Datasets:

paduraru2009

/

imdb-sample

like 0

Despite the gravity of the subject and probably the good intentions of the filmmakers to make a film addressing white supremacy, the inconsistencies of its main character, Bronson Green, aspiring New York actor easily turned L.A. phony, makes it hard to take the story seriously. Green, who is constantly rejected by Los Angeles casting agents for being obsolete (i.e. too New York when the 80s is looking for big, blonde, and dumb), he finds success comes easily when he's willing to succumb to falsifying his image. Unfortunately, the new hair dye and pacified "surfer" attitude lands him an acting opportunity with the Jericho Church, which subscribes white supremacist teaching of the Aryan nation. Green is willing to easily forget his past, and particularly turning his back on his young black friend of ten years, in order to be the Church's new spokesman. This makes no sense, seeing as how principled our character initially is. It is this sudden, and loose change in character, coupled with an abrupt reversion back to the hardened, DeNiro-obsessed (as his Taxi Driver character) form who is able to battle the villains. A noble attempt on the filmmakers, but one that ultimately reveals itself as anything but serious.<br /><br />The other characters, too, are quite annoying and what we are forced to recognize in them comes too easily -- the psychotic paranoia of the Church leader, the self-interested actress girlfriend (the first girlfriend Bronson has when he's in L.A.), and the new blonde girlfriend who's character lacks so much development, she is, for the most part, just a walking, talking void. We are just supposed to see them in fleeting moments in which something random forces us to draw assumptions about the characters. But there is really little development of any of them.<br /><br />The other problem with this film is the ungodly amount of time the characters are involved in very little important action. Much of the beginning concerns introducing the characters, obviously, and later we see Bronson's difficulties with breaking into the L.A. acting scene and the frustrations which stem from constant rejection. But after he does willingly change his looks and personality in order to become accepted, there is at least a good twenty minutes to thirty minutes of wasted film in which very little of anything happens.<br /><br />For films that seek to draw attention to the irrational fears behind racism, this was not one done with enough credibility.

This film was absolutely...ugh i can't find the word oh wait... crap! I mean when it started i was like yeah this looks good and then after it was so boring. I nearly fell asleep and it had nothing to do with the fact that i caught a late showing because it was utter filth. Ram Gopal Varma has tried his best but the cast could never live up to the cast of the original Sholay i mean what was he thinking doing a remake. What was he trying to do? Be like Sanjay Leeli Bhansani and win all the awards next year like he did for Black? Ajay and that other guy were good especially the other guy who played raj because out of all of them he was the one to look at. What was Amitabh doing? He's destroying his own dignity by doing all these stupid films. First Nishabd then Cheeni Kum then Jhoom Barabar Jhoom and now this i mean hes got to gather a bit of his money and move as far away from Bollywood as possible before he loses all his respect and I'm telling you he's already past half his way. I mean all this is really good for the other actors like Shah Rukh Khan who's getting a really good name now because of the recent downfall of Amitabh. I never really liked him because he thinks he's God and i just knew Abhishek was going to be in that movie. <br /><br />If you want to save your £17.75 and spend it on something good go watch Heyy Babyy because that's just the funniest movie ever and it's number one in the charts!

It's getting worse, the series is on a serious down fall. The first two sequel were acceptable and from then on we have seen a buch of really, really terrible movies. Robert Englund gives another great performance as Freddy but the rest of the cast can't act. The story is Alice, having survived the previous installment of the Nightmare series, finds the deadly dreams of Freddy Krueger starting once again. This time, the taunting murderer is striking through the sleeping mind of Alice's unborn child. His intention is to be "born again" into the real world. The only one who can stop Freddy is his dead mother, but can Alice free her spirit in time to save her own son? Check out the first three, miss the next three then watch the last one.

"Read My Lips" tells of a strange symbiosis which develops between a plain, socially maladroit female office worker (Devos) and her workplace trainee, a crude excon (Casel). As the film fleshes out this unlikely duo down to their ids they become embroiled in a chilling merging of the minds, each using the other for their own selfish reasons with an extraordinary outcome. Good stuff for anyone into character-driven films with strong psychodramatic undercurrents. In French with easy to read subtitles and good translation. (B+)

*SPOILERS* Four men, Ed (Jon Voight), Lewis (Burt Reynolds), Drew (Ronny Cox) and Bobby (Ned Beatty), decide to go on a rafting trip on the Cahulawassee river, before it is flooded.<br /><br />They wanted to have fun, to have a nice weekend in the nature.<br /><br />But when two mountain men cross their path and rape one of them (Bobby), everything begins to go to Hell in a Handbasket, and this 'nice weekend' will even cost one of the four's life...<br /><br />'Deliverance', which in Italian is stupidly titled 'Un Tranquillo Weekend Di Paura' ('A Calm Weekend Of Fear'), is the Grandad of movies like 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre', 'The Hills Have Eyes', 'Wrong Turn', 'Last House On The Left' and all the other 'Evil Nature/Revenge' subgenre films, and one of the scariest, right next to 'The Hills Have Eyes'.<br /><br />Based on a book by James Dickey (who appears in the movie as Sheriff Bullard), it's a chilling story on how someone can go into a situation thinking he knows everything, when he doesn't.<br /><br />And the image of the dead man's hand raising from under the water, or the hands holding the rifle from the one-sheet are haunting images that will never leave your mind.<br /><br />Deliverance: 9/10.

"The Rainmaker" released in 1956 - has some of the finest actors of its time. Katharine Hepburn, Lloyd Bridges, and Burt Lancaster being the principle players. Not even they can save this completely over acted melodrama. First of all, Hepburn is horribly miscast as a shy spinster - despite her brilliance as an actress, not even she can pull this off. She is too strong to be credible as being this much of a simpleton, and was just too old for the part. Lancaster over acts to the extreme, and Earl Holliman is way too hammy and comes off more like Jethro Clampett. Only Bridges and the ever reliable Wendell Corey seem to rise above the cast a bit - but even they can only do so much. It seems like the 1950's was a time when Katharine Hepburn wanted to spread her wings a bit as an actress, and that is fine. She just made a bad choice here. Fortunately for her fans (me being among them) she didn't make too many of them. Despite an A-list cast and good production values, it doesn't work.

The problem with this movie is that it is shot on the worst possible camera and the film is blurry and grainy. Maybe it's just the fact that whoever was holding the camera couldn't hold still because they were having a seizure or something. There is also way too much poop and vomit in this movie. There is someone vomiting every twenty minutes and it makes me think that this was made by some bulimic or something. It was disgusting. Then there is the annoying high pitched screaming that goes on and on and on and doesn't stop until the credits roll. I also didn't like when all her friends were being shot (or not I don't know)and she goes in the van and puts band aids on. That was just really really stupid to even have that in a movie. How much gas can a person siphon to get a van going? It must be a whole lot because they don't run out of gas for the rest of the movie. It was a terrible movie and I would highly suggest not ever seeing it in your whole entire life.

If you only read a synopsis of the plot, this movie would sound like quite a typical one of the 1930's. The story would seem quite contrived, the subject matter maudlin. The strength and beauty of this film is in the direct, earthy performances of the cast.I have seldom seen Jean Harlow display such a range of feeling, rich and subtle nuances float over her face. If you watch their faces during the wedding ceremony in the chapel, there is such an obvious depth of feeling between the principal characters. The raw emotions are so sincerely portrayed, so true. The final sequence is almost unbearably poignant: when Clark Gable looks down with such joy and surprise at his son, lifts him up and proudly says, "My kid!", I couldn't help remember that Mr. Gable's own son was born to him posthumously. This is one of the finest examples of Depression era cinema.

With all of the films of recent,dealing with the British Monarchy,is it really time for another? Answer:YOU BET! The Young Victoria is another contribution to the wave of cinema from Britain dealing with the Royal family. In this case,it deals with the early life of Princess Victoria,and events leading up to the Coronation of her becoming Queen of all England,as well as her romance & eventual wedding to Prince Albert. The film also deals with the tempestuous lives & careers of both England's Queen & Prince,as well as several other events that transpire (political turmoil,etc.). Emily Blunt plays a radiant Victoria in her youth,while Rupert Friend is her beloved & best friend,Prince Albert. The rest of the cast is rounded out with the likes of Miranda Richardson,as the Dutchess of Kent,and the always welcome on screen,Jim Broadbent as King William,as well as a cast of others that shine on screen. Jean Marc Vallee (C.R.A.Z.Y.,Loser Love),directs from a winning screenplay by Jullian Fellowes (Vanity Fair,Gosford Park,Separate Lies). I absolutely went out of my head over the film's visual look (by cinematographer Hagen Bogdansker),who gave each frame of film a painterly look (with the help of production designer,Patrice Vermette),as well as some tight editing (by Jill Bilcock & Matt Garner). What I also appreciated in Fellowes' script is the use of a game of Chess,as a metaphor for some of the film's political motivation (the characters in the film move about like the pieces on a Chess board). This is smart,well written,directed,filmed,edited & acted entertainment (and enlightenment)that makes for a well spent evening at the cinema. Rated PG by the MPAA for a few scenes of sensuality,some brief violence ( a little bloody,although nothing too gory),a rude outburst of language,and some on screen smoking

Can we say retarded? This girl has no talent what so ever, nothing but complete garbage. You people are just marking 10 stars because you know most people hate this pathetic woman, if its such a "great" show then why did it get canceled after 6 measly episodes? exactly. People that support her, please seek help you do NOT know what is funny. Her stand up comedy is just so stupid, seriously how do you find this trash funny? The show tries to poke fun at stereo types and other things that are not funny at all. Carlos Mencia is funny and to that stupid poster, he actually has fans and his show is on the air so I'm sorry your a redneck who doesen't get his jokes. Please give me my 20 minutes of my life back.

Recap: Zandalee is a young woman that feels more and more trapped in her marriage with Thierry. Thierry himself is struggling with the death of his father the previous year and has lost his way. He has submerged himself in work, laid of his writing, and Zandalee desperately misses the attraction between them. Into this enters Johnny, and old friend of Thierry's who once were artists in exile together. But Johnny has kept on painting, and just have a day job for the rent. He takes the day as it comes and leaves tomorrow to its destiny. There is an instant raw attraction between Zandalee and Johnny, and they enter into an affair. But Zandalee struggles with her lust to be desired and her conscience and love for her husband. But none of them, not Zandalee, not Johnny and not Thierry can stop the relationships between them to spin totally out of control.<br /><br />Comments: It is set as a thriller. But maybe more a thriller of heart than a normal thriller where it's about life and death, and threat of violence. Not that a thriller of heart can't take on fatal proportions, but the threat comes from a different angle. And it is not really until the second half in Zandalee until the thriller emerges, and even though the foundation for it is laid in the first half, I can't really describe the genre as a thriller then. Much more of a romantic drama than anything else, but with the underlying currents of other genres. The developing thriller is there, but it also has more than a little tint of a sensual erotic kind. Because that is what it is all about, what drives the characters and therefore the entire story. Desire. The need to have, and the need to be.<br /><br />In my opinion it is quite good, definitely a lot better than its current (4.1) rating anyway. It takes its time but it grows a good feeling of suspense, and it handles the erotic part very well, with taste. It is always an integral part of the story, needed to be there to give the story it's needed weight, and I never felt it was an excuse to show a naked breast or anything like that. But unfortunately the climax of the story comes well before the end, and the end itself feels kind of flat, even if in its own way kind of dramatic.<br /><br />The cast is impressive, spearheaded by known actors like Nicholas Cage and Judge Reinhold. But the show is almost completely stolen by Erika Anderson. Beautiful and very adept at acting out the sometimes subtle feelings of desire, she excels were both Cage and Reinhold sometimes goes a bot overboard and become a little rough. Her career afterward is too thin for the talent she shows in Zandalee, I can only hope it is because of her own choices. Also two personal favorites appear in small roles that give some extra edge to the movie, it is Steve Buscemi and Joe Pantoliano.<br /><br />When you're in the right mood this is a very good movie, it could have used another end to get the credit it really deserves.<br /><br />7/10

A romanticised and thoroughly false vision of unemployment from a middle class "artist" with a comfortable upbringing... It is clear that the writer-director never suffered unemployment directly and certainly has no personal experience of it. If you had to believe this absolutely ridiculous story, unemployed men of all ages behave like teenagers, have no anger, no fear, no frustration, etc. All the characters live trough the day by carrying pranks, boyish jokes. They do never look for work, the do almost never experience rejection or anguish, etc. Living on the dole is just about like a summer vacation from school... Ridiculous. Specially if you compare it with contemporary masterpieces from the likes of Ken Loach, etc.

This movie was like a bad indie with A-list talent. The plot was silly, all the way to the end. It reminded me very much of something churned out for the home video market in the 1980's. I would have given it a one, but there were brief moments when you could see the actors really really straining to make this worthwhile. I think the worst thing was the underwater scene's held off of the dock. The underwater lighting seemed to come from no were, and whenever someone we were supposed to care about was close to running out of air, this air tank would kind of appear. I would avoid this, unless there is nothing else on the shelf. Good Day.

The reason I intended to give this movie a chance to take 2 hours of my life (actually it was only 35 minutes) was my wish to try to understand and hopefully appreciate Indian cinema. All I have ever seen were few older movies of S.Ray.<br /><br />Browsing through IMDb I came across this one and after seeing rating of 8.7 I concluded this must be the one which will open the doors of unknown and bring artistic enjoyment. Oh my how wrong I was! The only logical explanation for this rating of 8.7 is that most of 970 people who voted are Indian and their only venture outside Bolliwood production were Adam Sandler movies.<br /><br />With this rating this movie would be ranked on 9th place on IMDb List of 250 best movies above Citizen Cane, Goodfellas of Psycho! I am really not in a mood to review and criticize because there is simply nothing that I find worth remembering from this painful experience. My only hope is that there is a lot of Hindu who like me find this movie as is -- plain stupid, with abundance of kitsch and cheesy music.

Edmund Burke said that "all evil needs is for good me to do nothing." Hollywood often gives us trash because not enough families go to see quality films. This movie was uplifting story of the loss and restoration of faith. It had no violence, no lewdness, and did not deserve a PG rating. The western scenery was filmed well, and some of the vistas were simply breathtaking. Actors were a bit young for their parts, but otherwise believable and talented. Music score was too loud, and in some places drowned out the dialog completely. I'm seldom surprised by movie endings any more, but I was pleasantly surprised by this one. Sometimes the good guys do win, and they win by honest efforts. We liked the movie and the message, and would recommend it for the entire family.

Bette Davis brings her full trunk of tics to this miserable flop which is another variation on the "hilariously mismatched" lovers theme. Sadly, Cagney and Davis are truly mismatched in acting styles and the mix is not simply unpalatable but distasteful. The only distinction in the film comes from Eugene Pallette who, literally, phones in his usual part as the deb's misunderstood dad. Jack Carson's performance can only be described as an act of mayhem on the audience

I remember seeing this one when I was seven or eight. I must have found the characters round, because they left a impression in my mind that lasted for a long time after the end of the movie. And the ending, now that's sad, well... for a 7-8 year old kid.<br /><br />I had the opportunity of seeing this movie again lately, and found that the plot was too simple, the character, two-dimensional... I guess it's the kind of movie that you can only with the innocence of a young child... Pity...<br /><br />I recommend this one for all you parents with small kids... ( I saw it in its original french version, so I cannot tell you whether the translation is good or not.)

'Moonstruck' is a love story. There is not one romance, there are at least three, but they all have to do with the same family. Loretta's family. Loretta (Cher) is about to marry Johnny Cammareri (Danny Aiello). She doesn't love him, but he is sweet and good man. When he leaves to visit his dying mother in Italy Loretta meets Johnny's brother Ronny (Nicolas Cage). He and Johnny haven't spoken each other in five years and Loretta wants to invite him to the wedding. Of course they fall instantly for each other.<br /><br />How this story and love stories of Loretta's parents and uncle and aunt develop is something you simply have to see for yourself. Every seen is a delight to watch, with Cher as the bright star in the middle of everything. She won and really deserved the Oscar that year. Cage is pretty good, and goofy as well, and Olympia Dukakis as Loretta's mother and Vincent Gardenia as her father are terrific. This movie is funny, charming and therefore highly enjoyable.

Sometimes realism can work against the effectiveness of a film. That's no problem here. The sets are cheesy, inside and out. The fog is ubiquitous, half disguising the shabbiness of the production. If there's a bar, the name painted on the front window says simply, "Wine And Spirits." The result is a claustrophobic set of scenes. Not a single shot of a city or even a fake skyline. That's the kind of Dublin this story is about, just as Jack the Ripper movies are about seedy, foggy, cobblestoned Whitechapel. Who would want it any other way? How could it have been any other way with no bankable stars, a minuscule budget, and a four-week shooting schedule? The acting follows suit -- outrageously hammy on everyone's part. Sometimes, my God, it's positively excruciating. Mrs. McPhillips moaning after Frankie is shot dead outside the house. Victor McLaglin however delivers exactly the right kind of overdone performance. Wardrobe has stuffed him into a too-small jacket so that he seems to be bursting out of it like Frankenstein's monster. His every movement seems to go a little farther than it was intended to. When he slaps his cap on his head, he bops himself on the temple. A big, blustering, blubbering baby, he seems constantly drunk. He betrays his best friend for the reward money which will take him and his would-be girl to America, not a good guy in the ordinary sense. Yet we wince as he begins to spend the 20 pounds, more and more of it during a wild, alcoholic night, because every expensive and grandiose gesture takes him farther from his dream. I wouldn't argue it, but I can understand why he won an Oscar.<br /><br />As for Max Steiner's score, wow. Every movement, already overdone, is not only underlined by the Mickey Mouse music but highlighted in glossy yellow. It shouldn't have happened -- the heavenly choirs, the endearing young charms, the minstrel boy, the gurgling tune while McLaglen drinks from the bottle. It would have been better off with no score at all.<br /><br />Well, how is it as a whole? Dated -- by any measure, but not a product of its times. That's why I admire it. Yes, the symbolism is clumsy at times. McLaglen, a real dummy, bumping his head against a hanging sign. The fog. The blind man. But what impresses me is how little of this was being tried at the time. What strikes us as overly arty today was in 1936 something quite different from what was seen in most of the programmers being ground out at the time. If it falls short at times, it doesn't matter. The movie was an act of courage, politically and morally as well as poetically. (The legion of decency condemned it because of a scene in a brothel.) A director's goal should exceed his grasp, or what's a script for? Watching it now, however, in 2006, the story is more disturbing than ever. John Ford obviously sympathized with the Irish rebels. They kill, but only out of what they see as necessity. ("He knows too much to live. What if he goes to the Tans? Oh, it's not me-self I'm thinking of but all of us, of Ireland herself.") The Irish are sentimentalized and sympathetic. I wonder if the Jihadists in the Middle East don't use a similar logic to justify their acts of violence.

54 is a film about a club with that very title in the setting of the 70s era. It features the classic good-looking bartender. The sexy females. The high powered owner. The partying. When all entwined together chaos ensues, and the bartender (played by Phillipe) seems to be at the brunt of it all.<br /><br />I'm going to be as blunt and honest as possible, whilst avoiding any outright unfair or untrue comments (like, it's an 'ok' film). I really do find it a completely dire film complimented by it's dire cast. Every time I sit down to watch a film casting Salma Hayek, I am always awaiting to see her beauty, radiantly expressed simultaneously with a great performance, but, reality invariably reminds me quite abruptly how utterly talentless she is. I mean, really, what has she ever bequeathed the masses with, other than her immense table dance in 'From Dusk Till Dawn'...? The same goes for Ryan Phillippe, another poor actor who gives nothing to the screen but his good looks and insanely dull facade otherwise known as 'acting'. Mike Myers, isn't quite as bad as these 2, he does at least give the Film something worthy. Playing the seedy, extroverted co-founder of the 54 Club. The type that the majority watching would hate (i.e. job well done), he puts in a somewhat convincing performance that gave me rare enjoyment from the flick. But alas, it is not enough to rescue the film from it's baseless and flat nothingness. Most 'bad' bad films I find something to take from the film, but this has nothing to it, really. Neve Campbell isn't too bad, but she is just 'there'. The storyline is dull, it appears the writer was more bent on making a film of this style and embellishment and forgot to add anything else. Any meaning. Any class. Anything at all. Because like most ornaments, they are just hollow pointless objects, that are merely pretty to look at, much akin to the basis of this disastrous film.<br /><br />Genuinely an hour and a half of time I could have spent better doing something much more exciting, like talking to 90 year old relatives on the phone about the weather.

I was really impressed with this film. The writing was fantastic, and the characters were all rich, and simple. It's very easy to get emotionally attached to all of them. The creators of this movie really hit the nail right on the head when it comes to creating real life characters, and getting the viewer sucked right into their world. Further, the music is terrific. They employed some independents to do the score, and some of the soundtrack, and they do a fantastic job adding to the movie. If you have a chance to catch this movie in a small theater or at a film festival (like I did), I highly recommend that you go see it. Also, on a personal note, Paget Brewster is beautiful in this movie. That's reason enough to go check it out.

"Dressed To Kill", is one of the best thrillers ever made. Its dealings with sex and violence make this a film for adults. Brian De Palma, once again, proves why no other director can match his use of the camera to tell a story. He directs many scenes without dialog, and he tells much of his story, strictly through the use of his visuals, and Pino Donnagio's brilliant score. Filmed in Panavision, the film MUST be seen in widescreen, as De Palma uses the entire width of the film to tell his story. Cropped, on video, "Dressed To Kill", is barely the same movie. Solid performances from its cast, superb direction, and, perhaps, the finest film score ever written, make "Dressed To Kill" a must see.

First of all, I loved Bruce Broughton's music score, very lyrical, and this alone added to the film's charm. The best aspect of the movie were the three animals, superlatively voiced by Michael J.Fox, Sally Field and the late Don Ameche. Whereas Fox has the funniest lines, Ameche plays a rather brooding otherwise engaging character(the voice of reason), and Field adds wit into a character that is always seen telling Chance off. The humans weren't as engaging, and sometimes the film dragged, but that is my only complaint. This is one beautiful-looking film, with beautiful close up shots of Canada, I believe. Although the film itself is quite long, there is never a seriously dull moment, and this is advantaged by the voice work and a well-written script. All in all, a charming and perhaps underrated film, with a 9/10 from me. Bethany Cox.

I was treated to a viewing of Cracker Bag last night before a preview screening of Disney's Holes. I don't know who decided to show it but I'm so very glad they did. Cracker Bag is an absolute gem, a snapshot of Australia in the early 80s as seen through a child's eye. The "conversations" between Eddie and her brother were hilarious and, as with the rest of the film, so true to life. Each shot brought a great sense of nostalgia as it reminded me of my own childhood (being the same age as the director probably helps a little) and the audio multiplied the feeling. I only hope I get to see Cracker Bag again some day.

This documentary on schlockmeister William Castle takes a few cheap shots at the naive '50s-'60s environment in which he did his most characteristic work--look at the funny, silly people with the ghost-glasses--but it's also affectionate and lively, with particularly bright commentary from John Waters, who was absolutely the target audience for such things at the time, and from Castle's daughter, who adored her dad and also is pretty perceptive about how he plied his craft. (We never find out what became of the other Castle offspring.) The movies were not very good, it makes clear, but his marketing of them was brilliant, and he appears to have been a sweet, hardworking family man. Fun people keep popping up, like "Straight Jacket"'s Diane Baker, who looks great, and Anne Helm, whom she replaced at the instigation of star Joan Crawford. Darryl Hickman all but explodes into giggles at the happy memory of working with Castle on "The Tingler," and there's enough footage to give us an idea of the level of Castle's talent--not very high, but very energetic. A pleasant look at a time when audiences were more easily pleased, and it does make you nostalgic for simpler movie-going days.

Incredible documentary captured all the frenzied chaos and misery which loomed over NYC on that fateful morning of September 11th. Intense, personal, and completely riveting, 9/11 is perhaps the greatest documentary ever made by accident, which kind of gives it an even greater appeal. Up until that morning, filmmakers Gideon and Jules Naudet had been following around a New York firefighter team, concentrating specifically on one new recruit in a little piece they were shooting dealing with the rigorous training to become a fireman. Out with the team that morning filming yet another simple routine cleanup, Jules lifts his camera up to the sky just in time to record one of the only known images of the first plane hitting the World Trade Center, and from there a simple documentary was no more.<br /><br />Viewers are given a first hand account of what it was like to be in and around ground zero, as the amazing group of fire-fighters and one profoundly bewildered cameraman attempt to navigate this disaster. Without hesitation, Naudet follows these automatically programmed heroes into the tower while it's entire support crumbles around them. The raw fear of an unknown, impending doom lurks with more viability then any fictional production could ever fathom as we watch less and less become audible and visible for those trapped inside. Nearly as memorable is older brother Gideon's candid capturing of an entire city in the throngs of a larger and more palpable fear then anything they had collectively witnessed. By the time we get to see the second tower collapse, as the cameraman shields himself from apocalyptic debris, we should all but be rinsing the dirt off ourselves from the amazingly up-close footage captured.<br /><br />Obviously the filmmakers deserve only as much credit as being in the right place at the right time to document such an extraordinary event, though one can only admire the two brothers in their extraordinary adaptation to such an event; in a few desperate minutes we witness them become like the firemen they document- only instead of saving lives they knew they had to save footage, even if it cost them their own safety.<br /><br />After viewing 9/11, and seeing that it came out in 2002, I feel much more resentment towards Oliver Stone's recent rendition, the big budgeted World Trade Center. Many had criticized the film for ignorantly narrowing down the focus to those two survivors trapped in rubble, and although I enjoyed the movie just fine for the small and sentimental Hollywood focus it brought, 9/11 all but renders his film completely obsolete. Not only will this utterly gripping footage remain the only definitive collection from that day, but the sublime transfer of motives midway ensures that this documentary has all the heart and character needed to never sensationalize the event again.

I was not entirely impressed by this film. It was originally named Sin Eater and should have stayed that way considering that is all that was talked about for the last half of the film. I'm not even sure what the first 20 minutes of the film had to do with any of the rest of it. It was very slow and what was with picking Robocop (Peter Weller) as one of the main actors. That was a sad point.<br /><br />All in all I would say check this out if you are into things dealing with the Catholic religion but don't expect an Exorcist or Stigmata from this film. It will surely flop after a few days and word gets out.

'Grey Gardens'(1975) is the Maysles' brothers bizarre documentary of Jackie Bouvier Kennedy Onassis'eccentric aunt and first cousin who live like pigs in a run down 28 room mansion on East Hampton, Long Island.'Big Edie' Bouvier Beale,78,witty and dry and her daughter, 'Little Edie' Beale,56,(emotionally about 13) a still beautiful woman who once had a promising future,live in isolation from the rest of the world except for their many cats and raccoons in the attic. They amuse themselves by bickering all day, listening to the radio or singing to each other(They dont even own a television) Their fall from society is amazing to learn of and the viewer is drawn to these two very special, although obviously, dysfunctional people.One of the better documentaries ever made and still a cult classic today.

More like psychological analysis of movies, but Psycho does sound better as a header. The man in charge of the movie (the narrator if you will) does depict movies here in his own way. Most of them are classics, but all of them are listed here at IMDb and I'd strongly advise you to see them (especially the Hitchcock movies, Solyaris, Conversation & and the Lynch movies), because Slavoj Zizek will reference them! <br /><br />Or in other words, he might spoil them for you. I don't remember if he spoiled more than those I've listed (I think the Chaplin movies too), but as I wrote it'd be best if you watch them all beforehand! In the IMDb listing there is a movie missing, that I did report to them, so it might get up there pretty soon. It's a Meg Ryan movie, but it's a only a brief snippet not big of a deal anyways.<br /><br />Zizek views and opinions are crazy and fun to listen to, if you're open minded to see things through another perspective (even if that does destroy your favorite movie a bit for you ... it doesn't mean it will do that, but it could)!

Brian Yuzna is often frowned upon as a director for his trashy gore-fests, but the truth is that his films actually aren't bad at all. The Re-Animator sequels aren't as great as the original, but are still worthy as far as horror sequels are concerned. Return of the Living Dead 3 is the best of the series; and Society isn't a world away from being a surrealist horror masterpiece. This thriller certainly isn't a masterpiece; but it shows Yuzna's eye for horror excellently, and the plot moves in a way that is always thrilling and engaging. I'm really surprised that a horror movie about dentistry didn't turn up until 1996, as going to the dentist is almost a primal fear - it's running away from a tiger for the modern world. Dentistry doesn't frighten me, but surprisingly; I would appear to be in the minority. The plot follows perfectionist dentist Dr Feinstone. He has a nice house, a successful career and a beautiful wife - pretty much everything most people want. However, his life takes a turn for the worse when he discovers his wife's affair with the pool cleaner. And his life isn't the only one; as it's his patients who feel the full brunt of his anger...<br /><br />When it comes to scaring the audience, this movie really makes itself. However, credit has to go to the director for extracting the full quota of scares from the central theme. The fact that he does a good job is summed up by the fact that I'm not squeamish about going to the dentist - yet one particular scene actually made me cover my eyes! The film follows the standard man going insane plot outline, only with The Dentist you always get the impression that there's more to the film than what we're seeing. It isn't very often that a gore film can impress on a substance level - and while this won't be winning any awards, the parody on the upper class is nicely tied into the plot. The acting, while B-class, is actually quite impressive; with Corbin Bernsen taking the lead role and doing a good job of convincing the audience that he really is a man on the edge. I should thank Brian Yuzna for casting Ken Foree in the movie. The Dawn of the Dead star doesn't get enough work, and I really love seeing him in films. The rest of the cast doesn't massively impress, but all do their jobs well enough. Overall, The Dentist offers a refreshing change for nineties slasher movies. The gore scenes are sure to please horror fans, and I don't hesitate to recommend this film.

It surprises me how much I love this movie despite the fact that I don't really like dogs. Fox, Field, and Ameche do a wonderful job with the voices of Chance, Sassy and Shadow, and the acting by the animals themselves is just amazing.<br /><br />I have seen this movie 72 times already (I know that sounds scary, but it's true!), and every time the ending scenes still get me. I highly recommend it to people of all ages and especially to animal lovers. It is indeed my all-time favorite movie!

I first saw this film during and International Film Studies course. I am a 'non-traditional' student, and, perhaps for reasons of years-lived or wisdom-accrued, appreciated the slow, reflective pacing of the film's narrative. Languorous with the heat and dust of an arid clime, the story is deeply psychological, replete with multi-layered symbolism, and an articulate inversion of the theme of being the 'Other' in a land that one does not understand. the understanding that does come is fraught with the unresolved memories and subjectivity of the outsider. Made nearly 20 years ago, it is also a forerunner in a genre of numerous other international films that explore the themes of colonials in colonized spaces, clueless to the nuances of the cultures into which they have entered. Much more lavishly filmed---and heavily financed--- works that have been made since reflect the same themes: Indochine, Nowhere in Africa are two that in comparison perhaps make Chocolat seem pale and boring. It has no adrenaline-pumping action or extreme violence. The struggles are mental, emotional and subtle. But, that being said, it is a fine film, worth a viewing.

This film is a Pia Zadora special! When viewing it, I was reminded of the classic cartoon showing a Hollywood starlet; in urgent need of another role but afraid of becoming typecast for 'B' movie or soft porn roles; who says at her casting session "Well of course I do not normally do roles requiring nudity, but if it is artistically necessary for the film...............". This recollection brought up a very naughty image of a similar cartoon showing Pia at such a session saying "Well of course I do not normally take any roles requiring actual acting, but if it will really give me sufficient exposure to enhance my status as a sex symbol..................". This is probably grossly unfair, the rather sordid tale is the fault of Harold Robbins book; considering the nature of the story Pia's exposures certainly do not receive undue attention, and perhaps Pia (who once won an acting award in Butterfly) is deliberately satirising her part rather than attempting to act in an almost unplayable role. Critics usually point first to the actors as the problem whenever a film proves disappointing, but this is grossly unfair; the scriptwriters and director are far more often the guilty parties. The real problem with "The Lonely Lady" is that the screenplay, like the original book, looks for sensation rather than substance, and nothing can help with this. <br /><br /> The screenplay for this film is abysmal, but whether the story could have been filmed more successfully with a better script, tauter directing and really competent acting must remain a matter of personal judgement. As it was released, my viewers rating for it would depend upon whether I am assessing my personal opinion, or assessing to what extent the film succeeds in providing what it aims at doing. My personal rating for it would be two out of ten; but to some extent this film probably provides exactly what its sponsors intended, and judged on this basis a quality rating of four out of ten would be reasonable. Being in a charitable mood, and wanting to make it clear that I am not blaming Pia for my disappointment, I will give an IMDb rating of four.

First of all that I would like to say is that Edison Chen is extremely hot and that Sam Lee is looking much better than before XD! This is probably one of the most original movies I have seen so far; shows a poverty lifestyle background of a Cambodian. The Cambodian(Edison aka Pang) goes around killing people to survive himself; has done it throughout his entire life. Sam Lee's(Wai) duty is to capture the Cambodian for good. There are tons of violent actions but has a good story to it. The movie shows the struggles between those two characters; they both beat each other like angry dogs. GO AND WATCH PPL...STRONGLY SUGGESSTED!!! (GO HK FILMS)

I don't see how this show is like the OC at all. <br /><br />First of all, the OC centers around teenagers and their parents trying to get through life. North Shore is about a hotel staff who is trying to run the hotel and have a social life at the same time. Second, The OC takes place in California. North Shore takes place in Hawaii.<br /><br />And why would Fox make a show just like one of its other shows on the same network? I think this is a great show with good actors for the most part. It has a good storyline and plot. I like the events that happen and how the people take care of them and work them out. The most recent episode was surprising how the story worked out. It wasn't predictable like most stories on most shows. <br /><br />I hope Fox keeps it on the air.

Of all movies (and I'm a film graduate, if that's worth anything to you), this is THE WORST movie I have ever seen. I know there are probably some worse ones out there that I just haven't seen yet, but I have seen this, and this is the worst. A friend and I rented it one night because Denise Richards was on the cover. Talk about being young and retarded. She's uncredited! Her role was unbelievably small! How did she make it on the cover!? IMDb doesn't even list it in her filmography. This movie was so bad, we wrote a little note to the video store when we returned it, and slipped it inside the case. It read something like "please save your further customers from having to view this complete and totally bad movie!"

This movie made it into one of my top 10 most awful movies. Horrible. <br /><br />There wasn't a continuous minute where there wasn't a fight with one monster or another. There was no chance for any character development, they were too busy running from one sword fight to another. I had no emotional attachment (except to the big bad machine that wanted to destroy them) <br /><br />Scenes were blatantly stolen from other movies, LOTR, Star Wars and Matrix. <br /><br />Examples<br /><br />>The ghost scene at the end was stolen from the final scene of the old Star Wars with Yoda, Obee One and Vader. <br /><br />>The spider machine in the beginning was exactly like Frodo being attacked by the spider in Return of the Kings. (Elijah Wood is the victim in both films) and wait......it hypnotizes (stings) its victim and wraps them up.....uh hello????<br /><br />>And the whole machine vs. humans theme WAS the Matrix..or Terminator.....<br /><br />There are more examples but why waste the time? And will someone tell me what was with the Nazi's?!?! Nazi's???? <br /><br />There was a juvenile story line rushed to a juvenile conclusion. The movie could not decide if it was a children's movie or an adult movie and wasn't much of either. <br /><br />Just awful. A real disappointment to say the least. Save your money.

The 1986 TV movie of The Spirit was a pilot for a possible series. However, Spirit creator Will Eisner did not like the film and thus no series was produced. I thought it was a very entertaining film and captured the spirit (sorry) of the comic with a modern twist. I'm sorry it didn't materialize into a series. Sam (Flash Gordon) Jones was a perfect Spirit. Nana Visitor was a nice Ellen Dolan and of course would later go on to Star Trek:Deep Space Nine years later. Maybe with the release of Frank Miller's big-screen version of The Spirit, more people will be able to see this rare gem of Spirit history. It seems that when Hollywood makes a film from an already established character or idea, someone will inevitably seek out previous versions of the property and release it to video in order to make a few dollars. When Antonio Banderas donned the mask of Zorro, we were able to get earlier versions of the masked hero on DVD, such as the great Alain Delon version of the 1970s (although all copies I ever saw were badly edited). Heres hoping someone will release the TV adventure of The Spirit to DVD soon.

Like the characters in this show, I too was a teen during the 70s. The producers really nailed the whole zeitgeist, of being a suburban teenager in the 70s. The 70s fashions, cars, home furnishings, foods, and fads, are all very authentic in this show.<br /><br />The show boasts a very talented ensemble cast, who all mesh together very well on camera. I really like the unique, psychedelic-style film sequences. No other show does camera tricks like this. These cutting-edge film sequences, really help to convey the campy hipness, that characterized the 70s era.<br /><br />Overall this is a very funny sitcom. The one thing that bothers me about this show, is it's over-reliance on cruel humor, to generate laughs. In this way, I think that this show tries to be too much like Married With Children. While Married with Children is a great sitcom in its own right, it's tacky that the creators of That 70s show, keep trying to imitate it. <br /><br />I do recommend That 70s Show, mainly due to it's nostalgia factor. It could be an even better show though, if the writers relied more on witty dialog, rather than bawdy, tasteless jokes and pranks.

John Carpenter's career is over if this sad excuse for a movie is any indication. His excuse is that he only produced it. Jon Bon Jovi looks like a girl. In fact, Bon Jovi and the two Vampire girls, Natasha Wagner and Arly Jover probably all fit in the same clothes. In short, it was hard to tell which one was cuter in an anorexic ramp-model sort of way. Bon Jovi has the most charisma. At least he looks happy when he is smiling. The two Vampire Girls on the other hand are all cramps and complaints. At one point they are about to give each other a wet kiss, but stop. Amazing how each Vampire movie has some set of morays for the respective vampires. At one point, Arly Jover is providing fellatio to a very dumb Vampire Hunter and then she sucks his blood while doing the sex act. It would have been an erotic moment except that it was filmed like a total goof, and the male actor looked mildly amused as he watched Arly Jover move her head to mimic something that was very obviously not happening. As far as gore is concerned, a few heads are ripped off, and the blood spurts profusely. These scenes have so little suspense or build-up that when they happen it is almost funny, and there is no "horror" pay-off from the scene. All you get as a member of the audience is a feeling of "Wow, that sure was a lot of red paint splattering on the walls. I wonder who has to clean it up." Throughout the movie, these Vampire Hunters who are obviously trying to kill Arly Jover (the top vampire in the world??) keep reaching out to her. At one point, Bon Jovi goes into the abandoned Church and after he just shot her with an arrow (and has done so on other occasions), he says "I am not trying to hurt you. I just want to talk to you. I want to get to know you." HUH?? Of course, the dumb vampire Arly jumps out to say hello and Bon Jovi sticks her again with another impaling device. "Why Can't We Be Friends" the 1970s hit song by WAR should have been the theme song for this movie. Aside from all of the other silly moments, there is a transfusion sequence when Natasha Wagner has all her Vampire blood removed, and the town people all line up to donate blood for her transfusion. I guess Blood Type is not important? Anyhow, all her Vampire blood is removed. Bon Jovi then decides that if that blood is transfused into him, he can beat Arly by becoming a vampire also. Of course, as the vampire blood is transfused into him, none of his healthy blood is removed. So apparently Bon Jovi is walking around with twice as much blood as any human can have in his body. And just like the first VAMPIRES, this one also has the vampires-bursting-into-flames special effect.

With this movie only running 61 minutes and nothing all that good on television, I decided to pop Revolt of the Zombies into the DVD to pass the time. Even while realizing the era from which it was coming, I was sorely disappointed. It started with the oddly upbeat quality of the opening score (what - no brooding music?) and then the rather slow moving opening sequences. Gosh, I figured a movie about zombies - even from the 1930s - would have SOME chills to it (White Zombie, with Bela Lugosi, certainly did) but this had none. Zero. It was scarcely even dramatic (except for the few moments with the burning eyes superimposed on the film to indicate the mesmerization of someone). Like the equally dull King of the Zombies, this movie may be an interesting curiosity to own, but nothing more.

Jim Carrey shines in this beautiful movie. This is now one of my favorite movies. I read all about the making and I thought it was incredible how the did it. I can't wait till this comes out on DVD. I saw this in theaters so many times, I can't even count how times I've seen it.

Escaping the life of being pimped by her father(..and the speakeasy waitressing)who dies in an explosion, Lily Powers(Barbara Stanwyck, who is simply ravishing)sluts her way through the branches inside a bank business in big city Gotham. When a possessive lover murders who was supposed to be his next father-in-law(and Lily's new lover), the sky's the limit for Lily as she has written down her various relationships in a diary and subtlety makes it known the papers will receive it if certain pay doesn't come into her hands. Newly appointed president to the bank, Courtland Trenholm(George Brent), sends Lily to Paris instead of forking over lots of dough, but soon finds himself madly in love after various encounters with her in the City of Love. This makes Lily's mouth water as now she'll have reached the pedestal of success seducing a man of wealth and prestige bring riches her way. Though, circumstances ensue which will bring her to make a decision that threatens her successful way of achieving those riches..Trenholm, now her husband, is being indicted with jail certain and has lost the bank. He needs money Lily now has in her possession or he'll have absolutely nothing.<br /><br />Stanwyck is the whole movie despite that usual Warner Brothers polish. Being set in the pre-code era gives the filmmakers the chance to elaborate on taboo subjects such as a woman using sex to achieve success and how that can lead to tragedy. Good direction from Alfred E Green shows through subtlety hints in different mannerisms and speech through good acting from the seductive performance of Stanwyck how to stage something without actually showing the explicit act. Obviously the film shows that money isn't everything and all that jazz as love comes into the heart of Lily's dead heart. That ending having Lily achieve the miraculous metamorphosis into someone in love didn't ring true to me. She's spent all this time to get to that platform only to fall for a man who was essentially no different than others she had used before him.

In Lizzie Borden's "Love Crimes" (1992), Sean Young plays a gritty D.A. in Atlanta. She's a loner who gets herself too deeply involved in the case of a man (Patrick Bergin) who poses as a famous fashion photographer and seduces women, takes compromising photos of them, then leaves them.<br /><br />Naturally, this tough loner decides to enter the phony shutterbug's life by posing as his prey, intending to bring him to justice. They meet, they make love, then the next thing she knows, she is over his lap, getting spanked. (Note: The spanking scene is only in the "unrated" version of this film. The R-rated version omits it and several other scenes that would make the plot more lucid.) This psychological thriller includes several scenes of female nudity and disturbing images, such as Bergin chasing one of his victims around the room, flailing at her with a riding crop.<br /><br />As a thriller, "Love Crimes" is at its best when Sean Young is playing her cat-and-mouse game with Bergin, trying to catch him in an incriminating act. It's unfortunate that the film doesn't end, it just stops. That's true. Director Lizzie Borden may have just run out of story to tell, but after 92 minutes the credits roll, and we are left with a puzzling "what just happened?" bewilderment.<br /><br />The unfolding of Young's plan is played out in engaging style, but the lack of a coherent ending will be a turn-off for some viewers.<br /><br />Dan (daneldorado@yahoo.com)

I don't know what I missed here, but I can't believe all these positive comments by so many people on this film. I thought it was silly, and a bit over the top. I did like the performances of Gregg Henry and Michael Rooker, however the others were just... boring.<br /><br />Now I like B movies, I really do, but this was a bit further down the alphabet for me. I saw someone compare the humor and horror in this to "Army Of Darkness" and "Shaun of the Dead", as well as "On par with The Re-Animator". You must be joking. I didn't find this film funny, it tried, it did make an effort, (possibly too much of an effort), but it failed in my opinion. By the time I was hit with the 3rd or 4th one-liner I was rolling my eyes and checking my watch.<br /><br />There were definitely homages made to several other films, which is always cool, kind of like an inside joke for us horror fans. But here it may have just been a lack of original thought. Admittedly there were some nice special effects, good gore, but that can't carry an entire movie. The mutated Grant looked like a cross between Jabba the Hut, and in the early stages of mutation- Chet from "Weird Science" (after he was turned into the monster) and one of the alien creature/children from "The Explorers". It just didn't work. I thought it looked like something some kid from Grade 5 art class could have designed. Then there was Brenda, the woman that Grant impregnated and chained up in the barn. When help finally arrived she looked like a giant tick waiting to be popped. The design once again was totally unimaginative. A round flesh colored balloon with a face in the middle. *yawn* <br /><br />Now about the zombies- The more movies I see with zombies in them these days the more I wish George A. Romero had a patent on them and was the only writer/director allowed to make movies about them. He's the only person so far to do it right, with the exception of Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg (but that was a comedy). Oh, and Danny Boyle, but they were a different style of Zombie. Maybe Mr. Romero has ruined any zombie film for me due to his ingenious ability to get his actors to moan, groan and shamble about as if their joints are dried up and lacking even a drop of synovial fluid, and their muscles are fighting the effects caused by rigor mortis that had started to set in right before they were re-animated. The people of "Wheelsy" just didn't have the proper motivation... they were horrible zombies.<br /><br />So in the end I give "Slither" a 3, for a couple of laughs and a few nice gore scenes.

I have always wanted to see this because I love cheesy horror movies and with a title like this, I was sure "The Incredible Melting Man" would be a lot of fun.<br /><br />It really wasn't. I mean, the acting was entertainingly bad, the script contained some classic bad lines and the special effects looked like someone had sneezed all over the lead actor, so I should have loved it. Unfortunately it's really draggy between these highlights. I decided to watch the last half of the movie while doing my tax return. That's how boring this film is.<br /><br />Nevertheless, if you love bad movies you will enjoy the dramatic exit of the Fat Nurse, and the stellar acting of the guy who plays Dr. Ted. To be fair to the poor man, he does have to deliver some amazingly inept lines with straight face - like the conversation he has with his wife on tracking down the I M Man:<br /><br />"I'll find him with a geiger counter." "Is he radioactive?" "Just a little bit." <br /><br />Yes, the plot has Dr. Ted wandering about trying to find a superstrong zombie killing machine armed only with what looks like a mini-Dyson. He's a brave man. Unfortunately his plan fails when he finds a big lot of goop on a tree. "Oh god - it's his ear!" says Dr. Ted to the audience. I'm so glad he cleared that up. <br /><br />I realise I'm making this movie sound rather fun. It would be if it were only 10 minutes long, but unfortunately it goes on and on, and the Incredible Melting Dude just dangles about making a sticky mess when he should be eating more people in my opinion. I think if you were truly stoned you would probably love it, just don't have pop-tarts during the movie, because the lead actor really does resemble one near the end.

Imagine a woman alone in a house for forty five minutes in which absolutely nothing happens. Then this goes on twice more. The writing is flat and lifeless, and jokes unfunny, and the bad acting keeps you from caring about any of the characters, even when they battle wolf packs and get beaten up by fraternity goons. Anyone that ranked this movie higher than a two is not fully sane.

I recently rented the animated version of The Lord of the Rings on video after seeing the FANTASTIC 2001 live action version of the film. The Lord of the Rings live action trilogy directed by Peter Jackson will undoubtably be far better than George Lucas' Star Wars "prequel" trilogy (Episodes 1-3) will ever be as the real fantasy film series of the 21st century!<br /><br />I remember seeing the animated version as a child, and I didn't quite understand the depth of the film at that time. Now that I have read the books, I understand what the whole storyline is all about. To be sure, some of the characters are quite silly, (Samwise Gangee is particularly annoying, almost as much as Jar Jar Binks in Star Wars Episode One, (AWFUL!)) but, I have to say it follows the book rather closely, and it goes into part of book two, The Two Towers. The good things are that the action is somewhat interesting and some of the animation is quite remarkable for it's time. The bad things are that it ends upruptly halfway through The Two Towers without any result of Frodo's quest to destroy the one ring, and the animation looks quite dated compared to today's standards. <br /><br />Overall, not AS bad as many say it is. BUT, the 2001 live action version is the new hallmark of The Lord of the Rings! At least Ralph Bakshi took the script seriously! Peter Jackson has said that the animated version inspired him to read the books, which in turn caused him to create one of the greatest fantasy series ever put on film, so we can at least thank Ralph Bakshi for that matter! I'll take the animated version of Lord of the Rings over the live version of Harry Potter anyday!<br /><br />A 7 out of a scale of 1-10, far LESS violent than the 2001 live action version, but NOWHERE near as good! For diehard fans of the books and film versions of The Lord of the Rings.

Welcome to movie 17 on the chilling classics 50 pack. Where we'll see, That's right. Another movie that makes absolutely no sense. Seriously, this movie had me so confused at the end, i thought i was rewatching "At Dawn they Sleep." The plot seems simple enough....well that is until 3 seconds into the movie where a girl supposedly killed a cat and then...um.. explodes? i have no idea what happened. and that was BEFORE THE TITLE SCREEN. That's really sad when i can't even tell what happened in the first 3 minutes.<br /><br />Anyway it stars a photographer with a big mustache who finds this girl after dumping his other girlfriend on the way to take pictures of something somewhere. so we get there but not before somebody steals their jeep to drive it 200 feet out of the way towards a town. suspicious? nah. so they decide to stay at this deserted village with one old lady. and then blah blah stuff happens and blah blah talking. The guy with the mustache goes out in the fog for some reason even though the old lady tells him not to. He gets lost and then finds his way back.<br /><br />Oh, i forgot to mention this is all after an incredibly pointless 20 minutes of them staying in the house of a guy who looks like that buggy eyed guy from casablanca. Then they leave. There's really no point to this scene. It's really just padding. if you cut it out no one would have noticed or cared.<br /><br />But sadly, that was actually the best part of the movie. wait. let me rephrase that. REALLY sadly that was the best part of the movie. because the rest is so confusing that i had to look on IMDb to find out what happened. But of course no one else knows so i'm SOL. <br /><br />Seriously, the last 30 minutes of the movie were some of the most mindscrewing moments i've ever seen on film. They dressed her up in a dress, he gets kidnapped, then released, he runs back to the house, then at the end the witches are in the house and it ends? seriously. i have hardly ever been so confused in a movie. i mean, as bad as movies such as "War of the Robots" are, at least they MAKE SENSE. this movie doesn't even make the ATTEMPT to be coherent. the ending was as confusing as the end of "At dawn they sleep" and the plot was much more boring. This movie gets a 1 just for its sheer "i have no idea what happened in this movie"ness. "Witches mountain" gets 1 confused movie watcher out of 10.

If "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" is the father of all horror films (and of German expressionist cinema), this pre-WWI film is the grandfather. The titular student, starving in an empty garret, makes a deal with the Devil-- the Devil gives him a bottomless sack of gold, in exchange for "anything in this room." The Devil chooses the student's reflection in his mirror. He walks off with the student's doppelganger, who commits crimes for which the student is blamed.<br /><br />The film is marred by some limitations arising out of the technically primitive state of 1913 filmmaking; the plot cries out for chiaroschuro effects, but the film is, of necessity, virtually all shot in shadowless daylight. But the scene where the reflection walks out of the mirror still packs a wallop.<br /><br />More interesting for the trends it fortells than for its own sake, The Student of Prague is still worthwhile.

This is certainly one of my all time fav episodes of Trek. There is just so much going on in this one film that its crazy cool. First the guys beam down to an alien planet thats about to explode. They meet a freaky librarian type dude (very well played). Then Kirk manages to get himself transported back to what is very much like 16th century earth. McCoy and Spock try to follow but instead nearly freeze to death on the frozen version of the alien world 100,000 years in the past. Kirk manages to get himself locked up and charged with witchcraft while Spock enjoys some amok time with a sexy cavegirl who was vanquished to the this frozen, awful world by some bad guy.<br /><br />Spock decides hes happy where hes at and gives McCoy a royal assestment whuppin' when the doc suggests they need to look for a way out. Anyhow,they all finally escape, leaving the poor cavegirl behind. It takes a ton of convincing before Spock finally gives in and leaves. You can literally taste the sadness at the end. Leaving the cavegirl all alone in her frozen wasteland just seems cruel and is really touching. Spock must have been out of his vulkin' mind to leave behind his greatest hope for love and being human. Albeit, in a not so nice neighborhood!<br /><br />Anyway, you just get so much bang for your buck with this episode....A love story, the Salem witch trials, Spock as a human, the desperation of being left in total isolation...abandoned, and three entirely different settings on the alien planet. Its amazing they managed to jam all this into one fifty minute film. This one is a classic, don't miss it....I want it on DVD fer shure vulcans!!!!!!

"How To Lose Friends & Alienate People" is not based on Tiger Woods' infidelities. It is a mediocre romantic comedy based on Toby Young's book on his experiences working as a journalist covering celebrities. The film stars Simon Pegg as Sidney Young, a zany British journalist who takes a job in an illustrious celebrity magazine in New York. Young is restless in getting caught up all type of shenanigans to alienate all around him, hence movie title. He is uproarious, daring, and moronic. But nevertheless for some very bizarre reason, he is a somewhat likable character. Sidney befriends a fellow journalist, the composed Alison Olsen, played quite admirably by Kirsten Dunst. However, Sidney is primarily longing for the sexpot actress Sophie Maes played by the Fantastic Ms. Megan Fox. This foxtrot is short on acting proficiency but high on "eye candy" material. Sidney gets in all kinds of tomfoolery in order to move up the journalist ladder in the magazine co. Those are the peak comedic moments of the film. However, I think that Director Robert Weide and Screenwriter Peter Straughan might lose some viewers and alienated authentic rom-com material by developing an implausible romantic plot line between Sidney & Alison; even though Team Weidstraughan did formulate an entertaining narrative otherwise. Pegg did peg his character down to the wire with his hilarious performance as Sidney Young. Jeff Bridges was again building "The Dude" bridges with his enigmatic supporting work as Clayton Harding, the magazine's suave prez. But the rest of the film's acting was not worthy enough to feature here. "How To Lose Friends & Alienate People" should not be alienated entirely, but you might lose some movie friends if you publicize it as a superlative romantic comedy. *** Average

This period melodrama is one of Griffith's earliest claustrophobic films. Characters trapped within a room are prevalent throughout his work and, as time went by, he would become increasingly adept at portraying their helplessness and involving the audience in their terror. In the bluntly titled Sealed Room there is one major difference to the normal plot line, in that there truly is no escape.<br /><br />Griffith achieves the claustrophobic effect here in two ways. First is his use of space. While the typical Biograph short might utilise a dozen or more sets, The Sealed Room features only two adjoining rooms – the king's court and the dove cote that becomes the eponymous tomb. The set design in these shorts is rarely referenced, but here it is crucial. The court is a large interior, with a backdrop hinting at greater depth and showing us a window and a staircase. Actors enter and leave from various directions, suggesting the room is not only spacious but also free and open. By contrast the dove cote's back wall is very close to the camera, and the angles in it suggesting a hexagonal or octagonal shape make it seem even more confined.<br /><br />The second technique on display here is the cross-cutting. Anyone with an interest in Griffith's work will probably know about his heavy use and development of cross-cutting to build excitement or tension. Many will also know that strictly speaking it wasn't his invention. However what makes Griffith's cross-cuts so effective is the way he paces the opposing images so they complement each other. The Sealed Room contains a good example of what I mean. The shots of the masons shifting the heavy bricks have a slow, step-by-step pace to them, with tension building as the wall gets higher. This movement is matched by the shots of the blissfully unaware lovers, in which Marion Leonard tears off flower petals one-by-one. As the couple realise their predicament, their rising panic is complemented by the opposing shot of the king madly thrashing his sword against the wall.<br /><br />At this point, Griffith was yet to realise that the action could be heightened further by introducing a third strand to the cross-cut. The dramatic "ride-to-the-rescue", here absent, was later to become a standard climax to Griffith's pictures.

I saw this film prior to joining the British Army. I went through my basic training, at first difficult and then as I progressed much easier. My time was spent during the height of the troubles in NI and the cold war. There was times when I questioned myself on what I had gotten myself into, not for long, as the training would always take over and you would always react instinctively. The voice over used to display what the soldiers are thinking is spot on, though I would have added breathing and heart rate as this seems to pound in your ear drums in given situations. Some years later I was in Canada for a family get together. An Aunty of mine who lives in the USA and is a lecturer at the Columbus Uni Ohio had done a paper on the effects of the British Army in NI. She spent some time out there researching. Although an ex pat she was very anti-British. She made a bee line for me and condemned me for being a British soldier. My only answer was see the film 'A long day's dying'. It's the closest a civilian will get to realise why a soldier does what he does. The answer is right at the end.

This is one of those unique horror films that requires a much more mature understanding of the word 'horror' in order for it to be appreciated. The main thing people may fail to realize that this story is told through the point of view a little boy and, as with most younger children, he gets frightened easily. Mainly because he simply doesn't understand things, like why his father is hardly ever there for him. From watching the film you can see the husband arguing with his wife the balance between work time and family time and you can easily understand it, but the little boy doesn't. Also one can imagine the boy being afraid of the woods, as it is established early on in the film, that the family is from the city. Also, in the beginning as the family is traveling to the house they hit a deer, then get held up, then they argue with the locals about it, and the little boy surely didn't find this introduction to the woods pleasant at all.<br /><br />The "Wendigo" is ultimately what his young, innocent mind fabricates to explain all of this. There is the American Indian legend, but when looking at the scene where the young boy hears about about it, it is explained to him like bluntly and simplistically. Not because that's what the Wendigo actually is, but because that is how he understands it. When you look at the film from this point of view you can really begin to appreciate it. Obviously it was low-budget and shot cheaply, but the jumping montages, use of light, and general eeriness more than make up for it. And the final question the film asks is: is it all in your head, or is it really out there? 8/10<br /><br />Rated R: profanity, violence, and a sex scene

Hobgoblins is a very cheap and badly done Gremlins rip-off. That's the best thing one can say about this stinkpile. Pretty much everyone in the cast was chosen for their looks and not their acting ability. It was very painful to watch.<br /><br />Avoid this one at all costs.

Immediately after renting and watching this movie several years ago, a friend and I decided that it defined the absolute zero on the movie scale. There was nothing about the movie that could have been done worse than it was. To this day we still rate movies, even very bad ones, by how much better than "The Lonely Lady" they are.<br /><br />A long time ago I saw an interview with Eleanor Perry, who wrote the screenplays for, among other things, "Last Summer" and "Diary of a Mad Housewife," and she related that she had been asked to write a screenplay for the Harold Robbins' book "The Lonely Lady." She said that she sent in a treatment and it was rejected because they didn't think she understood the difficulties of a female screenwriter in Hollywood. She then said "I think they got someone else to write it." The interview was filmed before the movie was released. She died in 1981, and I bet the first thing she did on arrival in heaven was personally thank God for saving her from involvement in the result.

Omar Epps is an outstanding actor. I really think he gets into his character alot. When deja gets shot he shows true emotion. He also shows true emotion when remmi puts the gun to him in the room. Omar is a very talented actor!!

In all honesty, this series is as much a classic (as television goes) as the original poem is to the world's literature. Far from being crassly exploitative, it is a beautiful and respectful rendering of one of the western culture's defining texts.<br /><br />I was moved by the plight of Odysseus and his followers; touched by the drama of the fall of Troy (which was felt but not seen); intrigued by the way the gods played with the fate of mortals. (It should be mentioned that the gods appearing here are not ridiculous CGI creatures flitting around on their ankle wings, or poorly-cast fashion models in bikinis. As in Homer's work, they act through mortal agents or, rarely, are represented by classical statuary).<br /><br />It's a pity it's not available in DVD, especially given the vastly inferior and cheesy adaptations of the Odyssey that one can find in video stores.

I haven't seen this in over 20yrs but I still remember things about it.<br /><br />This film could NOT have been made in color. The stark grays are what make it, and was life really that simple in the 1950's?? What stands out the most in my memory is Perry Smith going to the gallows. His breathing under the hood just before they sprung the trap. I don't think I could watch that again.....once is plenty. It's like that unnamed guy at the beginning of "Papillon" who is dragged out in terror to the guillotine. The guy that said watch this on a double bill with "Dead Man Walking" should have added the last 10 minutes of "I Want To Live" as well.<br /><br />Some of my ancestors being "aristos" went to the guillotine in 1794-95 so my feelings on the death penalty are rather intense.

I actually really like what I've seen of this cartoon so far. Sure, the animation isn't the best, but frankly, I'd rather see this type of more cartoony style done quickly and cheaply than the old type of style done quickly and cheaply (which was starting to happen more and more often--it's only a style that looks good when a lot of time and effort is put into it). There's nothing wrong with the angular lines and the little black-dot eyes--in fact, I think it's really cute. As a kid I never thought Scooby-Doo's design was particularly adorable, but I think I might like it better know.<br /><br />Anyway, Shaggy has always been my favorite character, and believe it or not, but I think he has the most potential for some depth. Sure, the show doesn't center around the original "Mystery-solving" theme, but that was just a tired old formula anyway. Don't get me wrong--I'm sure there are writers out there who would be able to bring a lot more interest to Mystery Inc.'s traditional pursuits (which has been lacking as late), but in the mean time this show is a fun deviation from the standard. Shaggy and Scooby are still funny, but no longer only comic relief. They're still cowardly, but finally have the opportunity to use what seems to be (shock!) intelligence. They're the same old over-eating slackers as ever, but now actually seem to be getting on with their lives with the help of Uncle Albert's inheritance.<br /><br />I used to find most original Scooby-Doo jokes to be pure cheese and unintentionally hilarious at best, but this show actually exercises a capacity for real humor. Also, I never really like Casey Kasem as Shaggy anyway, so the new actor doesn't annoy me as much as he does other people. (I still think Billy West was the best, though)<br /><br />Overall, while not a great cartoon in the scope of all of cartoon history, still an achievement among other Scooby incarnations.

Nifty little episode played mainly for laughs, but with clever dollop of suspense. Somehow a Martian has snuck aboard a broken-down bus on its way to nowhere, but which passenger is it, (talk about your illegal immigrants!). All-star supporting cast, from wild-eyed Jack Elam (hamming it up shamelessly), to sexy Jean Willes (if she's the Martian, then I say let's open the borders!), to cruel-faced John Hoyt (the most obvious suspect), along with familiar faces John Archer and Barney Phillips (and a nice turn from Bill Kendis as the bus driver). Makes for a very entertaining half-hour even if the action is confined to a single set.

This film has its share of negative comments and I have to agree with those who consider it one of the worst movies ever made. True, most of the films based on the works of King are pretty bad, but this one goes beyond bad into the realm of horrible. There is not one scary moment in it unless you consider stupidity scary. It is typical King garbage -- myths twisted around that made no sense in the first place, mixed with obvious and belabored so-called "scares" that are about as shocking as PeeWee's Playhouse (which, at least, is entertaining). It is full of ridiculous moments, not the least of which is Alice Krige's character. When she goes on a rampage and starts quipping like the villain in an old Batman TV show, it is so absurd as to be sickening. All the people who had cameos in this (including John Landis)are lucky they still have careers. But the most absurd part has to be the cat costumes towards the end, which look like cheap rubber outfits someone bought at K-mart. The best part of the movie is the appearance of some real cats who actually out-act the people in the movie.

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

No, there is another !<br /><br />Because every Star Wars fan had to have an opinion about I, II & III and because that opinion was biased since we missed so much the atmosphere and the characters of the original trilogy, I will state the good points of "The Return of the Jedi" and a few corresponding bad points of the prequel. Of course, I loved the music, the special effects, the two droids, but this has been overly debated elsewhere.<br /><br />What we get in the original trilogy and in this particular movie : - A strong ecological concern - Anti-militarist positions - Fascinating insights about the Jedi Order and the Force - Cute creatures - Harrison Ford's smile - A killer scene : Near the ending, when Vader looks alternatively at his son and at the Emperor. The lightning of the lethal bolts reflected on his Black helmet. And when he grabs and betrays his Master to save Luke, thereby risking his own life ! Oh, boy !<br /><br />What is wrong in the prequel INMHO : - the whole "human factor" element that the original cast was able to push forward is somehow missing - The Force seems to be more about superpowers and somersaults, than about wisdom - Too many Jedis at once and too many Light Sabers on the screen - The lack of experience of a few actors too often threatens the coherence of the plot <br /><br />By the way, if you enjoy the theory of the Force as explained by Obi Web (Obi Wen, I mean) and Yoda, then you should read a few books about Buddhism and the forms it took in Ancient Japan.<br /><br />The magic of Star Wars, IMHO lies mainly in the continuing spiritual heritage from a master to his apprentice, from a father to his son, albeit the difficulties. "De mon âme à ton âme", (from my soul to yours), as would write Bejard to the late Zen master T. Deshimaru.

Just okay horror film about a nice suburban family dealing with the death of their parents and the "thing" in the basement that they keep feeding people they pick up off the street. Of course there is more to it then that but to say more would be telling.<br /><br />For me this just didn't come together as it tries to have it two ways both as a family drama and a horror film. the film tries very hard to walk the cutting edge between the two genres but seems more to stumble all over the place as it tries to be shocking, something it never really is. It doesn't help that the final revelation is less a scare then an "oh", as on "Oh thats it?". Maybe if I hadn't been watching so many horror films recently this might have been better or it may have just seemed it since I wouldn't have compared it to so much.<br /><br />I'd take a pass

Ned aKelly is such an important story to Australians but this movie is awful. It's an Australian story yet it seems like it was set in America. Also Ned was an Australian yet he has an Irish accent...it is the worst film I have seen in a long time

When i finally had the opportunity to watch Zombie 3(Zombie Flesheaters 2 in Europe)on an import Region 2 Japanese dvd,i was blown away by just how entertaining this zombie epic is.The transfer is just about immaculate,as good as it's ever going to look unless Anchor Bay gets a hold of it.The gore truly stands out like it should and you can really appreciate the excellent makeup and gore fx.The sound is also terrific.It's only 2 channel dolby but if you have a receiver with Dolby Prologic 2,you can really appreciate the cheesy music(actually a very good score),and the effective although cheap sound effects.It never sounded so good,and the excellent transfer adds to the overall enjoyment.<br /><br />I never realized just how much blood flows in this film,it's extremely brutal with exploding head shots,exploding puss filled mega pimples,a cleaver to a zombies throat,a woman's burned off extremities(how come it did'nt burn the guy also),intestinal munching,zombie babies and so much more i lost track.<br /><br />This is no doubt for hardcore Zombie action fans,especially of the Italian kind.There is some excellent set pieces and cinematography to be found,i think people don't give it enough credit,if you see a clean print,and not some horrendous pirate copy,it's a whole other experience entirely.<br /><br />This film never lets up for a second,and i realize it's inconsistent plotwise,the dubbing is horrible,the acting is stiff,and it's sense of irreverence is celebrated in grand fashion,but that's part of it's charm.<br /><br />To me this is one of the best horror films ever made,you can't make a film this bad,so good,on purpose.It's accidental genius of the highest order.If they played it for laughs it would have been a disaster,but they played it straight as an arrow and the result is a terrific cult classic that thumbs it's nose at any and all traditional moviemaking standards.<br /><br />Tons of action sequences,exotic locales,excellent set design,good,sometimes great cinematography,wonderfully cheesy acting,and inconsistent but still interesting plot,great makeup effects,beautiful women who can kick butt,excellent music,and sometimes hilarious,sometimes creepy,but always entertaining zombies.How can you go wrong with this film,it has it all,a cult classic that stands the test of time.

Excellent film from Thaddeus O'Sullivan featuring strong performances from a host of British and Irish actors. The film deals well with a thorny subject matter, and effectively captures the hopelessness and grim atmosphere of 1970s Belfast. Surprisingly realistic, it does nothing to glorify either side in this conflict. On one hand, it shows a young Catholic father trying to raise his family without getting drawn into the troubles. On the other it deals with a Loyalist gang who are intent on propagating violence. Very interesting and, thankfully, entertaining. Don't be expecting any laughs, though. 7 out of 10.

I'd completely forgotten about this film until now. This was the most blatant and worst attempt to demonise a hobby that I have ever seen. It's message seemed to be : "Don't teenagers use their imagination; they might take games seriously, go mad and hurt people." I can only guess that the unimaginative writers of this piece thought that D&D style games are form of evil ritual or arcane worship.

I gave this loooooooooooong film a "2" because of the attractive actors and semi-sexy love scenes. Otherwise, if you can't read like a speed-reader you will NEVER get through the subtitles that try to keep up with the Spanish speed talking! And, what the hell is going on in the plot if you can't read the subtitles. Endless stares and goof-eyes and constant rejection. Just boring after an hour or so. Some good cinematography but also some so DARK you think your screen has burned out. How this won anything I will never understand. Difficult to talk about "ACTING" since the lead actors seem to just stare and look lovingly at each other when they are not pushing each other away. The character Geraldo is so attractive that it is difficult to believe that ANYONE would push him away. And what is with his mother? I just plain didn't GET IT most of the time except that there were three guys that all seem to have had a history with each other....but never figured out who was whose "EX."

This is a very fine and poetic story. Beautiful scenery. Magnificent music score. I've been twice in Japan last year and the movie gave me this typical Japanese feeling. The movement of the camera is superb, as well as the actors. It goes deep into your feelings without becoming melodramatic. Japanese people are very sensitive and kind and it's all very well brought onto the screen here. The director is playing superb with light an colors and shows the audience that it is also possible to let them enjoy a movie with subtle and fine details. Once you've seen this movie you will want to see more from the same director. It's a real feel good movie and I can only recommend it to everybody.

I should have known I was in trouble with Casper Van Diem as the lead character. Words cannot describe, nor do they do justice to just how terrible this movie was. But please allow me to try to describe it: Horrible acting, terrible dialog, corny situations and through it all you get the feeling that you are being force-fed the beliefs and propeganda from the Trinity Broadcasting Network. Its a weak attempt at trying to show Hollywood that a movie can be entertaining and have a deep, religious message attached to it. They failed miserably. It was clearly the worst movie I have seen in a long time.

As the Godfather saga was the view of the mafia from the executive suite, this series is a complex tale of the mafia from the working man's point of view. If you've never watched this show, you're in for an extended treat. Yes, there is violence and nudity, but it is never gratuitous and is needed to contrast Tony Soprano, the thinking man's gangster, with the reality of the life he has been born to and, quite frankly, would not ever have left even knowing how so many of his associates have ended up. Tony Soprano can discuss Sun Tzu with his therapist, then beat a man to death with a frying pan in a fit of rage, and while dismembering and disposing of the body with his nephew, take a break, sit down and watch TV while eating peanut butter out of the jar, and give that nephew advice on his upcoming marriage like they had just finished a Sunday afternoon of viewing NFL football. Even Carmella, his wife, when given a chance for a way out, finds that she really prefers life with Tony and the perks that go with it and looking the other way at his indiscretions versus life on her own. If you followed the whole thing, you know how it ends. If you didn't, trust me you've never seen a TV show end like this.

I'll keep it short and brief, the people who wrote the story lines for this show are genius, the actors are just perfect for the roles they play (CJ's character is legendary) and they have so much chemistry on screen which makes it what it is, a very successful comedy.<br /><br />When i saw first saw the new episodes which is probably going back just over 6/7 months, i wondered what had happened to Paul. I was gutted to find out that he had died when i browsed Google. He was so funny and played his character to perfection, an over-protective dad, who likes to keep his daughters out of the limelight and away from boys.<br /><br />The comedy, i think, has gone from strength to strength, even without Paul in it.<br /><br />Plus, i think most people would enjoy this watching it.

Even without speaking a word, Billy Connely is wonderful as a zombie... Carrie Ann Moss as "Mom"?, even better. Zombie girlfriends? <br /><br />"...My father thied to eat me... I never tried to eat Timmy." <br /><br />And I thought Dawn of the Dead was good. It's kinda like Airplane meets (meats?) Night of the Living Dead, sponsored by Zomcom..<br /><br />And don't forget my head coffin<br /><br />And Fido in an Aloha shirt is just way cool!<br /><br />And yes, the social comment is just too much to even begin to comment on. <br /><br />Sufice it to say, it all really works!

I'm a huge Steven Seagal fan. Hell, I probably weigh as much as he does although I don't have the street cred to sport the frizzy-mullet-ponytail. Having stated my own bias and affection for America's favorite corpulent stage and screen hero, it is with a heavy heart that I must declare this to be his worst movie ever. I'm not sure he could make a movie any worse than this.<br /><br />In his defense the major problems with this film seem to occur in post-production. It's painfully obvious that this movie was supposed to have a different storyline. That results in woeful voiceovers in which Steve's voice doesn't nearly sync up with that of the dubbed voice. The editing is pisspoor and overall this starts bad, gets even worse, and by the end you'll wish you had rewatched The Da Vinci Code instead. Yes, it's that bad.<br /><br />After this I don't know what to expect from Steve. My friends still laugh at me for listening to his CDs. Is it time I start checking out some of the Van Damme direct to DVD nutty logs? If you are tempted to watch this movie, rip your eyeballs out and flush them down the toilet. A lifetime of darkness is better than 89 minutes of this.

I just saw this movie last night and, being someone who had very low expectations to begin with, was still disappointed. The most glaring error in this abomination of a movie is that the main plot point (the guy being awake during the surgery), had NOTHING to do with the outcome. It would have ended the same way regardless. So, what was the point of this? Who knows. Also, this surgeon had 4 malpractice suits against him and he didn't think people would ask questions if a patient died on his table? Give me a break. Jessica Alba is completely talentless and Christiansen is almost as bad. The whole thing was just laughable from start to finish. I'm fairly certain that if you could feel someone cutting through your chest with a scalpel, you would be in more pain than that.

Four years after making his directorial debut with the art-house snoozer "Welcome To L.A.", Alan Rudolph shows us what he really wanted from Hollywood was to be one of the guys. "Roadie" is a frat-boy fracas complete with barroom brawls, horny harpies, Art Carney in a souped-up wheelchair...and Meat Loaf at the wheel. Meat Loaf (playing Travis W. Redfish!) is actually a rather charming presence on the screen, and perhaps in a smaller role (in a better movie) he might indeed be ingratiating, but Zalman King's script is full of stereotypical redneck humor and helpless Meat Loaf is kept wide-eyed and moronic. Alice Cooper, Roy Orbison, Hank Williams, Jr., and Blondie all make appearances--and all look embarrassed. They certainly should, "Roadie" is one bad trip. NO STARS from ****

Why did I go to see this film? Honestly, because Jim Carrey was in it and in the past he has made hilarious movies that have made me cry with laughter, so do you really blame me for expecting that again? Additionally, the premise, the funny trailer, his co-star Jennifer Aniston's involvement, and the fact it was a massive hit stateside encouraged me.<br /><br />However, as my "one line Summary" suggests, I was Disappointed. For various reasons;<br /><br />Reason 1: It wasn't funny. In a 2hour movie, I laughed for about 5-10minutes...all together, the rest of the time I sat thinking "I really should have got some ice-cream". I admit that maybe it is wrong to judge Jim Carrey on his previous films, but what does he really expect when he makes Gem's such as 'The Truman Show' , 'Liar Liar' , 'Me, Myself and Irene' , 'Dumb and Dumber' , 'The Mask', and the 'Ace Ventura' films then produces, in Bruce Nolan's own words, such a mediocre film?<br /><br />Reason 2: Jennifer Aniston's role was criminally underwritten. I mean hello! She's been around in the public eye for about ten years now, and in this film she gets about four lines to say. Wrong.<br /><br />Reason 3: One word - Cliché<br /><br />Reason 4: A casual deployment of specifically American References - Jimmy Hoffa, Walter Cronkite 'sweeps week' - is a clue to the film's specifically home-grown appeal. "A teenager says no to drugs and yes to an Education - that's a miracle! Want to see a miracle soon? Be the miracle!" God tells Bruce, a heavy handed sentiment that seems to have gone down a treat in the US, but might face tougher resistance in markets that retain an inkling for subtlety. Additionally, I still go to school, and that statement suggests me and all of my friend's are miracles...or maybe it just means we have brains?<br /><br />In this film there are enough funny Carrey moments to make you chuckle and prevent Bruce Almighty from being a total calamity, but you are advised to start revising your expectations downwards.

Presenting Lily Mars (MGM, 1943) is a cute film, but in my opinion it could have been better. Judy Garland is great as always, but some scenes in the film seem out of place and the romance between her and Van Heflin develops all too quickly.<br /><br />I mean, one minute he's ready to beat her butt, but the next minute he falls in love with her. I believe that this production, the film editing, and the script ( even though the photography was great, the scenery was nice and the costumes were nice as well) could have been a little better. It feels as though the production was too rushed. <br /><br />The supporting cast was good as well, especially little Janet Chapman as the second youngest daughter daughter Rosie. She at the age of 11, looks really cute and it's a shame that she didn't develop into a teenage comic actress. She's much better in this film than in her previous films as Warner Brothers in the late 1930's (except for Broadway Musketeers 1938, she's really good in that), when they tried to make her into a Shirley Temple/Sybil Jason hybrid. Overall, this film could better, but in the end, Judy gave it her all.

To be honest at the time i first heard of this show i though it may be a bad idea to make a show that makes Muslims use racial jokes on themselves but it is the Exact opposite. I realized that the show doing that can help people understand that if a Muslim uses s a word like this in real life it doesn't mean it is a terrorist thing. It also show's how people give the Muslims a bad name because they play on their stereotype, by watching the show regular people will realize that all though there may be bad Muslims out it doesn't mean we are all bad we just try to live 1 day at a time, like how hard it was for Amair to get on a plane and how he used words like "Blow up" or Yaser saying we'll blow away the competition, and people took it the wrong way. Being a Muslim i know that stuff like this don't usually happen, but they do and many people think bad things about Muslims or Afghanistan or Iraq, its not right things are not like that. people will see how we are poorly treated by watching this show and it may make them think on how the act. I am glad a show like this came on the air. There are many shows that Piotr Muslim people as terrorists,many people do find them funny to my opioion it is OK to do it now and then because prety much everything is made fun of who are we to say you can not make fun of that is unfair, but it is done to often and really gives Muslin people a bad name.

This was a really funny movie.<br /><br />Every 1 in the movie was trying to be serious that is what made this movie so funny. I mean come on a shark's head on a human body. Can it get any funnier. Good job Sci-Fi keep the comedy movies coming. I never thought movies could get anymore retarded. If they keep it up they will have to rename the sci fie channel the comedy sci fi channel or something like that.<br /><br />I cant wait 4 the next blockbuster movie from sci fi.<br /><br />Ill be ready with a bowl of popcorn and a case of beer or a bottle of liquor and Ill be ready to laugh it up again!!!

This film is terrible. You don't really need to read this review further. If you are planning on watching it, suffice to say - don't (unless you are studying how not to make a good movie).<br /><br />The acting is horrendous... serious amateur hour. Throughout the movie I thought that it was interesting that they found someone who speaks and looks like Michael Madsen, only to find out that it is actually him! A new low even for him!!<br /><br />The plot is terrible. People who claim that it is original or good have probably never seen a decent movie before. Even by the standard of Hollywood action flicks, this is a terrible movie.<br /><br />Don't watch it!!! Go for a jog instead - at least you won't feel like killing yourself.

I was about 11 years old i found out i live 0.48 miles from the uncle house. the uncle house is on Westway Dr, deer park, TX. they have added homes since the movie was made. i don't know the house number but you can go look it up. i am now 21 and i enjoy watching this movie. the bar on Spencer is no longer their. Pasadena ISD wants to build a school their. I drove by the house last week the house still looks great. My dad and uncle would go to the street where the house is and watch the actors come in and out of the house trying to make the movie. where john cross over the railroad cracks they have made 225 higher. when i hear about john loesing his son i start thinking about when he made urban cowboy he was 26 or 25 at the time.

How Tasty Was My Little Frenchman tells a story that is alternately sad, scary and life-affirming. It ends with a brutal finale that you knew had to happen, even though you were hoping--maybe even beleiving--it wouldn't.<br /><br /> Utlimately, this is the film's greatest strength: it expertly plays with your emotions and expectations, then drops a bomb on you.<br /><br /> I saw this in a film theory class at USC back in the mid-'90s. It is not easy to find, but is definitely worth hunting for.

Another in a long line of flicks made by people who think that knowing how to operate a camera is the same as telling a story. Within 15 minutes, the entire premise is laid out in just a few lines, so there is absolutely no mystery, which eliminates a whole facet of the suspense. The only half-way competent actor is killed 10 minutes into the film, so we're left with stupid characters running around doing stupid things. Low budget films can't afford expensive special effects, so the CGI portions are unsurprisingly unimpressive, but were at least a valid attempt. The creature suit is terrible, as seen when it falls to the sidewalk, and the director keeps emphasizing the eyes, which aren't even the red color shown in mirror shots. The dialogue is clumsy and uninspired, with some lines reminiscent of Aliens or Terminator. The last action sequence takes place in a police station, also a rip-off from Terminator, with everyone hiding in the one glass lined office that the Darkwolf doesn't smash into. In the end, the girl calls the hero "a good Protector", but he gets both his partners, the original Protector, and at least three other civilians, not to mention a dozen cops, all killed without getting a decent shot off, in spite of an arsenal of silver bullets and a submachine gun. But here's the real clincher for bad writing: They could have killed the beast right after the beginning credits when it was holding the stripper while flashing its red eyes. Instead, they took it into custody?!?

Autobiography of founder of zoo in NYC starts out by being very cute and would be great family movie if it stayed there. however we get more and more involved with reality as gorilla grows up to be a wild thing not easily amenable to his "mother's" wishes - this might scare younger children, esp. scenes where Buddy tries to injure Gertrude. rather quick resolution at the end. below average.

The basic plot in this movie isn't bad. A lady makes it big and comes back to her alma mater to be adored. But, despite good acting by Robert Young and Eve Arden, the movie is a mess. The blame for this I place on either Joan Crawford or the director or both, as her performance is just awful. Instead of being a real person, she does a wonderful impersonation of a deer caught in the headlights. In other words, she stares off into space and has a "golly I am SOOOO stunned" expression. After just a few minutes it really became annoying for me. Now this is certainly not the only Crawford film I dislike for her performance, as she had done more than her share of overacting--in films such as JOHNNY GUITAR or many of her later films, such as BERSERK! My advice is to try a different Crawford film--there certainly were better.

I have to admit, I wasn't expecting much going into this film viewing in my Japenese film class, but this film really blew me away. The director does a wonderful job following through with the title of his film, truly portraying a picture of madness. I think the fact that this film is silent adds to the resemblance of madness, helping the viewer experience the characters inner world rather than the world outside his mind. This film just added to my feelings about foreign silent films vs. American, in that the foreign films work much more to exercise your mind and make you think rather than going for the fluffy film always with the happy ending, exercising the imagination very little.

I definitely recommend reading the book prior to watching the film. This book won National Book Council Award in 1978 and is a very gripping read (pun not intended). It's not too difficult to read for those out there that don't read often so don't be afraid! The book seems to capture the passion of the relationships more so than the movie and the movie will make more sense after reading the book. Having grown up in Melbourne I could really relate to this book and movie. Very few Australian female writers were around the in the 70's therefore very little is documented about the way of life for a women in an urban city in Australia during this era or class. It's a precious piece of Melbourne history. It's a shame that it is documented as some sort of 80's soft porn movie. It's far from that and as the other reviewer has mentioned please do not read the DVD jacket, it does not represent what the movie is about at all. Those that rent the movie based on this description will only be disappointed. Just remember this movie was made in 1982, so don't expect the Hollywood over dramatization that they seem to incorporate these days. This is what I like about it. It's also great seeing Noni Hazlehurst in this role, she is just fantastic as Nora and it's great watching her really acting, for if you're close to my age you will best remember her for her stints on Playschool and Better Homes and Gardens. Who knew she hid this talent? This movie will give you an entirely new impression of her. A classic Australian Story!

I was too young to remmeber when I first saw this movie. But I saw it for like the second time about 7 years ago. My sister told me I had to see it. Now my whole family has it memorized. We quote it at least once a day. I absolutly love this movie.I still laugh after all this time. Sure, it's about a really, really drunk millionare that is irresponsible. The whole point is that he still has the humanity lost in the others that we see in the movie. And that he is willing to give it all up for love. I highly recomend this movie to anyone who wants a laugh. A lot of laughs. Its hallarious, sweet, and if your a movie buff, it will truely change your idea of "Funny". Watch it with a group of your friends or your family and I promise, you will never have nothing to talk about ever again with some Authur lines in your head. It will make you laugh for years to come.<br /><br />It is really hard, in my family, to find a movie that everyone likes. But this movie, I feel, made us closer. And I know it will do the same for you!!

This film deserves a 10 for its brilliant portrayal of the world as experienced in the mind of a playboy. While I found that world morally repulsive, the film did best what storytelling should do, and that is take us through an experience that we would otherwise never undergo. Tim Meadows so convincingly portrays Leon Phelps, and the story so drew me into the reckless world of Leon, that I momentarily forgot that I was watching a parody of the playboy world and felt compelled to rebel against it. Herein lies the film's undoing because its great and bold achievement in storytelling comes at the price of its own success. Understanding that the vast majority of moviegoers will respond only to the story of this film that lies on the surface, and reject that story, I hesitate to be misunderstood by them and admit that I loved it. I loved it not only for its fascinating insights into the deluded mind of the playboy, not only for its amusing portrayal of the idiocy of the human sex drive, but also for its courage to fearlessly explore what is in the shadows of heterosexuality. Besides, it's just funny.

This film may have a questionable pedigree because it was made for TV, but it is one of the best movies I've seen. The film and its actors won several awards. It is gripping, fascinating, and it will absorb you completely. The story of a chase for a killer in iron-curtain Russia by people who are willing to risk their careers to try to save lives of future victims would be a compelling story if it were fiction -- but it's ostensibly a true story. I highly recommend it.

This film has great acting, great photography and a very strong story line that really makes you think about who you are, how you define yourself, how you fit in, whether you accept to play a role or break free... There already are excellent comments dealing with these aspects. I want to comment on the formal setting of the film. Basically, it's two people on a roof. There is unity of place and time, with 2 protagonists, and the radio acting as the choir. Many directors have turned Greek tragedies into film, many directors have filmed contemporary stories as if they were a Greek tragedy, but no director, in my opinion, has succeeded as admirably as Ettore Scola in approaching the purity and force of the great Greek tragedies both in story line and formal setting. A masterpiece.

With the exception of FAMILY, this new season is worse than Season One. I can't imagine what they are thinking. As a fan of horror, can tolerate a lot of gore and mindless mayhem, but this series gets worse with each outing. I can't imagine how disheartening it must be for the actors and crew to go to work each day, toiling to churn out such crap. STORY! Is that too much to ask for? CHARACTER! How can we give damn about the fate of ANYONE in these stories? If we are not engaged, who cares if they get carved up or whatever? Almost every episode ends with mindless blood letting, going for gross out shock without any sense of revelation or conclusion or REASON why we have been subjected to an hour of bloodletting. Even Dante's effort this season had some disturbing sexist violence and wandered off to a pointless conclusion. Ironically, the production values and performances tend to be up to speed, while the content is utter crap. I have great hopes for Exec Producer's Garris's VALARIE UNDER THE STAIRS, but we shall see.

There are few films that leave me with the feeling that Gregor Jordan's 'Ned Kelly' film did. Initially I had heard only half hearted recommendations, and decided to see it for myself. Since then, I have acquired both the video and soundtrack, and have to say that after several viewings, I am still very impressed with the underlying character of this film. It is also wonderful to see something Australian! I appreciate its down to earth quality, that if you ask me is a rarity, as well as the absence of tackiness that takes away from so many films. This film proves that you don't necessarily require fancy costumes and a glamorous set that absorbs how many millions of dollars to make a point. The cast was a bonus, including a variety of well known, and might I add, good looking people who did well to slip into the role of such unique characters. It is interesting to note, that much of the criticism regarding this film has been about who played what, and how they only said so many lines. However, if any criticism is due, it should constructively focus on the fact that a number of basic elements of the original events were excluded. In reality, these functioned to made it the hallmark that it is in Australian history. For example, on a closer examination it can be discovered that there was much, much more to the relationship between Joe Byrne and Aaron Sheritt, and that this was in fact responsible for many more of the final outcomes for the gang than were explored in the film. Also overlooked was the fact that it was not only Aaron Sheritt's efforts alone, that provided the Victorian police with their insights into the unfolding mystery. Yes, this is their interpretation of the story, and it is understandable that true stories require sensationalism and at times the modification of the original plot to grab the viewers attention. I feel that in this case, this is the only limitation. However, I can accept that perhaps historical accuracy is only of significance to those who have a particular interest in the realistic events behind a situation. It certainly inspired me to look more closely. So, watch it and decide for yourself. You might not like it at all, thats your opinion, and thats fine. Maybe it is a film that appeals largely to an Australian audience? For me, I'd call it a breath of fresh air!

When I was very young,on a local tv station,they would show kung fu movies of all kinds on Saturdays.I saw lots of Kung Fu movies on weekends.I remember lots of them.I saw great flicks like Crippled Masters,Blind Fist of Bruce,Kung Fu Zombie,Shaolin Drunken Monk,Rage of the Master,Tattoe Dragon,and...Five Deadly Venoms.I remember the day clearly.Me and my dad had just gotten lunch at Burger King.We were racing home to see what movie it would be this saturday.We ran in the house and jumped onto the couch,turned on the set and flicked it onto 56.The usual intro of many kung fu movie clips in the background with the words Kung Fu Saturday over it.Then under that was the Title of the film.It said Five Deadly Venoms.Then the movie began.I bit into my burger amused with the pre-credit sequence.I loved this movie the minute it came on.My favorite character was the Toad Venom.The plot was hard to follow at that age but that wasn't what lured me...it was the fighting.The fights were so...amazing.I moaned every time a commercial came on and soon the 2 hours of the best movie i have ever seen ended.

I really like 101 Dalmations when it came out in 1996, now 5 years later i went to see 102 dalmations in 2001, i thought it was fantastic but i think 101 is better because i think it's more funnier, more humor, and also that movie was based on the same story as the cartoon version (one hundred and one dalmations (1961) i wonder if there are plans for 103 Dalmations. I hope there is, maybe yes, maybe no, all of us dalmation fans will have to find out if there is going to be 103 dalmations in the future.

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