw was just another sequence in this repetition (this case being "Billy either wins or loses money by playing a game of basketball").<br /><br />In order for a plot to develop, some dilemma must be resolved; and this dilemma must be interesting if the film is going to be interesting as well. Apparently the writers of White Men Can't Jump forgot this rule, as the plot can be summarized as "Billy needs to pay the bills." I appreciated the change of pace from other formulaic sports movies, but -- I'm sorry -- this was just plain awful. I could have cared less if Billy got the money to pay the rent for his apartment.<br /><br />Despite all this, White Men Can't Jump is a successful film. Apparently some adamant sports fans will dismiss terrible writing for a few scenes with a basketball in them. Others, I'm sure, were lured by the big names playing the leading roles. This leaves me to wonder, if the cast was replaced entirely with previously unknown actors, and the basketball theme was replaced with lacrosse, would anyone have bothered watching this movie? I really don't think so.<br /><br />I'll give this movie two stars out of ten; the extra star is for the "Jeopardy!" scene, which kept me awake for a few minutes. Thanks, Trebek.

Ridiculous-looking little boogers that spawn foam and reproduce themselves. So far for the horror-elements this movie has. All the rest of MUNCHIES plays out like a really retarded comedy that's so stupid you won't find it funny anymore after about 15 minutes. I can imagine little kids cheering for these little boogers, but adults will be left with only those supposedly "smart" references translating to on-screen stuff like Capt. Kirk's log entries from STAR TREK, the most well-known scene from E.T., a blatant statement from the filmmakers going "Look! We're cashing in on GREMLINS' success here!" and a cardboard cut-out of Clint Eastwood telling us... what about his western movies exactly? That last one was totally lost on me... Oh yes, and chemical waste disposal in caves seems to be a bad thing. Don't know where they got that idea from.<br /><br />Not to say that MUNCHIES is the most insufferable film to sit through, for that matter. It's just really, really dumb. And if you manage to crack a smile while watching it, you'll probably feel as dumb yourself for having done that after the film's finished.<br /><br />Good Badness? Yes, but only if "dumb", "retarded" & "ridiculous" are criteria you're looking for. 3/10 and, well, uhm, 6/10.

A call-girl witnesses a murder and becomes the killer's next target. Director Brian De Palma is really on a pretentious roll here: his camera swoops around corners in a museum (after lingering a long time over a painting of an ape), divvies up into split screen for arty purposes, practically gives away his plot with a sequence (again in split screen) where two characters are both watching a TV program about transsexuals, and stages his (first) finale during a thunderous rainstorm. "Dressed To Kill" is exhausting, primarily because it asks us to swallow so much and gives back nothing substantial. Much of the acting (with the exception of young Keith Gordon) is mediocre and the (second) finale is a rip-off of De Palma's own "Carrie"--not to mention "Psycho". The explanation of the dirty deeds plays like a spoof of Hitchcock, not an homage. Stylish in a steely cold way, the end results are distinctly half-baked. ** from ****

All I can say about the Necromaniac/Schizophreniac 2 series is... if you are even remotely "PC" or don't have a seriously messed up sense of humor, then you probably wont get it. As sick and disgusting as this movie is, it really is a comedy and not a "horror" movie at all. If you can appreciate somebody who pushes the bounds of good taste and political correctness to the most extreme limits imaginable, to the point where is becomes so out of hand that it's comical, then you must see this to believe it. This movie is so out of control that a major film studio couldn't touch this with a 10 foot pole (with a condom on the end). In my opinion though, the best, most extreme pieces of art come from way underground. If you don't stick to the same old formula that people are used to seeing, then they reject it.<br /><br />I have seen stacks of terrible, boring, z-grade, Indy movies that were just a waste of a perfectly good VHS tape or DVD-R. I have also seen stacks of stink bombs coming from the big named studios that were a complete waste of millions of dollars. When a NO BUDGET film like these two from Ron Atkins/John Giancaspro come out and blow all of the other "shock" films completely out of the water, you really have to take a second look at the whole Indy movie scene. After seeing this, you can really see how much freedom an Indy film maker can have when they work on their own.<br /><br />The funny thing is, even the other people who saw this movie and "hated it" admit to the fact that they laughed all the way through it. I don't think that is is possible for anybody to get bored watching either of these two. So if don't take everything that you seen in the mainstream media too seriously, and are able to laugh at a misanthropic, puppet wielding psychopath who has finally snapped, YOU HAVE TO SEE THIS. You may just be able to see it for the stand alone, cult classic that it is. Both Schizophreniac / Schizophreniac 2 are among the favorites in my collection of well over 1000 dvds.

I felt that the movie was dry... very disappointing no plot..kept waited for something to happened and nothing did dry as a bone.. a wast of money.. One of Robins Williams worst films..if you don't believe me wait a few months it will be out on DVD because that seems to be a pattern for movies that don't do well in the theaters are out as rentals before the year is over... This is one you will not want to see or say why did I spend my money on that!. Plus for it being such a new movie there were only 8 people in the watching it.... This was on a Friday night the 9:50 showing. I also felt that it needed some more excitement or something to keep us awake. When they characters spoke in the movie the voices were also very low you could not hear what they were saying..

OLIVER TWIST was to have controversy as well as success following it after Dickens published it in 1837. His picture of life in the urban ghettos was something shocking and new, and his making the central figures of the novel include criminals was another innovation.<br /><br />One day he was walking in London and passed a young woman he had been friendly with. He said hello, but she was rather stiff with him. He could not understand this. A few days later they met again, and he asked what he had done to upset her. "Well, if you must know, I did not like your last novel.", she said. "Really, everyone else thinks highly of it." He was puzzled: "What's wrong with it?" "Oh, Charles," she said, "I'm Jewish. How could you make up such a character like Fagin?!" He had not expected this: "Well...you know that trial last year of Ikey Solomon, the thief trainer. He's a model for Fagin and he was Jewish." <br /><br />Dickens found that did not settle things. "Yes," she replied, "He got what he deserved. But Charles, they did not call him "Solomon the Jew" like you call Fagin "the Jew"! Moreover, Solomon did not plan a murder. Fagin does." Dickens had to admit that he might have gotten carried away. He left thinking about what she said.<br /><br />Oliver Twist was published in several editions. Dickens tried to improve on Fagin a bit. Then he got an idea. He reworked the chapter called "Fagin's Last Night Alive", showing the fears in the man as he faced hanging. He also added some additional details. <br /><br />He let his female friend know about his resolve to change Fagin. A day or so later he met her at a friend's house. She looked at him as though he was crazy. "Didn't you like the changes?", he asked. "Charles, what changes - he's still a vile villain called "the Jew"!", she replied. "Yes, I did keep those in, but didn't you see how frightened he was in the death cell in prison." The young woman had noticed this, but felt that he was so vile he deserved to be suffering such fears. "Ah...then I was right about that...and did you see the little details I added?", he asked. "What details?", she replied. "When you first see Fagin now he is cooking himself dinner...you read that?", Dickens looked at her expecting a sign of recognition. Instead the lady looked confused. "I read he was at the fireplace, but I must have skimmed the passage." Dickens smiled as though he was brilliant, "He is cooking a pork sausage for his dinner." "A what!"she exclaimed. "He's eating pork, my dear...see - he's not a good Jew!" His friend looked at him, shook her head, and to his dismay left their friend's house. She didn't speak to him for years.<br /><br />Dickens never totally shook off his own bigotries, but the situation did lead to a partial attempt at amends in his last completed novel. In OUR MUTUAL FRIEND (1865) he has a minor character, Mr. Riah, who is used by an unscrupulous landlord to collect high rents from poor tenants. The landlord figures that Mr. Riah will be blamed because he is Jewish.<br /><br />But Mr. Riah is a good man. He is a very good man. He is a very, very, very, very good man - so good as to be unbelievable. If Fagin saw Mr. Riah in action he'd probably chase him away with a stick.<br /><br />The anti-Semitic image of Fagin lingers to this day. It is a measure of Dickens' genius as a writer that the novel overcomes it. However, in presenting the story on film it still causes problems for screenplay writers and directors: how, after the Holocaust, can one do a film treatment of a worthy novel without inflaming bigotry? David Lean showed how by having Alec Guiness appear in one or two scenes showing a human side and in confronting a mob at the end with true dignity. Sir Carol Reed, in his musical version of the novel did it better yet, due to a rewrite in the original musical's script.<br /><br />OLIVER had been made into a West End musical hit in the middle 1960s, and then taken to Broadway where it was again a hit. With a wonderful score by Lionel Bart, including "Food Glorious Food", "I Am Reviewing the Situation", "Consider Yourself", "Boy For Sale", "Who Will Buy", "As Long As He Needs Me", it deserved it's success. Reed did well in his casting the roles, including his nephew Oliver Reed as Sykes, Ron Moody as Fagin, Mark Lester as Oliver, Jack Wild as the Dodger, Shani Wallis as Nancy, and Harry Secombe as Mr. Bumble. There had been no big musical successes in Hollywood for a decade - the last musical to win the Best Picture Oscar had been GIGI in 1958. OLIVER won it in 1968.<br /><br />And Fagin - how to handle the eternal problem of the caricature? Well in the musical Fagin is not captured, tried and executed for the murder that is committed. After all, even Lean showed Fagin tried to control his confederate in his actions. But here Fagin realizes that he is getting too old to depend on this kind of chancy life. Although he loses his treasures (those stolen items he kept because he knew their value, and admired their beauty), he decides he can reform. He is allowed to do so, accompanied by his faithful acolyte, the Artful Dodger. I don't think Dickens would have appreciated the change (his female friend might have), but a modern audience certainly accepts it as fitting.

Well, what's to say. THE GOLDEN CHILD falls in the category "so bad, it's good". Eddie Murphy is having some funny (and sometimes quite annoying lines), but you are still entertained. Chales Dance has never been worse than his role as the villain Sardo Numspa (what a f***ed up name is this??).<br /><br />Who should watch THE GOLDEN CHILD... hm... difficult to say, but my best guess would be people who likes embarrassing movies and can be entertained by bad acting, bad plot and an even more embarrassing dialog.<br /><br />4 out of 10

The Marriage of Maria Braun (MMB) is about a German girl (Maria) getting married to a German soldier (Herman Braun) just at the ending of the war. After being married for half a day and a night, Herman is send to the front again. To make ends meet, Maria starts working at a bar for mainly American soldiers and get to know a black soldier. She got word that Herman died at the front, and things develop between her and the American soldier. Herman walks in on them, in bed, and after a confrontation between him and the American, Maria killed the American. Herman admits to the murder, ends up in jail and Maria vows to wait for him. The country is in shambles; one sees people leaving everything that they are busy with for a cigarette. There are food shortages. It is in short, a time of survival of the fittest. <br /><br />Basically this film projects Maria's attitudes - those attitudes she permits herself under the mentioned circumstances, as a metaphor for Germany's loss of soul after they lost the war, and how it proceeds to rebuild itself. For example, Maria has the following conversation with a peddler (played by Fassbinder himself); the peddler tries to sell her an excellent copy of Kleist and she remarks that "Kleist burns out to quickly, it does not provide enough heat for the cold". The peddler answers "That's another way to look at it. Right now, it's probably the correct way". <br /><br />Maria meets a French/German business man, Karl Oswald after she bargains her way into the first class train compartment. She decides to get involve with Karl, "You're not having an affair with me; I'm having an affair with you". She also takes responsibility in the company, and after a while has the complete trust of the firm. When Karl says "I suppose we'll just have to wait for a miracle" she replies "I prefer making miracles – then wait for them". In her own words, she has become the "Mata Hari of the economic miracle".<br /><br />In a lot of Fassbinder's films he tried to expose the psychological processes which lie behind social mechanisms (see Freud); in other words, he liked pointing his camera at the bullsh*t, the false social mechanisms, the pretending. The direct approach Maria takes in this film is successful to convey this ideology. For example, she phones Karl and when he picks up the phone her request is straight to the point "I need someone to sleep with". As Fassbinder said "the emotions people felt did not exist at all and were only a kind of sentimentality which we thought we needed to be properly functioning members of society". He also remarked that his films are anti emotional. <br /><br />I particularly liked the scene when Karl and Maria meet in the Munich restaurant (apparently, frequently visited by Hitler himself). Maria appears in control and Karl a bit on the down side, as if Maria's 'brutal honesty' wears him out, as if he is not completely up to the situation anymore. Karl says "I have to tell myself over and over that I love life". Maria replies "That's life isn't it. As if we signed a contract to enjoy life. And then we go out to eat and talk about food". I guess this is also about Fassbinder attitudes on relationships, to never submit completely to anyone. And why would you, if the central matter of most of his films is about "What love becomes in this society – a commodity, an instrument of power, a weapon."<br /><br />It was remarked that it is typical Fassbinder to have the scenes with Maria and Betti walking in expensive dresses in the ruins after the war - with these clothing essentially the wrong period. What I think he wanted to portray here were those attitudes, when you feel bad, that "you can always put on your make up and face the day looking great". But, Fassbinder was not interested in perfection. Any mistakes made in a film could just be corrected in the next project. Since he completed films (approximately 4 a year) the way other people rolled cigarettes, it is not peculiar that this film has some very bad scenes. Peter Marthesheimer, who wrote most of the script, mentioned that Fassbinder likely dreamed up the whole scene with Maria and the American in the park, overnight. <br /><br />Hanna Schygulla is brilliant as Maria. Mostly, she just stares bluntly into the camera. In Maria's own words "It is a bad time for emotions. But, I like it like that". <br /><br />There are different opinions about the end. After Karl died of a hart attack, Herman finally shows up. (Herman left for Australia after he got out of prison, to "become human again".) After the testament is delivered (made out to her and Herman in half), Maria forgets to close the gas on the stove when she lights her cigarette, and blow her and Herman up. For me it is obvious that she just did that by accident. At the same time, she must have been rattled when her dreams finally seem about to come true. She must have felt as if she was not herself anymore. She felt as if she had outlived herself.

In addition to being an extremely fun movie, may I add that the costumes and scenery were wonderful. This kind, fun loving woman had a great deal of money. Unfortunately, she also had two greedy daughters who were anxious to get their hands on her money. This woman was lonely since the death of her husband. He had proposed to her in a theater that was going to be torn down. To prevent that, she bought it. Her daughters were afraid she was throwing away "their" money and decided to take action. The character actors in this film were a great plus also. I would give almost anything to have a copy of this film in my video library, but as of yet, it's never been released. Sad.

I was drawn to this movie, curious to see how they have adapted Hubert Shelby's brutal novel. I thought that a literary piece of such depth, with a rich tapestry of characters, horrid situations, and social critique could not translate into a bad movie. I was wrong.<br /><br />This flick is a terrible movie experience, not for its content, but for its form. Director Ulrich Edel executes, in my sincere opinion, a terrible directorial job that does no justice to the original book. No wonder Edel is a TV director; this movie looks and feels like a bad "made for TV" flick. Some of my views on this bomb (**spoilers ahead**):<br /><br />- Lack of directorial creativity. The scenes are slow, feel slow, look poorly shot, and barely ever move from an anchored position. The only liberty they take is in the cinematography area, with a nice dark tone. Other than that, the movie has the same technical creativity as a TV soap-opera.<br /><br />- All the actors do a terrific job at portraying these miserable characters. The problem is that the adaptation does not tackle a basic element in the development of the plot: MOTIVATION. All these characters move around like robots, without a clear motivation for their action. They seem to do things out of the blue, like robots, for no reason at all. Edel misses every opportunity to enrich character development by not exploring the character's motivations, and by avoiding developing each character's personality to its full extent.<br /><br />This lack of character development is blatant on Tralala. Jennifer Jason Leight does a great job playing this trashy prostitute, but her alcohol-induced decision to let the sailors violate her is not explained. It looks extremely stupid, as we see this character doing this out of the blue. This is a clear example of poor character development.<br /><br />The movie also has many secondary, token characters that do nothing, feel nothing, and add nothing to the plot. I would have liked to learn more about Harry's wife, for instance, and the interaction between the two. That's another missed opportunity.<br /><br />Edel only approaches character development with Harry and his fixation with his gay lover, only to screw it up at the end, not clearly explaining -again- his motivations. The thugs are also a joke in their lack of development.<br /><br />- The soundtrack is one of the worst I've ever experienced. Terrible job by Mark Knopfler. I seriously expected more from the former leader of Dire Straits, but his job in this movie is seriously lacking. At times, like in the battle between the union workers and the police, the music seems totally disconnected from the movie. It also feels completely poor and anachronic; I could swear the whole soundtrack was made with a Casio toy keyboard. It distracts from the actual action.<br /><br />- The book adaptation by Desmond Nakano is so literal that eliminates the point of the story. It feels as if they tried so hard to keep the action-by-action storyline in the book, that they forgot to actually develop the characters and, once again, explain their actions and motivations.<br /><br />I seriously can not recommend this movie, not even to a Shelby fan, because it can ruin the original book. It's a very uninspired effort in adapting the novel, and shows very little creative input.

By the late forties the era of the screwball comedy was over, as films were moving in a different direction, comedically and otherwise. With television looming on the horizon, Hollywood would soon be in for a very rough time. Where, one wonders, would movies have gone had television not come along, or its arrival on the scene been delayed by five or ten years? Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House offers one particular way comedy might have developed.<br /><br />Ad man Jim Blandings, along with his wife and two daughters, are living in a nice but way too cramped New York City apartment, as one day he gets the bright idea that it might be fun to realize his dream of building a house in the suburbs. So he buys some property in Connecticut and has one built to his precise specifications. Well, almost. Had he known the trouble he was in for he might have changed his mind. Then again he might not have. You decide. On this frail premise a wonderful film results, full of conflict between the middle class dream of owning one's own home and the the oftentimes unpleasant reality of acquiring one. Nothing comes easy in this life, as Mr. Blandings learns; but one needn't be miserable just because things don't always go one's way. There is, after all, the long run. But, Blandings asks himself every few minutes, how long is long?<br /><br />This movie is a delight. It is not, I suppose, a masterpiece in the Capra-McCarey tradition, but it is a worthy successor to their thirties pictures, and may well have been a harbinger of things to come had the arrival of television not changed the cultural landscape so radically. There is real warmth in the picture, and a good deal of (W.C.) Fieldsian hard-edged reality obtruding periodically, but not so much as to leave a bad taste. The people in the film are all very smart and affluent, but decidedly of the professional upper middle not the idle rich upper class.<br /><br />Lead players Cary Grant and Myrna Loy plays Mr. and Mrs. Blandings to perfection; while Melvyn Douglas is fine as their pragmatic lawyer friend, who often has to bring up unpleasant topics, such as how the real world works. There is, too, a wonderful sense of what for want of a better term one might call the romance of suburbia, which was in its infancy in the immediate postwar years, as one sees the woods and streams that drew people to the country in the first place. These people are most definitely fish out of water in the then still largely rural Connecticut. In a few short years things would change, as the mad rush to suburbia would be in full gear, destroying forever the pastoral innocence so many had yearned for in the small towns, which soon would be connected by highways, littered with bottles and cans, their effluvia rivaling anything one would encounter in the city.

I first saw Jake Gyllenhaal in Jarhead (2005) a little while back and, since then, I've been watching every one of his movies that arrives on my radar screen. Like Clive Owen, he has an intensity (and he even resembles Owen somewhat) that just oozes from the screen. I feel sure that, if he lands some meaty roles, he'll crack an Oscar one day...<br /><br />That's not to denigrate this film at all.<br /><br />It's a fine story, with very believable people (well, it's based upon the author's early shenanigans with rocketry), a great cast – Chris Cooper is always good, and Laura Dern is always on my watch list – with the appropriate mix of humor, pathos, excitement...and the great sound track with so many rock n roll oldies to get the feet tapping.<br /><br />But, this film had a very special significance for me: in 1957, I was the same age as Homer Hickham; like him, I looked up at the night stars to watch Sputnik as it scudded across the blackness; like Homer also, I experimented with rocketry in my backyard and used even the exact same chemicals for fuel; and like Homer, I also had most of my attempts end in explosive disaster! What fun it was...<br /><br />I didn't achieve his great (metaphorical and physical) heights though. But, that's what you find out when you see this movie.<br /><br />Sure, it's a basic family movie, but that's a dying breed these days, it seems. Take the time to see it, with the kids: you'll all have a lot of good laughs.

His choice of films, the basic 'conceit' of the production (which places him in the sets or simulacra of the films he is commenting on ) and his delivery are brilliant! But if you want Freud, be aware that you're getting Zizek's version of Lacan, which should not be confused with Lacan himself. As usual, Zizek delivers complex ideas with gusto and in a convincing manner. The rub is he is also quite mercurial and so there may be more in his gusto than in actual content. Cinematically, it is a gem. Psychologically, this will have people of all persuasions (Freudians, Lacanians and Jungians) scratching their heads but reaching for the popcorn all the same. Zizek is a phenomenon and pop icon unto himself.

This show is not clever. That's basically what it boils down to. The "original humor" that these writers try to pull off to avoid completely biting off the rest of the worlds bush bashing is just unfunny. In another comment, someone quotes a couple hilarious lines. The standout for me was George H.W. Bush telling the kids they're not supposed to watch any TV besides Fox News. Wow. I thought the episodes I saw were bad. The fact that this line is a high point for the series is pathetic.<br /><br />My problem with drivel like this sad excuse for political satire is that these folks are getting a second season. I'm a liberal republican and I know Bush hasn't been a good president. We all do. But that's no excuse for putting out this utterly poopie waste of time. I place these writers on the same level as the geniuses behind 'Meet the Spartans'. Their formula, bite off as many already unfunny topical jokes as you can and throw in even worse original material to actually be able to give yourself writing credit.<br /><br />Again, just plain bad. Unfunny, and it just makes me more and more unhappy that crap like this is renewed, but amazing and original shows like Arrested Development are canned after 3 solid seasons. Please don't watch this crap, unless you're one of those green blooded liberal hippies who think any sentence with the words Bush and dumb is comedic gold. <br /><br />Oh, and the voice of Bush sucks. All he does is slightly emulate a Texan accent, and exhale really hard at the end of his sentences. At least South Park admits the voices aren't accurate. If you want funny political satire, watch Daily Show/Colbert. Or look for any political sketches on Robot Chicken, which is fun to watch, since the stop motion action figure animation is EXTREMELY well done. Look for the George Bush as a Jedi bit on youtube. Priceless

This drama is unlike Sex and the City, where the women have a few drinks and share their sexual encounters with each other. Its much more personal and people can relate to it. Its much more engaging and emotional on a new level than other dramas focusing on women and their lives like "Sex and the City, Lipstick Jungle...." <br /><br />Dr. Katie Roden, is a psychologist with a dark secret, she seems much more depressed and guilt ridden than the rest of her 3 friends. She is dealing with the death of her former lover who was her patient while tackling his son's advances on her. Her sombre clothes and empty and cold house convey her inside emotions very well. <br /><br />Trudi Malloy, a widow is battling issues with "letting go" of her dead husband from 9/11. And when a handsome stranger, Richard shows an interest in her she is suddenly forced to do a reality check by her friends who suggest that she gets back into dating business. The ridiculous and embarrassing courting scenes between Richard and Trudi are totally funny! It is interesting to note that Richard asks her out the day she gets a millions from the 9/11 board for her husband's death..lets see what his intentions are <br /><br />Siobhan Dillon, a lawyer is fed up of her husband's love making tactics which only involve "baby making" (as they are having trouble conceiving) and she quickly falls for her colleague who offer his "services" a little too willingly to her and she does not hesitate for long!It will interesting to see whether she will continue her affair or patch up with her husband (played by Raza Jeffrey) Jessica, a real estate business woman is single and is straight, until she organizes a lesbian wedding and has an affair with one of them. Her character is shown as a bold and provocative woman who before her lesbian encounter is having sex with a "married man", her colleague. Lets see where her character venture to....<br /><br />The beauty of this drama is that we are shown 4 totally different women with different scenarios, whose ambitions and inhibitions are shown. Its also a good thing that the drama reveals the fact that sometimes friends lie to each other to be "safe"!

Whatever his name is (the writer and director) should be locked away in hopes garbage like this is never made again. This one is in a battle with some of the most awful movies of all time. Sometimes movies are bad in a way that they're actually sort of good. Not this one. This was so bad I got angry. Seriously. A drunken 10 year old could have come up with a better script. What a waste. ALL the actors were completely uninspired to work at all, the CGI was barely acceptable, the sequences of scenes were completely retarded and hurt the little bit of story there was, it's like he just decided, "I want this to happen and this to happen, but I don't care how we got there, just shoot it and put it in. Whatever, I'm going back to my trailer to pick my nose, if anyone calls for me, I'm not here." Shame on you whatever your name is. Shame on you.

The acting was horrendous as well as the screenplay. It was poorly put together and made you almost want to laugh at the several terribly acted out murder scenes. The ending was even worse. Everyone kept dying, but somehow the ending made it look like everything was perfectly OK! They did not give enough history about the obsession the teacher had, etc. The movie needed more time to perhaps develop a better storyline. The only reason I give this 3/10 is that I kind of feel bad for the young actors. They needed better coaching. They could have really made this an OK film, but the screenplay and acting failed miserably.

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.

As with a bunch of guys at school we must give this a thumbs up. Even the Grim Ripper made us smile. Those two alien things made me laugh, Bill and Ted were the stupidest yet the funnest in the entire movie. This is a lot better than the first one. And yet for some reason I feel that it misses something. Something big. Something important. Made a better house and girlfriends. No, I'd say better villains. Use clones instead of robots.I gave this a 7 out of 10 because of those two robotic doinks.<br /><br />The Grim Ripper, don't be scared he's not the deathy kind, is funny. When he fell from the sky I split a gut. Splat, I'm not sure about those aliens. What where they? Scientists? No way.

I admired Rob Marshall for Chicago, but Memoirs of Geisha turns out to be yet another failure of combing western and Asian arts. Overall, the scene is beautiful, but after restless emphasis on exoticism-oriented scenes some might just find himself fed up with them. The excessive cherry blossom was, frankly, overdone. It's probably the cultural difference of perception here: the ultimate beauty is not the showy type, as truly beautiful geisha would not be the over westernised pumpkin in the movie. <br /><br />Some other comments have rightly mentioned the biggest flaws. As a Taiwanese, I have no doubt the actress are great. An actor/actress can play any kind of role when he/she can look like it. Gong Li is great, but the power of emotions that she showed in this movie had not been translated into Japanese style. All I saw was a bittersweet and jealous Chinese WOMAN. Michlle Yeoh, one of my favourtie actress, did not even LOOK LIKE a Japanese. Some comment has mentioned the peculiar delicate, feminine characteristics of Japanese women, with which I can't agree more. These are so delicate that I assume not even all modern Japanese actresses are eligible for the roles in Geisha, let alone the two Chinese and one Malaysian actress who grew up in different cultures and probably did not know Japanese culture that much.<br /><br />Geisha is a good shot for arousing the curiosity of American audiences. But it would be an insult for the movie itself and for art alike if the movie wins the Oscar for best costume, best director or best picture.

Solid comedy entertainment, with musical interludes, it generates a fast pace that carries proceedings along in zestful tempo through a maze of humorous and chiller complications. Boris Karloff, Bela Lugosi and Peter Lorre form a strong setup of sinister villainy. The script contains all the standard mystery film props-sliding panels, secret passageways, thunder and lightning and poisoned blow-darts. Karloff, Lugosi and Lorre go in for heavy leers and obvious melodramatics of the gaslit era. Kay Kyser and his band offered great entertainment for the people living in the 1940's who were trying to forget about the horror's of World War II.

This is just plain bad. Sometimes remakes, even if they stray from the original, are good on their own. They can bring another viewpoint and achieve a certain interpretation that makes them unique and enjoyable. This was as poorly thought out and carried out as can be. This wasn't any good even standing on it's own. Viggo Mortenson is a top-notch actor, but some of his selections of roles and projects leaves something to be desired. The original "Vanishing Point" was such a thrilling, psychological adventure; this is not an adventure at all, and is not enjoyable or entertaining whatsoever. This was made from a by-the-numbers approach to film-making, stuffing in plot points that someone in Hollywood believes will please what they see as today's film-going audience. Basically, they see us as a bunch of idiots. It's insulting that someone will put this out as a feature film, and even attempt to remake a cult classic this sloppily. The manipulative plot devices, the "make-it-obvious-so-they-don't-miss-the-point" aspects, ridiculous dialogue, stereotyped characters, amateurish direction...<br /><br />This is plain bad....

Well, maybe not immediately before the Rodney King riots, but even a few months before was timely enough. My parents said that they saw it and the next thing you know, the police got acquitted and LA got burned to the ground. It just goes to show the state of race relations in America. The plot has white Mack (Kevin Kline) and African-American Simon (Danny Glover) becoming friends after Simon saves Mack's life in the black ghetto. Meanwhile, movie producer Davis (Steve Martin in a serious role) thinks that gratuitous violence is really cool...until he gets shot. There's also some existentialism in the movie: Mack and his family come to realize that they aren't living as they really want.<br /><br />It seems that "Crash" has somewhat renewed people's interest in race relations, but this one came out much earlier. Maybe we'll never be able to have stable race relations in this country. But either way, "Grand Canyon" is a great movie. It affirms Kevin Kline as my favorite actor. Also starring Mary McDonnell, Mary-Louise Parker and Alfre Woodard.

Well, if it weren't for Ethel Waters and a 7-year-old Sammy Davis, Jr. (here billed without the Jr.), Rufus Jones for President would be one of the worst representations of African-American stereotypes I've seen from the early talkie era and wouldn't have been worth seeing because of that. Ms. Waters is excellent here singing "Am I Blue?" and "Underneath Our Harlem Moon" while Mr. Davis shows us how his childhood experience in showbiz prepared him for his superstar status as an adult. He's so good tap-dancing here that for awhile I thought he was a little person with decades of experience. So if you're willing to ignore the negative connotations here, Rufus Jones for President should provide some good enjoyment. P.S. This marks the fourth time today I've seen and heard the song, "I'll Be Glad When You're Dead You Rascal You" performed on film, this time by Davis. Must have been a very popular song about this time.

The first time I ever saw this movie was back in the 1980s as a wee lad. My dad actually recorded it off the TV. I must have watched is over 20 times, before the relatively recent release on DVD.<br /><br />I of course bought and watched the DVD and was taken aback by how much the dialogue had changed. In the first version, which I still have on VHS, the mood of the film, thanks to the dialogue, was actually very dark. However the new version, featuring Van Der Beek et al, is more comic.<br /><br />To put it another way, it's like watching the original US release of Akira with that dub, before watching the remastered version with the literal translation of the Japanese.<br /><br />I'm in no way complaining, the story and quality of animation are not detracted from, but it does raise the question of whether Miyazaki intended for a lighter or darker narrative and theme in his film.....

I noticed this movie was getting trashed well before it hit the theaters and I too didn't have high hopes for it. I figured it was another "You Got Served" type of movie with some nice dance moves and horrid acting. I was at the theater and deciding between this and Meet the Spartans and picked this. To my surprise the acting wasn't bad at all and the movie was actually pretty good. The fact that it has a lower rating than You Got Served is absolutely ridiculous. Instead of listening to the garbage posted on here I recommend going to see a matinée showing of this movie so you don't spend too much. I think you will be pleasantly surprised with how wrong everyone has been about it. When it comes to dance movies this is certainly one of the better ones with far superior acting than many of the other ones. Go see the movie and judge for yourself. Hopefully the rating will rise after it comes out on DVD and more people check the movie out instead of judging it based on comments before the movie released.<br /><br />edit The movie is now moving closer to its correct rating. Over 1000 people have given it a rating of 9, a bit too high but at least it is helping to offset the ridiculous votes of 1.

One of the major flaws in this film is that while the mocking of pretentious yuppies is satisfying, it fails to realize that the movie makers themselves are guilty of being one of those that deserve to be mocked. One of the characteristics of these yuppie types is the conceited misunderstanding that they (the yuppies) are the only ones sophisticated enough to understand art. While the movie ignores this characteristic and instead focuses on their misunderstandings of dinning, I find it ironic that only people who enjoy this movie boast the same conceited taste in films as the characters do in their choice of dinner. If these pompous characters that were in this movie have a video library at home, I would bet that American Psycho would be one of those movies.

This Charles outing is decent but this is a pretty low-key performance. Marlon Brando stands out. There's a subplot with Mira Sorvino and Donald Sutherland that forgets to develop and it hurts the film a little. I'm still trying to figure out why Charlie want to change his name. Every movie with "Charles" has been pretty bad.

This film was a critical and box-office fiasco back in 1957. It was based on a novel which was later turned into a play--which flopped on Broadway. The story is about some navy officers on leave in San Francisco during WWII. They have 4 day's leave which they spend at the Mark Hopkins hotel. The film meanders a lot and none of the characters seem very real. Cary Grant is generally brilliant in comedy and drama--but here he plays a sort of wheeler dealer and he doesn't really pull it off. Tony Curtis or James Garner would have been better choices. Audrey Hepburn was initially set to play opposite Grant, but had other commitments--so Suzy parker stepped in. She had never acted before, but was America's top photographic model at the time. I think that she did a good job, considering all the pressure that she was under. Grant's pairing with Jayne Mansfield in a few brief scenes--did not really work. The Studio was trying to give her some class by acting with Grant--but the character had no substance at all.

Without Peter Ustinov and Maggie Smith, this could easily have been a turkey. But they are brilliant. Ustinov is at his best, and for fans of Maggie, it is great to see her in her early days, matching Ustinov every step of the way for with and timing. For Englishmen in their fifties (and I am in that bracket), it is always entertaining to see glimpses of and hear sounds of the Swinging Sixties, and although this film spends a lot of time in offices, it has plenty of Sixties nostalgia, including red buses, Carnaby Street, a song by Lulu and a delicious shot up the micro-skirt of a waitress, the like of which England has never seen since in public places. As an I.T. engineer, I know that the computer hacking tricks are laughable, but they are not meant to be taken seriously. Nor are the wonderful stereotypes of Italians, French and Germans.

We see a body of dead girl in a morgue with the coroner trying to close the eyes of the girl, but whatever he tries they won't stay open. After this we move into the future and we follow a group of former school friends who hide a terrible secret, but suddenly they start getting picked off one by one in many grisly ways. Through flashbacks we learn of this awful suicide of a shy girl who was trying to be one of the group, but she was shut out by them because they dug up her past and found out some weird occurrences. So, is she back from the grave seeking revenge? <br /><br />Oh what a great and always spooky story! Well, that's what I hoping I could say. And 'hoping' was as good as it got. This is an forgettable, so-so supernatural horror flick that I actually watched before, but I went in thinking it was my first viewing. So to my surprise it hit me when I started picking up on certain things, but like I said it's quite a forgettable mix that it felt like a first viewing again. "Nightmare' is just another type of it's field that adds a 'few' changes to the gruel. Oh, please give me something that's a bit more fresh. It doesn't have to be entirely original, but this is one formulaic and at times quite tired J-horror flick. Even though it strings along the usual ghost story involving you guessed right… an evil looking, vengeful chick spirit.<br /><br />But in spite of my negativity of it being the same old, same old story and jolts. This one kind of entertains when its being grisly and popping in some creepy visuals. The deaths are vividly displayed with bite and some originality. While, the gloomy atmosphere alienates the audience with it's murky lighting. The first scene involving the spirit terrorising one of the girls is one blood-curdling experience, but really when it's not trying to shock you. I found it rather coma inducing and I thought about getting some shut-eye. That might be harsh, but it just didn't go anywhere of any interest between those shock moments. You could say that because the supposed mystery is really not much of one, the unsure story is just simply flat and the characters are a self-centred bunch that you don't really care what happens to them. The disjointed story should have focused more on the spirit than that of these bland characters who have one unconvincing group relationship. It just overplayed its cards by becoming overly muddled and taking too long to get going that when it comes to the climax it's just plain ludicrous. The film's haunting ending is a high point, though.<br /><br />The film looks fine, although it could have done without the snazzy, quick fire editing and the music score was a bit overbearing in playing up the mood. The performances tread a fine line, but Gyu-ri Kim is strong in the lead role.<br /><br />It's nothing new and it shamelessly steals ideas, but if you can look past that it delivers some nasty thrills. Although, I found the handling of it rather lethargic, despite the odd effective chills. A standard effort all round I guess, but still it's equally missable.

Mercifully, there's no video of this wannabe western that a stay-afloat vehicle for Big Frank at a time when his career was floundering. The story of a weasel who lives on the reputation of his big gun brother and who gets run out of town by bad guys only to return to rally his townfolks with a new found courage must have been written by a back-room writer. All in all, this show stinks. The story is basically boring, ill-conceived and so naive that it can offend your intelligence. I must depart complete from the other reviewer who found it "...underrated..." The critics slammed it at the time and deservedly so. You'll have to catch it on the last show, if you up late and having a bout of insomnia. But, if you can sit through it, you've more fortitude than most of my movie buff friends.

This documentary is a reenactment of the last few years of Betty Page's(Paige Richards) career. The Tennessee tease was the most recognizable pin-up queen in history. Her most memorable work came in the 1950's and was fetish photos, bondage and cat-fight "girly flicks". Irving Klaw(Dukey Flyswatter)at his Movie Star News instructed Betty on what to do in front of the camera. There was no nudity in the famous photos or "stag films", but nonetheless, Klaw was charged with distributing obscene materials and was ordered to destroy them to avoid prosecution. It is no surprise that Betty had a cult following at the height of her career. The girl-next-door with jet black hair, blue eyes and an hour glass figure dressed in fetish gear or not would mesmerize for decades. After all, it has been said that she was photographed more than Marilyn Monroe and second only to the most photographed image in the world, Elvis Presley. Betty Page would disappear and devote her last years to religion. This movie actually could have been a lot better; but good enough to hold interest.<br /><br />Miss Richards is stunning in her own right. Bra, panties, garter belt and hose do not hurt her image in the least. Also in the cast: Jaimie Henkin, Jana Strain, Emily Marilyn and Julie Simone. Be advised this movie can change your heart rate.

Disregard the plot and enjoy Fred Astaire doing A Foggy Day and several other dances, one a duo with a hapless Joan Fontaine. Here we see Astaire doing what are essentially "stage" dances in a purer form than in his films with Ginger Rogers, and before he learned how to take full advantage of the potential of film. Best of all: the fact that we see Burns and Allen before their radio/TV husband-wife comedy career, doing the kind of dancing they must have done in vaudeville and did not have a chance to do in their Paramount college films from the 30s. (George was once a tap dance instructor). Their two numbers with Fred are high points of the film, and worth waiting for. The first soft shoe trio is a warm-up for the "Chin up" exhilarating carnival number, in which the three of them sing and dance through the rides and other attractions. It almost seems spontaneous. Fan of Fred Astaire and Burns & Allen will find it worth bearing up under the "plot". I've seen this one 4 or 5 times, and find the fast forward button helpful.

First ever viewing: July 21, 2008<br /><br />Very impressive screenplay and comedic acting and timing in this film. Now 40 years old, it has lost none of it's power. Neil Simon displays excellent insight into human nature and relationships as well as how to create genuine comedy from unusual situations. Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau give great comedic performances. Neil Simon was inspired by actual events in his own life to write the play this film is based on.<br /><br />One of the best written and acted Hollywood comedies of all time!<br /><br />Surprisingly, only nominated for 2 Academy Awards: "Best Adapted Screenplay" and "Best Film Editing". Hollywood rarely awards comedies, no matter how well they are made.

I first saw this movie when I was a little kid and fell in love with it at once. The sets are breath taking and some of the script is damn right hilarious: "You sons of a thousand fleas".<br /><br />It is always shown on TV late at night or really early in the morning i woke up at about 3:00 am once and it had just started. TV companys need to show a little more respect and put it on prime time Sunday so everyone can get a chance to view this fine work.<br /><br />10/10

This is a direct sequel to 'The Mummy's Hand' (1940), because the lead character, Stephen Banning (played by Dick Foran) is now thirty years older and is relating the story (with the help of archival footage) to his son's fiancé. There are only two unusual aspects to the film: the early death of Banning, and the presence of Turhan Bey.<br /><br />Lon Chaney as the mummy Kharis gets top billing, though given the nature of his role, he has little more to do than limp along or thrash his arms about. There's nothing scary about his presence, except for his attempt to carry off the fiancé, Isobel (Elyse Knox). Dick Foran gets second billing, but he's killed off within the first fifteen minutes! We'd have to wait until 'Psycho' (1960) when a lead character (Janet Leigh) dies way before the end of the movie! Banning's buddy from the first film, Babe Jenson (now Henson), shows up a little later looking much, much, older and not doing any of the comic shtick he did in the original. It's hard to believe it's the same actor! Unfortunately, this great acting job is wasted because he gets killed by Kharis after only two brief scenes. It's then left up to Banning's son John (played by bit player John Hubbard) to led the chase to the cemetery--NO! The sheriff leads a torch wielding mob to Banning's house to burn it down and kill the mummy. Sound Universally familiar? <br /><br />Turhan Bey is introduced to audiences as the new High Priest, Mehmet Bey, to care for and feed tana leaves to Kharis. With his 'exotic' voice and appearance, it's too bad he gets so easily killed. A better movie would have had 'Babe' take Von Helsing type charge of things in tracking down the mummy, with a final decisive battle with him and Mehmet Bay. But instead we have a pedestrian rehash of different set pieces from previous Universal horror films, put together by the hack Griffin Jay who wrote many of Universal's other clunkers, although he also did 'Don Winslow of the Navy' (1942) as well as 'Don Winslow of the Coast Guard' (1943) which also featured Elyse Knox.<br /><br />Elyse Knox played Anne Howe in six Joe Palooka movies (1946-1949), and of course, Turhan Bey, with 43 movie and TV credits, is great in the title role of 'The Amazing Dr. X' (1948).<br /><br />The cinematography is much darker and more atmospheric (with lots of noirish shadows in the sheriff's office) than the first 'Kharis' mummy film, but there's little else of interest or excitement.<br /><br />I'll give it a 3.

Tarzan and Jane are living happily in the jungle. Some men come looking for ivory and to take Jane back to civilization. But Jane loves Tarzan and refuses to leave. One of the men falls in love with Jane and is determined to take her back...even if that means killing Tarzan.<br /><br />This is a rarity--a sequel that's better than the original. "Tarzan, the Ape Man" of 1932 was good but had some dreadful special effects and sort of dragged. This one has MUCH better effects and is a lot more adult. There is tons of blatant racism (a black man is shot to death point blank--and no one really cares) but this was 1934. There's also plenty of blood, gore and violence (for a 1934 movie) and uncut prints have Jane doing a lengthy underwater swim totally nude! There's also obvious sexual content and Tarzan and Jane are wearing next to nothing and (it's implied) they sleep together and have sex--without being married. This wouldn't bother anyone today but in 1934 this was pretty extreme.<br /><br />That aside, the movie is well-directed, very fast-moving and full of adventure and excitement. Seeing Weissmuller in that skimpy lion cloth is certainly a treat for the eyes and Jane's outfit is pretty revealing too. I still think Maureen O'Sullivan is bad as Jane but Weismuller is perfect as Tarzan. Everybody else is OK.<br /><br />This is easily the best Weismuller--O'Hara Tarzan out there. WELL worth seeing but not for kids!

Visconti's first feature, Ossessione is an adaptation of James M. Cain's The Postman Always Rings Twice. Now, I'm not familiar with that book or the other film versions, but I am a big fan of Cain's Double Indemnity (much more so than I am a fan of Billy Wilder's film version of it, in fact). The two novellas seem like they must be very similar. Both involve an illicit love affair where a ravenous wife complains to a morally weak man that her husband is worthless and mean to her. Giovanna, the woman in this Italian version, played very well by Clara Calamai, is not evil incarnate like the wife in Double Indemnity, but she seems very spoiled. Her husband (a great performance by Juan de Landa) is a bit cruel to her, but she strikes me like she is at least as uncompromising with him. He's older than her and unattractive, so she's rather fickle. When Gino shows up, a young, muscular man, it takes her about five minutes to get him into bed. She sweats she wants to be with him forever, but she's stuck with her husband. They break up at first, but when they meet again, they (apparently, although this is intentionally vague) plan to murder the husband. They are successful, and they move back to the woman's home town to run the bar that her husband owned. Gino is very unenthusiastic about this idea. He wants Giovanna, but the one thing that he certainly doesn't want is to sit around in one place for the rest of his life. Their relationship quickly crumbles. Ossessione is a very complex film with complex characters. It's always fascinating, but it does go on a bit too long. At two hours and twenty-two minutes, I can't, for the life of me, figure out how it took that long! This is partly due to the neorealist stylistics that Visconti was inventing within this film. It was, after all, the first film that won that label. We see a lot of the action prolonged as it would be in real life, without any hurrying to the next plot point. I've seen many of Visconti's films, and the only one I like better than this one is Rocco and His Brothers (1960). His direction is as great as it ever was, with the camera moving brilliantly and the editing perfect. I also feel the need to point out the film's best performance, by Dhia Christiani as a young (exotic) dancer and part-time prostitute named Anita whom Gino meets after he begins to try to break away from Giovanna. She's only in the film for maybe five or six minutes, and she has only a few lines. It's shocking how much Visconti and Christiani are able to do with this character in such a short time. She's absolutely heartbreaking. 9/10.

A few years ago I added a comment to the IMDB on "The Real McCoys" TV series. I said then and repeat now it was a charming, funny, and entertaining show, well-acted with wonderful characterizations.<br /><br />I recently saw on DVD four old episodes PLUS the Reunion of 2000 with Richard Crenna, Kathy Nolan, and Tony Martinez. As another writer here mentioned, it is curious that Lydia Reed (Hassie) and Michael Winkelman (Little Luke) weren't refered to, but perhaps they can be tracked down via SAG or AFTRA.<br /><br />The reunion show was well done and gave us many unknown insights into the show. One piece of inside information we did NOT get was whether or not Kathy Nolan regretted quitting the show in an unpleasant contract dispute, which left Luke a "widow" in it's last year, which wasn't very good. Nolan went on to do a bomb of a comedy called "Broadside", about women nurses in the Pacific in WW II. Get it? BROADside? No, not funny.<br /><br />Unlike the sleazy, salacious, and violent TRASH on TV now that is so undermining our values, "The Real McCoys" entertained with decent values and fine human beings. And I thank all involved, including the creator, Irving Pinkus, for having brought it to my family. We never missed it.

It is quite simple. Friends is a comedy of very basic humour aimed at teenagers and young adults, with unsophisticated sense of humour.<br /><br />It is also painfully obvious that towards the end, they were desperately trying to make it last 10 seasons, most likely so they could say they beat Seinfeld's 9 season run. The trouble with this is, Seinfeld had 9 amazing seasons with great writing, Friends had (and I'm being very generous here) at most 5 or 6 OK seasons and then 4 abysmal seasons.<br /><br />It became a soap opera with recycled humour and recycled character traits that weren't that good so start with, then got worse at the 100th time you saw them. I find it so hard to understand why people rate this so highly. It is truly awful.

When i first saw the title i was already deducing the theme of the film - it clearly wasn't a reference to British currency, so it had to be Shakespearian and about pounds of flesh - taking them, or giving them. Will Smith's a feelgood actor, so serial killers were out. It could only be about a man giving them, so must be about guilt somehow. I spoilt the whole thing for myself by looking it up and knowing the story before i watched, as the beauty of the build-up is the way parts of the main character's background are drip fed to slowly illuminate the audience as to who he is and why he is doing what he is doing.<br /><br />Guilt is a very hard subject to do simply because it's deeply uncomfortable and sad, which is not an encouraging premise when you are hoping for a roller-coaster ride - you know its going to be unpleasant. I wouldn't say the movie glorifies suicide; it delves into the most extreme form of self-sacrifice - martyrdom.<br /><br />It's also brimming with symbolism everywhere, which is a surefire tell-tale sign that the writing is cleverly thought out in great detail and driving at multiple meanings and a deep reflective nature. The most prominent theme that struck me was that he was not only giving his heart to the girl he loves emotionally and metaphorically, but was giving it to her physically as the greatest gift he could. Determined to die, but his plan is thwarted by falling in love - what a 2nd act complication. Absolutely masterful.<br /><br />Yes it is very slow-paced, but i'm undecided as to whether it would have been better slotted into a smaller timeframe. I didn't feel the strain and his terrible inner turmoil as much as i could have, but maybe that's just me having ruined it for myself beforehand. Saying all that though, it is a deeply moving and original film that is an incredibly powerful and thought-provoking tragedy that deserves the awards it will inevitably get.

One of those, "Why was this made?" movies. The romance is very hard to swallow. It is one of those romances, that, suddenly, "click" - they are in love. The movie is filled with long pauses and uncomfortable moments - the drive-in restaurant being the most notable. Charles Grodin does a credible job but for most of the movie it's just him and Louise Lasser. Ask yourself, do you want to watch Grodin with his neurosis and Lasser with her neurosis together for a hour and half?

With a cast list like this one, I expected far better. Venessa Redgrave spent the majority of the movie lying in bed. The best actresses in the world cannot make anything very interesting when their acting is limited to lying down and falling asleep throughout the entire movie. The plot summary says that a secret is revealed to the daughters as their mother comes closer to death. The thing is, she never tells her daughters anything except cryptic advice to be happy. All the relationships in the movie are underdeveloped. I also felt that the back and forth between the past and present was unnecessary. It seemed as if the idea was stolen either from the book the Da Vinci Code in which the device was used to increase suspense, or from The Notebook in which they used the device to create the never ending romance of the story's main characters. Either way it was a cheap device in this movie because it didn't work to create anything. It was a way to attempt suspense in a movie that has none. I left wondering why good movies can't be written for women. It really was a disappointment.

I've read one comment which labeled this film "trash" and "a waste<br /><br />of time." I think this person got their political undies tugged a bit<br /><br />too much.<br /><br />I just rented the new Criterion DVD's of both Yellow and Blue.<br /><br />These films--although hardly great--have at least become of<br /><br />historical interest as to the so-called "radical student<br /><br />political-social movement"of the late '60s.<br /><br />I hadn't seen either picture and from their notorious reputation, I<br /><br />was expecting some real porn (there isn't any.) There is frontal<br /><br />nudity (including the still verboten frontal male nudity (automatic<br /><br />NC-17--the Orwellian-X) in the U.S. But I wasn't expecting the films<br /><br />in-your-face democratic socialist message.<br /><br /> Though it tends to the simplistic , I thought it occassionally made<br /><br />its points well. Both films occassionally had me laughing out loud<br /><br />and the director's commentary made it clear there was plenty of<br /><br />parody in the film. Especially the supposedly "pornographic" sex<br /><br />scenes. The first such scene is very realistic. The lead couple is<br /><br />clumsy, inept, funny and endearing in their first copulation scene.<br /><br />The second--which caused the most complaints--has faked<br /><br />cunnilingus and fellatio. And the last is the end of an angry fight,<br /><br />that is believable.<br /><br />The extras include an informative introduction to the film, an<br /><br />interview with the original American distributor and his attorney,<br /><br />excerpts from trial testimony in the U.S. and a "diary" commentary<br /><br />by the director on some scenes.<br /><br />This is the film that "blue noses" wouldn't let alone and led to the<br /><br />pivotal "prurient interest with no social redeeming value" standard<br /><br />that, thankfully, still stands.<br /><br />Those with an interest in the quirks of history will find this a must<br /><br />see.

The movie was disappointing. The book was powerful. The views and the learning of Little Tree were powerfully portrayed in the book. The movie just coasted along and finally dribbled away. Still a nice tale for kids.

I can admit that the screenplay isn't very good, and that it has some slow parts, but all of you critics of this movie need to learn how to have some fun. First of all, the performances are great (Michael Douglas, Kim Basinger, Kiefer Sutherland, and Eva Longoria. Michael Douglas proves he has still got it, and Kim Basinger plays a very interesting character as the cheating wife. Kiefer Sutherland and Eva Longoria, play the dynamic duo, both adding their incredible talent to the pot. And second of all, this movie is the most fun I have had in years in a Theodore. Its plain and simple, if you want to go to the movies, and have a lot of fun see, The Sentinel.

So why does this show suck? Unfortunately, that really is the only question, because there is no doubt that it does.<br /><br />For those unfamiliar with the premise of the show, the doomed-to-be-shortlived series Cavemen focuses on a number of Neanderthals and their struggle to exist in modern day America and is based on the characters featured in a series of television ads for Geico Insurance. The concept is solid and there is every reason to think it could be executed successfully.<br /><br />I had to think about it for awhile, but then the tagline from the commercials -- something to the effect of "We're not that much different from you" provided me with the key to the show's suckiness. Even though cavemen/Neanderthals are actually a different species than humanity, the title characters of this show, it turns out, are exactly the same as those of us who are boring jerks.<br /><br />Maybe its my background as a game writer -- rather than a soulless, hack, committee-based writer from California -- but this show had so much potential, and none of it has been realized. To start with, the producers should have focused on the fun things that would make cavemen different from us.<br /><br />What could conceivably be funny, for example, about giving them occupations like perpetual grad student and furniture store clerk, when they would have more compellingly been drawn to things like subterranean utility workers and guides at cave parks? Why would they play prosaic games like squash, when a whole episode could be devoted to them trying get hunting licenses to go after game with spears? A show like this could write itself, and it takes some willfully bad writing to make it quite so crappy and boring.<br /><br />Another tiresome aspect of this show is an attempt to portray the cavemen as being subjected to a number of stereotypes associated with various human minorities. Yawn! This has been done so many times before, and never more drearily than this. And, as noted previously, Neanderthals really are a different species, so using them as a metaphor for racial stereotyping is both uncompelling and off the mark.<br /><br />Responses are welcome, including those from anyone who wants to tell me why I'm wrong. I'd like to enjoy this show and am just sorry that I have thus far been unable to.<br /><br />Michael J. Varhola, Skirmisher Online Gaming Magazine

After Chicago, I was beginning to lose all respect for Richard Gere and then along came The Flock. There's just so far a nice smile and a couple of stock facial gestures can get you, but he proved to me that he's finally gotten hold of his craft and can act with the best of them. Clare Danes was also super as his "trainee/replacement". Some have suggested there was too much unnecessary violence, but I don't see it that way. Nothing I saw detracted from the power of this film. I was really shocked I hadn't heard of it being released in theaters and came across it at Blockbuster instead. Really an exceptional film with just the right blend of action, suspense, thrills, and social consciousness. As good as 7even? Well, maybe. And you'll see better acting out of Gere than anyone's ever gotten out of Pitt.

This is one of my favorite Govinda movies of all time and best film of 1994. David Dhawan does a great job in directing this movie, he makes it funny and adds family drama. Govinda is Excellent as Raja Babu and gives a great performance. Karishma Kapoor is an actress i hate, this film she is a little less annoying but still annoys in some scenes. Kader Khan is a maestro in acting and yet gives a superb performance. Aroona Irani is terrific as the mother and gives a outstanding performance. Shakti Kapoor is brilliant as Nandu the sidekick. This film has Comedy, action, family drama and romance a full on entertainer.

This sleek, sexy movie is a must-see. Only upon multiple viewings can one truly understand the uniqueness of this film. Personally I enjoy the narrator for his intelligent, no subject left untouched, style of narration. The introduction grips you right away, and holds you at the edge of your seat throughout the film. He provides wonderful insight into the world of the trainables and allows the audience to really 'connect' with internal horror this film exhibits. The script itself holds the movie together wonderfully. Not only for kids, but the elderly alike will gain a higher understanding of the trainables and the modern grasp that they have on the sexual experience. Ahead of its time and groundbreaking in cinematography, it surely defines the word 'masterpiece'.

I saw "El Mar" yesterday and thought it to be a great movie. It starts with a childhood episode in the life of the 3 main characters: Ramallo, Manuel Tur, and Francisca. After that we jump about 10 years to an hospital where the 3 friends meet again.<br /><br />Religion, sickness, love, violence and sexuality rage throughout the movie creating and intense and tension-filled movie.<br /><br />I see people complaining about the film being too gory and i think they missed the point of the story. It's a violent, intense and sad story. People are expected to suffer. To cry. To get hurt. To bleed. And i think that what the film shows, isn't done for pure shock-value or presented in a distasteful way. I know that some people like their films "clean", even those with violence in it. But sometimes, a movie needs to make you feel unconfortable to work. This is one of those movies. And a great movie it is.<br /><br />The only fault i found was that there were 3 or 4 moments were some plot details weren't 100% clear, and only after thinking about them at the end of the movie, it all made sense. But it wasn't anything of much importance to the overall story, so i still give this movie a 9.

Every once in a while I will rent an action/adventure film just as a way to relax and occupy my mind with nothing important. This is why I own a copy of Charlie's Angels (2000) - not a quality film, but it makes me laugh and allows me to unwind for a while. One of these days I will probably buy copies of The Princess Bride and a few Monty Python movies for much the same reason.<br /><br />In any case, I rented this film because I wanted to be entertained without being challenged. For the most part, I got what I wanted. The plot was something along the lines of a poorly written Xena episode, and the Kathy Long's acting was very community theater (not bad for a professional kick boxer and amateur actress). There were a few high points on the part of the cyborgs. Somehow they managed to get some pretty good actors to play the bad guys - unfortunately, most of them die pretty darned quick.<br /><br />Like most martial arts films, the further you get into the movie, the more emphasis there is on action, and the plot (which wasn't strong to begin with) deteriorates almost as quickly as the acting. However, the more Kathy Long fights, the more time the director devotes to her backside. By the end of the movie I was seriously considering watching it a second time just to count the number of times Kathy Long's tight red shorts were center screen.<br /><br />Unfortunately, there just wasn't enough meat to this film to make satisfying curiosity worth seeing the film a second time. If you are a hard core Xena fan in need of something to wile away a few hours - by all means, go to the grocery store and spend the .50 cents on the rental. There are some strong similarities between the show and this movie.<br /><br />Just don't expect anything more than to be mildly amused for a few hours.<br /><br />Unless, of course, you happen to like Kathy Long's derrière. THEN you might want to purchase a copy.

Since the title is in English and IMDb lists this show's primary language as English, i shall concentrate on reviewing the English version of Gundam Wing(2000) as presented in the Bandai released DVD set. My actual review for the whole series is under IMDb's entry of ""Shin kidô senki Gundam W"(1995).<br /><br />Very little is changed in respect to plot, script and characterization its adaptation to English and it really depends on your own taste to choose which language to watch this show in. Purists can stick to Japanese all they want, but for a more "realistic" experience i recommend the English track since all the characters, except Heero Yuy, are not Japanese.(most of them are Caucasian in fact with a couple of non-Japanese Asians.) For one thing, the characters' personalities come across more "directly" than in the Japanese version. The contrast between the characters is stronger thanks to some give-or-take performances but a very well cast group of actors.<br /><br />Wing Gundam's pilot Heero Yuy is a highly trained soldier who suppresses his emotions but slowly learns the value of his humanity. Voiced by Mark Hildreth who's deadpan delivery can be criticized as "bad acting" but it matches Heero's personality very well.<br /><br />Deathscythe Gundam's Duo Maxwell, ever cheerful in the face of death is given a crash course in the cherishing the value of life and friends. He is possibly the best acted character in the whole show, masterfully played by Scott McNeil. He may sound a little too old for his age, but Duo's English voice easily out ranks his irritatingly nasal Japanese one.<br /><br />Trowa, the pilot of Heavyarms, is a lost lonely soul who's only purpose so far has been combat; despite his inner desire to form connections with the people around him, he only knows how to kill, not to befriend. Kirby Morrow gives a somber but realistic performance as Trowa Barton.<br /><br />Quatre Rebarba Winner is voiced by Brad Swaile who has no trouble brining out the caring nature of the character and the shattering of his innocence as he experiences horrors of war and death first hand. A huge plus point is that Quatre no longer sounds like a girl(and yes he is voiced by a female actress in the Japanese version) but a bona fide typical 15 year old guy.<br /><br />The impulsive but determined Wufei Chang voiced by Ted Cole may seem a little over-the-top but it plays out in stark contrast to the more subdued roles of Heero and Trowa.<br /><br />Relena Darlian sounds older in English, voiced by Lisa Ann Bailey. This might not sit well with her youthful personification early in the series but as her character matures later into the story, her voice follows suit and ends up fitting in very well with the character development.<br /><br />Zechs Merquise would be one of the more drastically changed voices when compared to the Japanese version. Both voices bring out different sides to the same character. His Japanese voice is haughty, authoritative and commands respect , keeping in line with his high ranking status and charismatic nature. His English voice by Brian Drummond is more subdued, sounding more devious and "snake-like", highlighting Zechs' secretive nature regarding his hidden agendas and staunch beliefs in his ideals.<br /><br />The members of OZ are a mixed bag really. Treize Kushrenada voiced by David Kaye is given a more realistic and down-to-earth performance compared to his larger-than-life Japanese style of speaking. However, Lady Une does not convey her split personality as contrastingly as in the Japanese version and Lucrencia Noin just sounds.........bored most of the time. The cannon fodder pilots and military leaders are nothing to speak of either.<br /><br />I would have appreciated if they took the time to give different characters different accents to reflect their ethnic backgrounds. The Maganac Corp's voices were generally uninspired but could have been more interesting if they were given middle eastern accents. The members of the Romerfeller Foundation would have also sounded better with some classy European accent that reflects their status of nobility.<br /><br />Despite underwhelming acting from the side characters, the main cast manage to carry the show and it results in an overall less over-the-top and more realistic rendition of Gundam Wing's script. Very faithful to the original Japanese script, keeping all the underlying thought provoking ideas and themes about politics, war and human nature. Sadly, it also retains the flaws of the original Japanese script.

Just the kind of movie I love. Some very good British actors as well as the one and only Sharon Stone. Catherine Tramell (Stone) masterfully manipulates a well educated group of people's lives, playing on their frailties to collect experiences to write a murder mystery book. She plays the female psychopath quite well while using her ample sex appeal to convincingly portray what could be considered one of the ultimate Black Widows. Tramell is use to dark places within society and freely partakes in sadomasochistic flings in the 'never visit after dark' side of town. From the beginning, there is nothing short of an R rating here from the dialog alone. Stone could also be described as a sort of female Hannibal Lecter, an emotionless femme fatal without the meal plan.

I watched Phat Beach on cable for a while and I sort of enjoyed it. The fat guy is the best character, as he seems to be a nice guy. The rest of the characters are just various stereotypes of young men and young black men. I like to watch these low budget movies that capture a period of time because they are almost like a documentary of the year's attitudes and fads. Phat Beach is also funny because the low-budget babes in this movie are strictly home-girls. Most low-budget movies have that "local babe" quality, and you can tell the babes in this movie were the local strippers and underwear models for JC Penneys. Some of them had so much cellulite hanging from their bikinis that it was funny to watch how the "youngsters" went wild over what was essentially some really over-used, high-mileage skank. There were some cuties too. That is the charm of these low-budget crappy movies. You will see a lot of doggies, and some real cuties! I checked up on some of them at IMDb and seven years later Phat Beach is their only credit. Too bad. It would be interesting if someone ever managed to do a "Where are they now" book on all of the cuties that have appeared in the history of movies and then were never again to return. What happened?? There are probably one or two young people in almost every movie who seem to have a lot going for them and yet years later when you see the movie again on TV you wonder "what ever happened to X?" Anyhow, this movie mostly blows, but it has some funny moments.

The 1967 In Cold Blood was perhaps more like "the real thing" (Think about it: would we really want to see the real thing?), but it was black and white in a color world, and a lot of people didn't even know what it was, and there was an opportunity to remake it for television. Plus, if you remake it, you can show some stuff not shown in the original. The book In Cold Blood by Truman Capote was the first "nonfiction novel". Truman's book was in fact not 100% true to the real story. I thought the Canadian location sufficed for Kansas pretty much for a TV movie. Look for the elements of sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll: Dick's womanizing, Perry being an aspirin junkie, Perry playing blues guitar.

It's not a terrible movie, really, and Glenn and Keitel are top-notch actors. Further, they do an acceptable job with the very weak script. The scenery is lush and the plot has some interesting twists. Further, I umderstand why these actors and the crew made the film, they are professionals and they get paid for it. But I do wonder why studios spend the time and money to make a film and then don't release it for theater audiences? Even if a film is a box-office flop, surely it makes some money. If you are a fan of Keitel or Glenn, rent the video or catch it on TV, as did I. Granted, the movie won't help solve the immigration quandary with Mexico, but the experience is far better than 90% of the standard TV fare of today.

This movie made me very angry. I wanted desperately to throttle the "scientists" and unseen film-makers during the course of it. Very, very painful to sit through. Sophomoric and pretentious in the worst way. The little good information on brain function/chemistry and quantum theory is lost in a sea of new agey horse sh*t. The worst offenders were the crack-pot charlatans Ramtha and Joseph Dispenza. Mr. Dispenza informs us that most people lead lives of mediocrity and clearly implies that he, on the other hand, is living on a higher plane. Even the ideas and attitudes that I basically agree with are presented in such a heavy handed, clumsy, superior, pretentious, preachy manner that I felt the desire to disavow them. I think that's what made me so angry, the fact that they've taken what are indeed profound aspects of established scientific thought and marred them with their new age hokum. Much of it is based around the fallacy of applying concepts of quantum theory to the macro world. Fittingly, the dramatized portions with Marlee Matlin are amateurish and cliché ridden.<br /><br />I would refer people instead to Bill Bryson's excellent survey of science: "A Brief History of Nearly Everything." There's plenty of profound wonder about life and the universe in the actual, established science.

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-

The film gives a rather condensed version of what is contained in the book, which as far as I can tell by doing some research and investigative fact checking is largely a work of fiction. In reality, there are no ancient scrolls and if the author was hard pressed I'm sure he'd have to admit he's never laid eyes on any scrolls in ancient Aramaic found in Peru. These "valuable" texts written as usual by anonymous, were destroyed by the evil "truth haters" in the church and in the local government. That's rather strange, as all kinds of New Age crap comes out each year---hundreds of books, dozens of movies--and the Roman Catholic church doesn't seem to me to be hell bent on destroying the movement which it probably views as I do, a total crock of doody. I'm no fan of the church, mind you, but at least the ancient texts which they base their faith on are real.<br /><br />It's a typical pattern of scam artists and religious hucksters to claim to have seen or translated ancient documents which unfortunately got destroyed by "evil" men or in Joseph Smith's case, got taken back to Heaven once translated. Therefore, the actual texts cannot be found in any museums like the Smithsonian, nor the translations checked by specialists in ancient languages like Coptic or Aramaic. It's a scam. In one sense, I admire anybody smart enough to come up with a great idea and make millions off it, but I couldn't do it myself, as I've no desire to mislead the public with more New Agey hokum.<br /><br />Occasionally, a genuine ancient text does get found hidden away and lost for years. The Gospel of Judas, a Gnostic text, was discovered and after carbon dating and diligent study of the text, deemed authentic by experts. The Gospel of Judas was referenced as heretical around 300 C.E.. No church documents from that time mention any Celestine Prophecies as authentic, heretical or anything else.<br /><br />We are evolving towards something--that much is true---but the optimism in the Celestine Prophecy is based on nothing but fiction and lies, and a philosophy built on a foundation of lies, like a castle built on sand will collapse. The harsh, ugly, overpopulated, cruel world of Blade Runner is more likely what it'll be like over the Horizon, than some Utopian Hippie Commune where all is love and peace! I tell people the truth and they hate me, but tell them what they want to hear, even if pure piffle, and one can make millions. The Celestine Prophecy is what the world wants to hear. Too bad it is a castle built on sand. Don't get me wrong. I wish to God, the Celestine Vision was reality, only it's not. No ancient philosophy at any time expressed ideas given in the Insights with the modern concept of spiritual evolution going hand in hand with biological evolution. These New Agey ideas did not exist in the ancient world and did not exist until Darwininan Evolution became well-known. That means the ideas in the Celestine Prophecies cannot be older than the 1800s C.E, and do not go back to the early B.C.E period or near the time of Jesus of Nazareth. This type of claim by New Agers is not at all unusual. Wiccans claim their brand of magic and witchcraft -- the "old religion" goes back to the stone age, when in reality no Book of Shadows has ever been known to exist prior to Gerald Gardner who lived in the 1900s and was the buddy of Aleister Crowley.<br /><br />New Age gurus tell lies and claim their ideas are based on ancient teachings, when the ancients would thumb their noses at such absurdities that are preached by Gurus today. Why do they do what they do, perpetrate such fraud? Simple: there are millions of dollars to be made, and the modern Guru acquires power over his or her followers. They compete fiercely and have a strong hatred for their competition despite their claims of love for all things. Each New Age group bitter opposes the others. It's a struggle for your minds and your wallets.<br /><br />But learn one thing from me, that is actually similar to one of the insights, learn to follow your own instincts and look for guidance from within. That I can agree with wholeheartedly.

for whoever play games video games here did anybody notice that the GTA:Vice City Mansion inside the game and some other things including weapons from the movie that are connected to this movie and this movie inspired the makers of the game (Rockstar Games) to copy some things from this movie and by the way this is one of the best 80's movies out there i recommend this for anybody who still didn't see it 10/10 no questions asked

Generally it was a good movie with an ideal ending; the acting was spectacular and the characters didn't stray from their persons. I especially liked the plot, although you knew what was going to happen it still gave the element of surprise through out the entire movie. However, I find that coming on to the ending it could have been a little longer (extended maybe)- to me it seemed like it was rushed a bit; as if the writer was trying to take linens off the lines before the rain fell. For instance- What happened to Tristan's brother, Hayden? For all we know he died in the hospital. Maybe he was the one that setup the entire thing?! Who knows! Maybe there will be a sequel? Maybe? If there is.. I cant wait to see it.

I wanted to see the movie because of an article in a film magazine. It wasn't a highly recommended one by the critic. The storyline is different and I am sure that it could have been a good movie if it was in right hands. Directing and acting were awful!! I had the feeling of watching a movie which was made a bunch of amateurs. Although the movie started promisingly, it got worse and worse. I think this is an unoriginal movie with awkward characters.. I still think that it is worth watching as I haven't seen films subjecting gay porn. Don't keep your expectations high though,then you will be very disappointed. * out of *****

The choice to make this SNL skit into a movie was far better thought out than other recent ones. The humor involved in the character is not annoyance humor, and is also character driven enough to be stretched out for an hour or two.<br /><br />Oddly enough the sexual content seemed like it could be avoided, but that may have been because the constraints of live television schooled me to not expect it. I suppose I was thinking more "Leisure Suit Larry" risqué than the producers were...<br /><br />Definitely not a PG-13 movie, which will probably hurt it from ever reaching the heights of its more successful predecessors, but still better premise and writing than its more dismal ones.<br /><br />I liked it, but I doubt it will be a smash hit... (which is sad, as Tim Meadows tends not to do characters that annoy me with quite the frequency other SNL alumni tend to)

The movie starts quite with an intriguing scene, three people are drinking and making small talk in a bar. All of them are making up a bit outrageous stories. As the movie unfolds, it turns out that the most outrageous story is true. However, beyond that the movie is not very interesting except for the scene in the bar and the scene where main secret is revealed. This revelation happens barely half time into the movie and frankly, not much is left to be seen. The rest of the time director is lingering in a god forsaken Russian village full of pitiful and creepy old ladies. Sure, these are fascinating and a bit shocking images, but admiring them goes on way too long, sacrificing any possible plot or character development. I found this movie as another example of either lousy or lazy movie-making, where instead of trying to make an interesting story, movie makers concentrate on weirdly fascinating imagery and through in a few almost unrelated stories (case in point - meat trader's story) to leave the spectator to figure out all odds and ends. On a surface it has artsy appearance, but in this particular case is nothing more than lack of talent.

Vonnegut's words are best experienced on paper. The tales he weaves are gossemar, silken strands of words and expressions that are not easily translated into a world of Marilyn Manson or Jerry Bruckheimer explosions. His words have been treated well once before, in the remarkable Slaughterhouse-5.<br /><br />Mother night is probably one of the three novels Vonnegut has written I could take to a desert island, along with Slaughterhouse-5 and Bluebeard.<br /><br />The film version deserves a 10, but the books are so permanently part of my interior landscape that I just can't do it...some of the scenes left out of the film are part of my memory...

I can't figure Al Pacino out. I watch him in the Godfather, Scarface, Carlito's Way, and I think I am watching one of the greatest actors of the last thirty years. Then I see him in Two for the Money, Any Given Sunday and Revolution, and I wonder what the guy is thinking.<br /><br />I stumbled on Revolution a few nights ago, and thought I would invest the next two hours on this. Here is a news flash: Want to get prisoners to talk? Force them to watch this over and over...they'll confess to anything.<br /><br />I won't rehash the plot since there is no coherent plot, but it does take place during the American Revolution and Pacino plays an uneducated peasant who does not want to get involved, but ultimately does. While he has no money, no education and dresses like a caveman, a very hot Natasha Kinski falls in love with him for no apparent reason, since they have only two minutes of dialogue together.<br /><br />Quite frankly, if "Al Smith" starred in this movie, instead of "Al Pacino", it would have ruined their career. The script was horrible, but Pacino's demotivated performance and obvious fake accent made it even worse. Donald Sutherland's role was laughable. I really can't describe it. Natasha Kinski is a main character, but has like 5 lines in the movie. In fact, nobody speaks much in this movie.<br /><br />One of the most laughable premise in the movie is how Al Pacino and Kinski have this uncanny knack to continually run into each other on the battlefield. Its like the entire Northeast is a Starbucks. "Hey, funny to see you here again, on ANOTHER battlefield 100 miles away...see you in a few months".<br /><br />I am required to give this one star by IMDb, since there is nothing here for a negative score.

I don't think you can get much worse then this. Put together bad actors, fake limbs, and three stupid stories and what do you get? This B-rate pointless excuse for a movie.<br /><br />The first story immediately shows the bad video quality and the acting is just really pathetic, especially when you bring in the 25 year old posing as a grandma with the usually grandma bun over the ears bit. Plus, the man is OK, but the woman is rather ugly. "You look great!" NOT! The werewolf in this one was the best one out of all three I'd say, but its still not impressive since it was all bad costume. The face on the woman later was decent enough for halloween but not for a werewolf movie.<br /><br />The more stories you go through the worse it gets. There are two lesbians in this next one who are completely retarded its ridiculous. The whole "I want to be a werewolf, too" "How could you do this to me?!" Was silly to say. You asked for it now get over it! The werewolf will not even be spoken of...its a rat!<br /><br />The third one has no point...almost forty five minutes of running and boring narration make up this story and the whole switch thing still didn't make it interesting. Boring!<br /><br />Music, Yes, bad...who couldn't even hear some parts it was stupid. Animals effects were either rat or pig-like which was stupid. They couldn't use lion sounds? Guess not, GOOD movies use that. Well, i =f you enjoy B-rates this is good for you. I got this movie since I'm a hardcore werewolf fan and i'll buy ANY werewolf movie and watch it more then once, but thats just me. If you prefer Good ones, don't waste your money. I beg YOU!

Another comedy about a plucky little country struggling through the jungle of the modern (for the forties) global world with only native wit and pluck to guide them, this is a fine entry in the Ealing cannon. Terry-Thomas sparkles as usual in the lead, as a feckless ministry man led to the brink of disaster when a nation he is supposedly in charge of starts attracting the interest of the world, Ian Bannen makes a great romantic lead, Peter Sellers puts in one of his quieter performances as a corrupt politico and the uber-suave John Le Mesurier plays against type as a rugged revolutionary leader. Lots of fun is had by all, especially the viewer; perhaps not in the very top echelon of Ealing classics, but pretty high up.

"Fever Pitch" is a sweet and charming addition to the small genre of sports romances as date movies or movies a son could be willing to go to with his mother (though the guys in the audience got noticeably restless during the romantic scenes).<br /><br />I have lived through a milder version of such a story, as my first exposure to baseball was dating my husband the spring after the Mets first World Series win and then I watched the Mets clinch their next one because I was the one still up in the wee hours with our two little sons, who have grown up to teach me more about baseball through our local neighborhood National League team's other heartbreaking failures to win it again (and it was me who took our older son to his only Fenway Park game as I caught a bit of Red Sox fever as a graduate student in Boston).<br /><br />So compared to reality, the script believably creates two people with actual jobs. It is particularly impressive that Drew Barrymore's character is a substantive workaholic who has anti-Barbie skills, though she pretty much only visits with her three bland girlfriends during gym workouts that allow for much jiggling and the minor side stories with her parents don't completely work.<br /><br />It is even set up credibly how she meets Jimmy Fallon's math teacher and how she falls for his "winter guy" -- though it's surprising that his Red Sox paraphernalia filled apartment didn't tip her off to his Jekyll-and-Hyde "summer guy." Their relationship crisis during the baseball season is also played out in a refreshingly grown-up way, from efforts at compromise to her frank challenges to him, centered around that they are both facing thirty and single. Fallon surprisingly rises to his character's gradual emotional maturity.<br /><br />While the ending borrows heavily from O. Henry, the script writers did a yeoman job of quickly incorporating the Sox's incredible 2004 season into a revised story line (with lots of cooperation from the Red Sox organization for filming at the stadium).<br /><br />The script goes out of its way to explain why Fallon doesn't have a Boston accent, as an immigrant from New Jersey, but that doesn't explain why his motley friends don't. The most authentic sounding Boston sounds come from most of his "summer family" of other season ticket holders, who kindly kibitz the basics of Sox lore to neophyte Barrymore (and any such audience members).<br /><br />The song selection includes many Red Sox fans' favorites, from the opening notes of the classic "Dirty Water," though most are held to be heard over the closing credits as if you are listening to local radio and are worth sitting through to hear.

this film was almost a great imaginative film. A mixture of shakespeare, pop, jazz, and faerie tales. This movie was an imaginative twist on the Cinderella theme. Featuring a strong cast, headed by the perfectly cast Kathleen Turner, this movie had everything going for it. Everything but production values. I almost never think that a movie needs special effects or big budgets, but with an over the top production like this, it came off with the same seedy quality as every other made for tv movie. Besides better cinematography, this film was almost perfect.<br /><br />

To be brutally honest... I LOVED watching Severed. That's why I<br /><br />gave it a 1/10 stars because of its starkly unimaginative<br /><br />story/filming/acting/everything. This film was a RIOT to watch. If<br /><br />you enjoy watching bad films in order to poke fun at them, you will<br /><br />really get a kick out of Severed.<br /><br />The story really doesn't matter, it involves some guy who's bald<br /><br />and has a sword and goes around beheading random people. <br /><br />But he has a supernatural twist... nobody ever sees him do it. <br /><br />Even when, in one very memorable scene, he walks into a<br /><br />jampacked night club and whacks off some girl's noodle and<br /><br />nobody sees it. <br /><br />Severed doesn't merely look like it was filmed on video- it WAS<br /><br />filmed on someone's home camcorder. The filmmakers had<br /><br />knowledge of lighting (very thin knowledge) and composition<br /><br />actually holds together in some scenes. But mostly you can't hear<br /><br />the actors... you can't understand what they're doing, and you laugh<br /><br />when the next vicitm gets his pumpkin detatched from his body.<br /><br />Go and rent this movie. Support films like this- they are a hoot and<br /><br />a hollar!

Finally a thriller which omits the car chases, explosions and other eye catching effects. The movie combines a simple plot (assasination of a french president) with an excellent background. It takes a look behind mans behavior with authorities, and explains why we would obey almost every order (even murder) which would be given to us.<br /><br />Furthermore it shows us how secret services can manipulate the run of history and how hardly they can be controlled. The best thing on this movie is, that there is no classic "Hollywood end" which can easily be predicted.

Bogdonovich's (mostly) unheralded classic is a film unlike just about any other. A film that has the feel of a fairy tale, but has a solid grounding in reality due to its use of authentic Manhattan locations and "true" geography, perhaps the best location filming in NYC I've ever seen. John Ritter reminds us that with good directors (Bogdanovich, Blake Edwards, Billy Bob) he can be brilliant, and the entire ensemble is a group you'll wish truly existed so you could spend time with `em. One of the few romantic comedies of the last 20 years that doesn't seem to be a rip-off of something else, this is the high point of Bogdanovich's fertile after- "success" career, when his best work was truly done ("saint jack", "at long last...", "noises off".

This is a very memorable spaghetti western. It has a great storyline, interesting characters, and some very good acting, especially from Rosalba Neri. Her role as the evil villainess in this film is truly classic. She steals every scene she is in, and expresses so much with her face and eyes, even when she's not speaking. Her performance is very believable. She manages to be quite mesmerizing without being over the top (not that there's anything wrong with being over the top). Mark Damon is surprisingly good in this movie too.<br /><br />The music score is excellent, and the theme song is the kind that will be playing in your head constantly for days after seeing the movie, whether you want it to or not. There are a couple of parts that are very amusing. I especially like the part where Rosalba Neri undresses in front of the parrot. There's also lots of slick gun-play that's very well done.<br /><br />I would probably have given this movie 8 or 9 stars if it wasn't for two things. The first being a silly bar room brawl that occurs about 25 minutes into the film. This is one of the most ridiculous looking fights I have ever seen in a movie. It is very poorly choreographed, and looks more like a dance number from a bad musical than any kind of a real fight. One might be able to overlook this if it were a Terence Hill/Bud Spencer comedy, but this is a more serious western, and the brawl really needed to be more realistic. The other thing that annoyed me about this movie was Yuma's cowardly Mexican sidekick. I guess he was supposed to be comic relief or something, but the character was just plain stupid and unnecessary in a movie like this, and he wasn't at all funny. All I can say is where is Tuco when you need him? <br /><br />All that having been said, let me assure everyone reading this that Johnny Yuma is a classic spaghetti western despite the faults I have mentioned, and all fans of the genre need to see this movie.

I was so excited when I discovered this was available! I couldn't wait to see it. What a waste of energy! It's kind of like that rarities CD by your favorite band you found in the back of the rack at your local music store. Being a hard core fan you were certain that it was a valuable discovery. But once you heard it it became obvious why these dogs never made it onto a real album. This DVD is only recommended for 'completionists' who must have everything Lynch has done. "Six Men Getting Sick" is somewhat visually interesting but short and repetitive. It lacks the power of Lynch's later work "The Grandmother" is quite simply an immature work. It's tedious and looks like a student film. But it was the 70's...It's interesting only if you hope to psychoanalyze the director. But you can see, briefly, the seeds of some of his trademark images and sounds. "The Alpahabet" is forgettable (No really! I can't remember this one at all!) "The Amputee" is pointless. "The Cowboy and the Frenchman" is just plain silly. "Lumiere" is the only worthwhile one in the bunch. Without dialog Lynch tells a disturbing tale comparable with his best work. I had to watch this one several times. But it runs less than 2 minutes. Hardly worth the trouble of renting or buying the DVD.

The quintessential Georgian film of Georgi Danelia, Ne goryuy (1969) aka Don't Grieve is loosely based on the novel by French writer Claude Tillier (1801-1844) "Mon oncle Benjamin" The novel takes place in the country side of the 18th Century France. The Great French Revolution is still ahead but some of its stormy signs are present in society. Benjamin, the local doctor is a soul of a local society, the educated, friendly, democratic person who often treats the poor for free. It makes him very popular with the locals but most certainly does not help with his bank account. He is in love with a beautiful Manette who is also crazy about him but is being watched closely by her father who called his daughter "his small capital" and is determined to protect her virginity until the moment the marriage contract has been signed... I never read the book, and from description it sounds like a charming very French novel but I am fascinated with the results of moving the characters and some plot elements from 18th Century France to the beginning of 20th century Georgia-Grusiya. I would think that it was Danelia who came up with all the colorful memorable characters that feel so much at home in his native Georgia-Grusiya, the land of long and wonderful traditions, including Art of making and drinking wine, rare music talent that all Georgians seem to possess, very unique humor, and high code of honor. When we watched the film last night together with my husband, he said, what a great example of an Art film, and I so agree with him. Don't Grieve is a perfect Art movie, visually beautiful, deep but funny, at times sad and philosophical but never in a preachy arrogant way but optimistic, celebrating life with all its beauty and sadness, full of interest, loving irony and understanding for its slightly eccentric but very human characters. What is the most important, the film is warm and gentle, it does not look down at its viewers as some of the Art pictures do. You don't have to be a movie buff to love it, to live with it, to smile and sigh at it, to follow the good-hearted young Doctor Benjamin (first role in a Danelia film of famous singer and actor Wachtang Kikabidze with whom Danelia would go on to make two more films including one of my all time favorites, Mimino) on his journey through the roads and mountains of Georgia. Or to be a guest on one of a kind party where the friends gather to celebrate life of the old doctor Levan who wanted to be a guest on his own wake, to hear what his friends have to say about him when he dies while he is still alive, and who gets to choose which color he prefers for his coffin. When I watched the film I thought that it is a sort of movie that Federico Fellini might have liked. I was not surprised at all to find the article about Danelia where he names Fellini his number one director. I also found out that according Danelia, the famous Soviet directors, Leonid Gaiday (the creator of many beloved comedies) and Sergei Paraszhanov (the visionary whom I don't have to introduce loved another Danelia's film, fairy tale about American boy Huck Finn, Sovsem propashchiy) felt and spoke negatively about Don't Grieve while Fellini praised it highly. I dare go a little further and just guess that perhaps Maestro Fellini kept in mind some images and the very aura and atmosphere of Don't Grieve when he was making Amrarcord in 1973. Just a thought, because there is something essential that connects both films. Both Artists came back to their roots, to the places that they love deeply, to the people they remembered, loved and wanted to honor. Both films have a lot of smiles through the tears. Both are Art movies that would get directly to the hearts of the viewers. Both are masterworks.<br /><br />I think I am going to add Georgi Danelia to the list of my favorite directors. He has made some of the brilliant pictures in my most favorite genre of dramedy, even tragicomedies that are funny and bitter sweet, poignant and subtle, earthy and uplifting, gentle and shining. When I looked up the list of the movies he has written/directed, I was amazed at the fact that he has not made a single bad film since he started back in 1960 with the Award winning story of a young boy, Seryozha. Many of Danelia's films are among my favorites, as I am sure they are among his legions of fans. The man behind 'Seryozha, Sovsem propashchiy (1972) which is an adaptation of Mark Twain The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, 33, Ya shagayu po Moskve (1964) aka Walking the Streets of Moscow, Ne goryuy (1969) aka Don't grieve, Afonya (1975), Mimino (1977), Osenniy marafon (1979) aka Autumn Marathon or Sad Comedy which is a very fitting title for this movie as well as for the whole genre that Danelia practically invented, and the cult favorite for over 20 years Kin-Dza-Dza (1986), is brilliant and deserves our true love and genuine gratitude for the unforgettable moments of cinematic happiness.

Screwball comedy about romantic mismatches in New York City. Peter Bogdanovich is obviously in love with all the women in his picture--he reveres them--yet Audrey Hepburn is (naturally) put a notch above the others because, after all, she's the princess Bogdanovich probably fell in love with at the movies 30 years prior. He shoots her in loving close-ups, gets right in the sheets between her and a wonderfully hard-boiled/soft-boiled Ben Gazzara, and allows her room to sparkle throughout. The love-connections made in the course of the film are fast and amusing, though I did tire of John Ritter's TV-styled klutziness. Colleen Camp, Dorothy Stratten, and the grounded, earthy-sensual Patti Hansen are all exciting to watch. But it's really Hepburn's valentine and she absolutely glows. *** from ****

Colleges, High Schools, Fraternities and Sororities have been the most popular stalking grounds for maniacal madmen since the slasher cycle first became a popular cinema culture throughout the late seventies. Even backwoods cabins and campsites have rode shotgun to the amount of massacres that have taken place on campuses since Halloween categorised the genre as a cult horror category. From early entries like To all a Good Night right up until the big budgeted schlock of titles like Urban Legend or Schools Out, there's usually always been a campus slasher lurking somewhere in the pipeline. Despite being picked up by Troma - the titans of B movie badness – Splatter University was heavily panned upon release and never really found an audience. Even notorious hack and slash websites like HYSTERIA-LIVES have written off Richard Haines' splatter yarn as one of the worst of the early eighties boom. I always approach criticised movies optimistically because there's often the chance than a few bad reviews can be unfairly contagious like a dose of the flu, which crowds the judgement of certain authors.<br /><br />It begins in traditional fashion at the place where any maniac worth his salts emerges. Yep you guessed it – an insane asylum! It seems that one of the inmates has decided that he's unhappy with the level of service at the institution and therefore he's looking to take his business elsewhere. The unseen nut-job makes his break after stabbing an unfortunate orderly where the sun certainly doesn't shine. He obviously favours the dress sense of the murdered worker, so he takes the liberty of borrowing his uniform, blood stained trousers and all!<br /><br />Three years later, we transfer to St Trinians College, an educational establishment that is controlled by catholic priests. A teacher is busy after hours marking her students work when all of a sudden there's a knock at the door. Before she has a chance to find out what the unseen visitor wants, he stabs her in the chest with a kitchen knife and she falls to the floor in a bloody heap. This of course means that there's a vacancy at the university and so we're introduced to Julie Parker (Francine Forbes), the lovable replacement for the recently departed lecturer. It seems that her arrival has inadvertently given the resident maniac all the motivation that he needs to go on a no holds barred slaughter-thon. Before long students and teachers alike are dropping like flies to the camera shy menace as he stalks the corridors and local areas armed with an exceptionally large blade. Suspicious suspects abound, but can professor Parker solve the mystery of the campus murderer before she becomes just another statistic? <br /><br />I'm not precisely sure how many versions of this movie are available. The UK altered video was released under the alias of Campus Killings, but the US copy that I own states that it's the complete unedited edition, which could mean that there is a censored print floating about somewhere? I'd be fairly surprised if that was the case as Splatter University certainly isn't as gore-delicious as the hyperbole packaging would lead you to believe. One or two litres of corn syrup certainly don't stand up to gore hound's scrutiny when compared to the likes of Blood Rage or Pieces, so in this instance the movie is somewhat over hyped. One thing that many critics have failed to mention is the charming lead performance from Francine Forbes, who ends up carrying the entire picture on her shoulders throughout the 79-minute running time. Despite amateurish direction from Richard Haines she still unveils some magnificent potential that should have lead to the chance of another stab at serious acting under a more accomplished helmer. Unfortunately that possibility never came, and bottom of the barrel bombs like Death Ring and Splitz certainly didn't help to nurture a talent that could have improved dramatically under the right scholarship.<br /><br />The rest of the cast members were par for the course of movie obscurity, especially the wooden plank teenagers who for some strange reason acted like they were auditioning for a remake of Grease or The Wanderers. The bog standard point and shoot direction couldn't have helped to build much confidence in the project and the fact that the few signs of potential were undermined by the clumsy handling of the script writer left the feature effectively unredeemable. Perhaps the only claim of originality to be found in Haines' slasher is the brave attempt for the contrasting conclusion. Let's just say that it's not a final that I was expecting to witness in a movie that was so typical of the cycle.<br /><br />At one point in the runtime, one of the teens says, "Man that Parker bores me to tears…" Well the same can be said for Splatter University, which never lifts the pace above slow motion. With that said though, Francine Forbes made for a delectable scream queen and undoubtedly one that I would have paid to watch again in a similar role. So that pretty much sums up this un-troma-tising ride. Slow paced, shoddy but still strangely alluring; you'd have to be especially forgiving to give it a chance…

Paul Armstrong is a liberal, Scottish-born, professor of law at Harvard, known for his passionate opposition to the death penalty, who is hired to take on the case of Bobby Earl, a young black man from Florida who has been convicted of the rape and murder of Joanie Shriver, an eleven year old white girl. Earl claims that his confession to the crime was obtained under duress by a sadistic police officer and that the real murderer is Blair Sullivan, a serial killer already under sentence of death for several other murders. Armstrong visits Sullivan in his cell on death row, hoping to persuade him to confess to Joanie's murder, thereby saving Earl from the electric chair. <br /><br />At first all goes well. Sullivan confesses and Earl is released from prison when the appeal court quashes his conviction. As this development takes place only a little after halfway through the film, it is at this point that alarm bells will start ringing in the mind of the viewer. "Warning! Major plot twist ahead!" And so it proves. The anticipated twist soon materialises. Earl, it transpires, is actually guilty of the crime of which he has just been acquitted, and probably of several others as well, but hatched a diabolical plan together with Sullivan in order to secure his freedom; Sullivan will confess to Joanie's murder if Earl will murder his parents. (Just why Sullivan wanted his parents dead is never precisely explained). Armstrong now finds that he is himself in danger from the man whose life he has just saved; Earl has a grudge against Armstrong's wife, herself a lawyer, who acted as Counsel for the prosecution in an earlier case when Earl was accused of rape. <br /><br />"Just Cause" is an example of the auto-cannibalism in which Hollywood sometimes likes to indulge, cobbling together one film by recycling themes and plot devices from a number of others. The first half owes an obvious debt to films like "Intruder in the Dust" and "To Kill a Mockingbird"; about the only difference is that the Sheriff who beats a confession out of Bobby Earl is himself black, whereas in earlier films he would have been white. (Police brutality is now an equal opportunities activity). The central twist in the plot was borrowed from Costa-Gavras's "Music Box", although in that film the revelation does not occur until the very end. The finale, in which a lawyer, his wife and their young daughter are in danger from a former client, is an obvious plagiarism of the two versions of "Cape Fear", which also take place in the swamplands of the American South. Ed Harris' characterisation of Sullivan as a Bible-quoting religious maniac is a direct imitation of Robert de Niro's character in the Scorsese version of "Cape Fear", made four years before "Just Cause". <br /><br />(There is a postscript. Just as "Just Cause" borrowed heavily from several other movies, seven years later its central plot twist was, in its turn, to be blatantly plagiarised in the Ashley Judd vehicle "High Crimes"). <br /><br />The trouble with this style of film-making-by-numbers is that the resulting films are generally much less distinguished than those which inspired them. The whole is normally very much less than the sum of the parts, and "Just Cause" is a much lesser film than any of those which were cannibalised to make it. Harris is normally a gifted actor but this is one of his weakest performances, largely because he is not so much playing a character as playing de Niro playing Max Cady. Blair Underwood is OK as Bobby Earl the (supposedly) innocent young man of the early scenes, but unconvincing as Bobby Earl the murderous psychopath of the later ones. Sean Connery as Armstrong and Laurence Fishburne as the black Sheriff are rather better, but neither is good enough to save the film. (Connery and Harris were to act together in another, better, film, "The Rock", the following year). <br /><br />There is another problem with "Just Cause". The first half of the film looks like a standard liberal "issue" movie, anti-death penalty, anti-racist and critical of heavy-handed policing. The second half looks more like the work of a die-hard reactionary, preaching the message that all criminals are evil bastards, that the only way to deal with them is to fry them in the chair, that liberal lawyers are the useful idiots of the criminal fraternity and that police officers who beat up suspects are to be commended as heroes. The filmmakers seem to have been blissfully unaware that the plot twist casually introduced into the middle of their film had the (presumably unwanted) effect of reversing its political stance, or if they were aware of the problem they ignored it. A suitably convoluted plot was obviously thought to be more important than political consistency. 4/10

To summarize this movie: Without a real plot, this movie consists of 80 minutes of deranged characters either drinking or making bad jokes. The music is just awful, the humor isn't funny and all the female characters slutty idiots or total geeks. It seems to me, that the movie has actually been written by a 14 year old boy, who thinks that drinking is cool, women are designed to please men and all that oppose that view are geeks. Also, the movie has nothing to do with the original American Pie movies, other than a few names and Mr. Levenstein who is a minor character in this one. The only good thing about this movie are the nice looking girls. Don't watch this movie and don't be fooled by the 5.4 rating, because it obviously overrated and doesn't deserve anything above 2.

Once again a film classic has been pointlessly remade with predictably disastrous results. The title is false as is everything about this film. The period is not persuasively rendered, and the leads seem way too young and too vapid to even be criminals. Arthur Penn's film had style, humor, a point of view, and was made by talented people. Even if the 1967 version didn't exist this would still be an unnecessary film. The 1967 version strayed from the facts, presented a glamorized version of Bonnie and Clyde, but it was exciting, and innovative for 1967, and it had some outstanding performances that allowed you to care. This 1992 remake seems culled from the original film rather than the truth as known and the actors in this version are callow, unappealing, and not the least bit interesting. By all means skip this one and hope the 2010 version will be better. Could it possibly be worse?

The pakage implies that Warren Beatty and Goldie Hawn are pulling off a huge bank robbery, but that's not what I got out of it! I didn't get anything! In the first half there's a new character (without introduction) in every other scene. The first half-hour is completely incomprehensible, the rest is just one long, annoying, underlit chase scene. There's always an irritating sound in the background whether it's a loud watch ticking, a blaring siren, a train whistling, or even the horrible score by Quincy Jones. There are a lot of parts that are laughably bad, too. Like, the bad guys chasing Beatty on thin ice with a CAR! Or, the police arriving at the scene roughly fifteen times. I really hated this movie!

Another Channel 4 great canned long before it's time. Compelling acting from Phil Davis and the rest of the cast. Sexy, intelligent and funny. I remember watching it at the time and even then, asking around, no-one had really heard of it. But trying to find someone now who can recall it is even harder. Perhaps Channel 4 don't do their job well enough in drumming up the enthusiasm needed. Either that or the general public is too interested in the TV vomit that is Big Brother. I suspect the latter. Downloading of Garth Merengie's Dark Place prompted Channel 4 to release a DVD of that series. Let's hope the same can happen with North Square.

Neither the total disaster the UK critics claimed nor the misunderstood masterpiece its few fanboys insist, Revolver is at the very least an admirable attempt by Guy Ritchie to add a little substance to his conman capers. But then, nothing is more despised than an ambitious film that bites off more than it can chew, especially one using the gangster/con-artist movie framework. As might be expected from Luc Besson's name on the credits as producer, there's a definite element of 'Cinema de look' about it: set in a kind of realistic fantasy world where America and Britain overlap, it looks great, has a couple of superbly edited and conceived action sequences and oozes style, all of which mark it up as a disposable entertainment. But Ritchie clearly wants to do more than simply rehash his own movies for a fast buck, and he's spent a lot of time thinking and reading about life, the universe and everything. If anything its problem is that he's trying to throw in too many influences (a bit of Machiavelli, a dash of Godard, a lot of the Principles of Chess), motifs and techniques, littering the screen with quotes: the film was originally intended to end with three minutes of epigrams over photos of corpses of mob victims, and at times it feels as if he never read a fortune cookie he didn't want to turn into a movie. Rather than a commercial for Kabbalism, it's really more a mixture of the overlapping principles of commerce, chess and confidence trickery that for the most part pulls off the difficult trick of making the theosophy accessible while hiding the film's central (somewhat metaphysical) con.<br /><br />The last third is where most of the problems can be found as Jason Statham takes on the enemy (literally) within with lots of ambitious but not always entirely successful crosscutting within the frame to contrast people's exterior bravado with their inner fear and anger, but it's got a lot going for it all the same. Not worth starting a new religion over, but I'm surprised it didn't get a US distributor. Maybe they found Ray Liotta's intentionally fake tan just too damn scary?