Datasets:

paduraru2009

/

imdb-sample

like 0

Despite gorgeous and breathtaking animation, this is probably one of most uninspiring Disney films I've seen, and I don't slam Disney films very often. Spirit is a wild stallion who repeatedly gets captured, either by the cavalry or by Indians, both of which try to "break" him. Spirit ends up forming a bond with the Indian, and that, in a nutshell, is the story. With exception to the beautiful animation of the horses, neither I or my five year old were very inspired or excited by this film. It's ironic that it's titled "Spirit", as spirit is what this film could have used a bit more of. An extra point was given for the soundtrack, which was enjoyable, with songs by Bryan Adams and Hans Zimmer. And although this film is rated G, you will still probably have to end up explaining what "breaking a horse" means to your five year old. I did.<br /><br />

Let me tell you something about this movie. I have seen it twice. The first time I was a kid and the movie was quite entertaining to me. I really liked it. I thought it was funny and interesting and the main character was kind of cool.<br /><br />I saw it again a few days ago. It was horrible. Really. I don't know why I thought it was funny before but now... I didn't laugh at all. There was nothing even slightly entertaining. It was just dumb. The story was weak. The acting was nothing special. There are great actors in this movie but still the acting is mediocre at best.<br /><br />What is the worst is the fact that this movie is racist. Really. Don't get me wrong, usually I don't complain about racism in movies. However I have seen people complaining about the lack of black men in movies like 'The Shaolin Temple' or about the fact that the only black man in 'The Street Fighter' is one of the bad guys or... Whatever, you get the point. There are people seeing racism everywhere. I wonder how would they react to a movie like 'The Meteor Man'. Why? I will tell you why. There are no Asians in this movie. There are no white people among the good guys. In fact there is only one white guy in the entire movie and he is the leader of the bad guys. All the good guys are African Americans. Don't get me wrong, I don't care is the good guy is black or white or yellow or pink or green... What I do care about is the fact that we can barely see a white person in this movie. This is the only movie like that that I have ever seen. It is just not realistic. If there is only one black man in a Japanese movie which is the case with 'The street Fighter' there is no problem - in Japan most of the people are Asians. But if there is only one white man in an American movie there is some sort of problem - in USA most of the people are white. It is like filming a Japanese movie with entirely white cast and only one Asian as a bad guy. Just not real.<br /><br />That is it. I am giving the movie the rate of 4/10. It would be 1/10 if I hadn't have fun with it as a kid.

This was without a doubt the best of the "Dirty Harry" series. From the opening credits, you're swept up in a revenge tale that hits hard and is profoundly engrossing. Sondra Locke is perfect in the role of a traumatized woman out for revenge. Eastwood has many "aside" sequences that have nothing to do with the plot, but show Harry at his bad-assed best. Loaded with unforgettable characters in minor roles, this film rocks and should serve as the standard for detective/action flicks. This is the one Dirty Harry flick that's raw and devoid of any "fluff". I can watch this again and again (okay, not in one sitting) because it's a gratifying "out for revenge" yarn. The pace is quick and several of the scenes are unforgettable. "Go ahead - Make my day...You feel lucky, Punk? ...." classic Eastwood as only Eastwood, with his anguished, rubbery expressions, and whispery, menacing voice can do it.

This is another one of those movies that could have been great. The basic premise is good - immortal cat people who kill to live, etc. - sort of a variation on the vampire concept.<br /><br />The thing that makes it all fall apart is the total recklessness of the main characters. Even sociopaths know that you need to keep a low profile if you want to survive - look how long it took to catch the Unibomber, and that was because a family member figured it out.<br /><br />By contrast, the kid (and to a lesser extent, the mom) behave as though they're untouchable. The kid kills without a thought for not leaving evidence or a trail or a living witness. How these people managed to stay alive and undiscovered for a month is unbelievable, let alone decades or centuries.<br /><br />It's really a shame - this could have been so much more if it had been written plausibly, i.e., giving the main characters the level of common sense they would have needed to get by for so long.<br /><br />Other than that, not a bad showing. I loved the bit at the end where every cat in town converges on the house - every time I put out food on the porch and see our cats suddenly rush in from wherever they were before, I think of that scene.

From the Q & A before and after, this is what I could gather: Some Irish guy wants to make a movie. Nothing in particular, just any movie. So, one night at a party, he hears some ex-roadie tell him a classic bit of rock n' roll lore; the one about how Gram Parsons' corpse was stolen from LAX by his loyal roadie so he could honor Parsons' wishes that he be cremated out in JoshuaTree. Wow!<br /><br />What a great idea for a movie! Rock n' Roll (well, country), grave robbing, escapes, friendship, the 70's! I guess we could get Johnny Knoxville from "Jackass", cause it's kind of a prank, right, and Knoxville wants to do "a movie" too. Why he must have thought he had the next "Snatch" on his hand!<br /><br />But this story's not really that exciting...we need something for Knoxville to struggle against.like a psychotic girlfirend after his money! But Parsons' was married at the time. That's O.K., no one knows that. Besides we could get Christina Applegate. But what if the audience doesn't like the idea of stealing a corpse.well, we'll get his dad to join the chase, but give permission in the end. But Parsons' dad killed himself when he was 10, in fact his orphan status, and tragic childhood, are key parts of the Parsons Mythology. Mythology? We're making "A Movie!" This is creative problem solving.<br /><br />It's an uncomfortable experience for anybody even vaguely knowledgeable on or interested in the subject. Applegate's presence is doubling jarring. First her invented character is a Beverly Hills bitch before her time -she might as well have walked around the whole movie a cell phone in her hand, and secondly, what kind of man would Parsons be if he ever associated himself with that kind of harpy? Facts aren't just distorted or left out, but REVERSED. They could have easily found the villain they wanted in Parsons STEPfather, who was attempting to whisk the body back to his home state where law would favor him in dividing up the considerable inheritance.<br /><br />And the music, oh, the music I love. The music is hacked up (the bridge of a song here, the chorus there), forced to the background, and in the end, horribly covered by the hippest new indie band, Starsailor. My girlfriend asked the unnecessary, but irresistable question after the movie --was anyone up there, the writer, the producers, the director, actually a Gram Parson's fan? Well, no. He'd never actually heard of Gram Parsons, but of course, blah blah blah, I learned to love it, and here's some factoids I read in a bio online. Another guy vouched for Parsons' coolness by saying he and Keith Richards tripped on acid together and wrote "Wild Horses" together, a mixed up bunch of facts as off-base as the movie. Another person asked, wasn't it morally questionable to rewrite history when most people would only know about it from this film? Well, he had the real roadie's permission (he was even set) and the Parsons estate gave permission, and all these other people who got paychecks said it was great.<br /><br />But what I really wondered was, and asked in the embarassingly trembling voice of a truly impassioned Parsons geek, was, if the movie's so cheaply made (a million), had they not considered the original Gram Parsons fanbase as an audience? The director and writer seemed to think he was a nothing figure with no fanbase, though I doubt any Mojo magazine reading, country-rock 70's music fan would agree. But a bunch of Brits made it I guess, and they just didn't care about Cosmic American Music, or even knew it existed. This isn't just not a truthful Parsons flick, it's not even in the right spirit -it doesn't even fit the legend. At the very least it should have had the sentimentality of one of his songs. And plenty of people would love to be told.<br /><br />I should mention the movie was received well from the bunch of stoned college kids, just off the slopes, and into Johnny Knoxville. But if you're a Parsons fan ignore the title, it's just a movie for Jackass fans.

I'll make this short and sweet....this movie sucked!!!!!!<br /><br />I watched part 1 earlier today and thought it was one of the greatest films ever, gave it 9 out of 10 stars. So I thought perhaps part 2 and 3 would be good sequels, I was wrong. This movie bored me to death and was so different from the first one, it had the plot continue and thats it. It was like bad outtakes from part one or something.<br /><br />I love Walken, but I felt sorry for him here. I was so happy about Glenn Danzig being in this film, but don't blink you'll miss him. There was a full cast full of crappy actors and people I don't like such as Eric Roberts and Jennifer Beals. However, it was a breath of fresh air to see Ethan Embry, he's one of the funniest people on earth.<br /><br />This movie will make you like the first one a little less, so don't watch it because you feel you owe it to yourself, being a fan of part 1. I am gonna wait a few days before I watch part 3 and I pray it is better than this crap.<br /><br />The last scene of the movie with the lightning was one of the most beautiful things ever shown on film. Fast forward or skip to that if you can't stomach the first part.<br /><br />1 out of 10 stars - this was awful!

"Wisecracker," the biography of actor William Haines, offers a gratifying anecdote about the former star when he was past 70 and long retired from making movies. The old gent was not sentimental and rarely watched his own films, but in 1972 he was persuaded to attend a Los Angeles museum screening of SHOW PEOPLE, the late silent feature in which he co-starred with Marion Davies. Beforehand, Haines was worried that this comedy would provoke the wrong kind of laughter, but he was pleasantly surprised (and no doubt relieved) at how well it held up and how much the young audience enjoyed it. Watch the film today and you can see why: SHOW PEOPLE is a delightful Hollywood satire that retains its charm because it lampoons its targets with wit and flair, yet without malice. It's still funny and its satirical points still resonate. Needless to say, the technology of movie-making has changed vastly since the silent days, but the pretensions and follies of the filmmakers themselves haven't changed all that much.<br /><br />SHOW PEOPLE also stands as the best surviving work of Marion Davies, a first-rate comic performer who deserves a prominent place in the pantheon of great comediennes. Where her career was concerned Davies was both blessed and cursed by the patronage of her paramour, the newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst. It's well known that Hearst exerted enormous influence over Davies' choice of roles, and well known too that, despite her gift for comedy, he preferred to see her play dignified heroines in period costume dramas. By the late '20s, for whatever reason, Marion was permitted to strut her stuff in several exuberant light comedies (including THE RED MILL and THE PATSY), but SHOW PEOPLE, directed by the great King Vidor, stands as her most enjoyable showcase. William Haines gives an engaging, likable performance as her boyfriend and co-star Billy Boone, but this is the leading lady's show all the way.<br /><br />Marion plays Southern belle Peggy Pepper, an aspiring actress who storms Hollywood accompanied by her father, determined to become a movie star. (Her dad Colonel Pepper is played by actor/director Dell Henderson, a veteran of Griffith's Biograph dramas who—coincidentally?—resembled Hearst!) One of Marion's funniest bits, often excerpted elsewhere, is her audition at the Comet Studio casting office. While Dad helpfully suggests emotions to portray ("Sorrow! . . . Joy!") and drops a handkerchief across her face, Peggy assumes the appropriate expression and posture. She's hired, only to discover that Comet makes low-brow comedies, the kind of comedies where people squirt each other with seltzer and inept cops tumble over each other racing to the rescue. Of course, Comet is intended as a take-off of Mack Sennett's Keystone, but the true nature of the satire becomes clear as the story unfolds. As Peggy Pepper rises in the movie star hierarchy she leaves Comet for the more prestigious High Art Studio, assuming the name "Patricia Peppoire" as more befitting her new station in life as a serious actress. At some point it may occur to us (as it surely did to viewers in 1928) that Davies' rival Gloria Swanson started out in Keystone comedies before rising to prominence in serious dramas for Cecil B. DeMille. And as Miss Peppoire takes herself more and more seriously, giving the high-hat treatment to former colleagues such as lowly comic Billy Boone, Davies' performance takes on an element of wicked parody seemingly aimed squarely at Swanson herself. This is especially notable during an interview sequence, when Miss Peppoire's spokesman spouts pretentious nonsense while the star delivers a spot-on impersonation of Swanson. I suppose this was intended as a friendly spoof, but I have to wonder how friendly relations were between Gloria and Marion after this movie was released.<br /><br />In any event, SHOW PEOPLE is a delicious treat for buffs, who will relish the parade of star cameos throughout. Charlie Chaplin contributes a nice bit, sans makeup and looking quite distinguished, eagerly seeking Patricia Peppoire's autograph! (And in a show of good sportsmanship Marion Davies herself puts in a self-mocking cameo appearance, evening the score for poking fun at Swanson by poking fun at herself.) This is a silent film that viewers not especially attuned to silents might appreciate, at least those viewers with a taste for movies about the movie business. SHOW PEOPLE surely belongs in the company of such classics as SUNSET BOULEVARD and SINGIN' IN THE RAIN, among Hollywood's most expertly produced, enjoyable exercises in amused self-examination.

The first in the series was brilliant, easily one of the best Horror films of all time. This is the crappiest. When I sat down to watch this, I was actually thinking that how bad the fourth and fifth ones were, this would have to be good after the previous terrible ones. Boy was I wrong. Incredibly wrong.<br /><br />When I watched the first ten minutes of it, I was actually really tempted to turn it off, but I thought no, maybe it'll improve. It didn't.<br /><br />Not only is this just a dire film by itself, it didn't need another sequel, because the last two (fourth and fifth) had already been terrible enough! Also, how many times can you bring Freddy back!? The acting in it was TERRIBLE, the story-line was predictable and crap and it also had flaws in it as well. The way they made Springwood was just totally wrong. Pays no respect to the first one at-all. To add to this, the whole thing seemed really over-the-top.<br /><br />Some people are saying that this film was "funny". This film is not "funny" at all. Since when is Freddy Krueger supposed to be "funny"? I would call it funnily crap. This film is supposed to be a Horror film, not a comedy. If Freddy had a daughter, wouldn't that information have surfaced like in the first one!? The ending was also just plain stupid and cheesy, exactly like the rest of it. This one completely destroys the essence and uniqueness of the first one. Just shows itself up.<br /><br />Such a shame that Wes Craven created something so good in the beginning, yet it has to be dragged down because of this trash that belongs in the bin. They shouldn't have even bothered making this film. Nor any of the other sequels, except the third one. The third one's the only decent one out of all the sequels.<br /><br />If this was a DVD by itself and not part of the Nightmare On Elm Street DVD set that I got, I would have chucked it out when I got it.<br /><br />Summary: A pathetic and poor attempt at a sequel.<br /><br />- a complete MOCKERY of the first film <br /><br />So please, don't waste your time on this worthless junk.

It was originally meant to be a film that Gene Kelly would star in, but when the makers couldn't get him they got "the greatest actor in the world", and the result is pretty good. Basically Nathan Detroit (Frank Sinatra) is having trouble doing what he does best, setting up a high stakes crap dice game, because he needs $1000 to get the place. So to get the money he needs, he has a $1000 bet with old friend Sky Masterson (Marlon Brando) that he can't get Sergeant Sarah Brown (Great Expectations' Golden Globe winning, and BAFTA nominated Jean Simmons) to go with him to Havana. Meanwhile, Nathan is having trouble trying to get rid of the woman who wants him to ask her hand in marriage, Miss Adelaide (Vivian Blaine). Also starring Robert Keith as Lieutenant Brannigan, Stubby Kaye as Nicely Nicely Johnson and B.S. Pulley as Big Jule. An interesting romantic comedy musical, with Brando singing all his own songs, and Sinatra being smooth and cool. It was nominated the Oscars for Best Art Direction-Set Decoration, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design and Best Music for Jay Blackton and Cyril J. Mockridge, it was nominated the BAFTA for Best Film from any Source, and it won the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Musical/Comedy. Frank Sinatra was number 43 on The 100 Greatest Pop Culture Icons, Marlon Brando was number 30 on The 100 Greatest Movie Stars, he was number 11 on The 100 Greatest Sex Symbols, he was number 4 on 100 Years, 100 Stars - Men, Sinatra was number 35, and Brando was number 1 on The World's Greatest Actor, "Luck Be a Lady" was number 42 on 100 Years, 100 Songs for , the film was number 23 on 100 Years of Musicals, and it was number 36 on The 100 Greatest Musicals. Very good!

As was to be expected, A Mazursky film made in the 70s would be counter-culture, sympathetic towards the hippies - and have a lot of hippies in it - and, naturally, it is childishly anti-authoritarian (e.g. the scene on the Mexican border, when Sutherland provokes a custom's officer by showing little respect and then accuses the latter of making him open his luggage only because he (Sutherland) has long hair). The constant left-wing dribble could have gotten on my nerves had I not been prepared for it beforehand; Sutherland muses aloud to his family and friends about potential movie ideas for his next film, and most of these ideas are either about blacks or Indians (needless to say, he would be welcomed with open arms in today's Hollywood). One of his movie ideas is about a black uprising in Beverly Hills - a race-war, so-to-speak, in the middle of L.A.. This is the kind of nonsense that Mazursky thinks about when writing scripts for his movies. Fortunately, some of Sutherland's hippie friends make fun of this black-revolution premise, and the resulting dialogue isn't bad; a little later, the Jewish guy makes a crack about Sutherland making a movie about "masturbation and the black problem", when the latter starts talking about masturbation. Another funny moment is when Sutherland's older daughter performs some PC crap on stage with her white school-mates, and they all say: "We, the black people of the Republic of South Africa...".<br /><br />There is always a certain amount of self-indulgence when Hollywood makes a movie about Hollywood - especially when it's Hollywood making a movie about Hollywood discussing Hollywood doing movies. Now, that's very, very self-indulgent, indeed. The scene with Fellini (playing himself) is more amusing than annoying, though. Mazursky throws in the standard flower-children and anti-Vietnam bullshit into the soup, and also pokes fun at corporate Hollywood, but he was/is just as much a part of the "phony Hollywood" (lyrics from that song in the surreal war segment) as anyone else; I am pretty sure that he, too, makes phony small-talk in Beverly Hills parties and grins fakely while shaking the hands of people whom he either doesn't know or like, but whose money he wants badly for his next (left-wing) project. As for his hair: he has the worst hair I've seen in a very long time (on film or elsewhere); it's sort of like the kind of long hair that a middle-aged accountant would have if he grew it long. The film remains relatively interesting in spite of its aimlessness, but it bogs down somewhat into tedium in the last third. If you'd like to read my parody/biography of Donald Sutherland (and other Hollywood actors), contact me by e-mail.

1st watched 8/26/2001 - 3 out of 10(Dir-Tobe Hooper): Scary, yet sadistic(which makes sense) portrayal of a relative of the Marquis De Sade carrying out the same sadistic acts and enjoying it that supposedly his predecessor did. This Tobe Hooper film really doesn't do a whole lot different than his similar in style Freddy Krueger movies with the same star (Freddy himself - Robert Englund) playing a dual role(the Marquis De Sade and his relative). It is also seems like it wants to really poke at Christianity but then loses that in the end much to my chagrin but leaving an inconsistent feel to the movie. Could have been much worse if excesses were taken in sex and violence, but they try to keep this at a minimal despite some disgusting scenes. My final thought is why would Hooper want to make this movie. It obviously took awhile to actually get distributed, then it has to be advertised gruesomely and with Hooper's name in the title to hopefully make some money on his name and his gore. It's obvious this didn't work.

Except for an awkward scene, this refreshing fairy tale fantasy has a fun and delightful undercurrent of adult cynical wit that charms its way into the audience as well as a soundtrack that powerfully moves this fairy epic along. Except for one of the Robert DeNiro scenes that doesn't come across smooth and appears out of sync with the tone of the rest of the movie, this luscious romantic fairy tail has a great storytelling feel and the strong magic and the fine balance between serious adventure scenes and the lighter spiritual humor is well done. In the updated tradition of THE PRINCESS BRIDE this contemporary presentation of magic and love is captivating. Eight out of Ten Stars.

A top notch Columbo from beginning to end. I particularly like the interaction between Columbo and the killer, Ruth Gordon.<br /><br />As an avid Columbo fan, I can't recall another one in which he doesn't set up the killer at the end as he does in other episodes. In this one, as he's trying to determine the correct sequence of the boxes and the "message" that the nephew left behind, it finally dawns on him.<br /><br />The music in this episode is very good as well, as it is in many of other ones.

When people ask me why do I like movies so much, I usually respond, "have you seen the art-gallery sequence in De Palma's Dressed to Kill?" That scene alone, pretty much represents everything I want to see in a film. If I was a film director, that would be the kind of thing I'd like to do. "Pure cinema" is one way of describing that sequence, and it is truly amazing to see how director De Palma's entire movie works at the same high artistic frequency of that scene. It is a dream-like movie, clever as hell, and with more zest and intelligence than a dozen films put together. I think the movie raises an important point that will always be a topic of heated discussion: could a movie rely solely on technique and still be considered an artistic success? The film has no message to speak of, acting is great but it is at the service of the style, and the script is short on logic. De Palma's movie makes a really good case that style, when handled properly, can sustain a feature length film. Sure, Michael Caine, Angie Dickinson, Nancy Allen and Keith Gordon give superlative performances, but this is a director's movie all the way to the fadeout. It is a sensational demonstration of the possibilities of the film medium. I won't tell you what Hitchcock movie the film pays homage to (I don't want to spoil any surprises), but I think De Palma transcends the story's arc, and he manages to create a film that pretty much summarizes his entire career. Not for the faint of heart!

Jackie Chan is considered by many film and martial arts movie fans as one of the greatest action stars ever to grace the silver screen and Police Story cemented his reputation as the likely successor to the late, great Bruce Lee. If Enter The Dragon bared the so-called bench mark of Lee's greatness in the 70s, then the same can be said about Police Story and Jackie Chan in the 80s.<br /><br />Forget about the Rush Hour trilogy, or any of his US efforts- the one film that really typifies Chan's excellence, not to mention kick starting his status as a high kicking, bone-crushing kung- fu talisman, as well as his movie career was this, Police Story- the first in a series of successful cop films, set in mainland, present day Hong Kong.<br /><br />I've seen many of his efforts- likewise the US-based Rush Hour, Rumble in the Bronx, The Medalian and The Tuxedo to name- and frankly many of them pale into insignificance compared to Police Story. In those movies, we saw a less 'dumbed down' version of Jackie, of whom didn't get the opportunity to utilise his fighting abilities to the maximum, not to mention the fight sequences were no where as good as those in such efforts as Drunken Master, Police Story to name. <br /><br />The stunts in this movie are extraordinary and are the best featured in any action movie. The shopping mall scene is literally one of a kind and has to be seen to be believed: the flying shards of glass, Chan who is left dangling outside the bus only by his walking stick as a madman frantically drives through the streets of the town, and Chan successfully making usage of all sorts of inanimate objects and prop devices as weapons to fight the bad guys with. <br /><br />Considering he is known for injuring and breaking every bone in his body and putting himself in harm's way, Jackie's persistence in showing his versatility as a stuntman himself by not relying on one, is somewhat of a testament to his reputation as a kung fu expert. Especially as he has the bruises to show for it. Thus, he has proved that he is no one-trick pony when it comes down to devising and coming up with various and clever looking moves.<br /><br />Story-wise, there is not much to discuss but what it lacks in narrative, it makes up with its end-to end action and fight sequences. As for the dialogue, well it's not a really huge aspect of the film- which is why most fans of Jackie's and martial arts films are more interested in action, as opposed to the story.<br /><br />Unlike say The Matrix, there are no wires or CGI, or any form of computer trickery involved. What you see is what you get- and what you get with Police Story is a great Jackie Chan epic, full of action and pulsating stunts.It is miles better than Rumble In The Bronx, Rush Hour and all his other American efforts.<br /><br />Police Story is an excellent film and one I'd definitely recommend to anyone who is a novice Jackie Chan fan, but of whom are unsure which one they should watch first.

I'm not going to bag this film for all the myriad technical f|u|c|k|u|p|s, it would take two days to outline how the whole thing isn't even remotely possible. Others have pointed out all the relevant stupidities already.<br /><br />Given all that, I still could have sort of enjoyed it, if only they hadn't included all the maudlin, nauseating, infuriating, Disneyesque sentimental crap, which is so out of place anywhere, but nowhere more than out in space, where the tiniest mistake can mean instant death.<br /><br />The "crew", as well as the "real" astronaut were equally guilty of putting all their fatuous nonsense ahead of everything else. It completely ruined any value the production may have had left.<br /><br />I'm surprised NASA let this garbage out so that so many people would get so much misinformation about something so important to them. If you haven't seen this yet, save yourself the irritation. Watch Apollo 13 again. At least that tried to be sort of real.

Never viewed this film and enjoyed the singing and dancing by Cagney and the other cast members namely: Dick Powell, (Scott Blair) who had a great tenor voice and Ruby Keeler, (Bea Thorn). James Cagney plays the role as Chester Kent who writes musicals and eventually goes into producing Prologues which are shown in between the feature films shown in movie theater's during the 1930's. Chester has trouble with people trying to steal his ideas for his shows. This is a very entertaining film with lots of comedy and plenty of laughs. Joan Blondell, (Nan Prescott) gave a great supporting role who was also very young and pretty. Dick Powell was great as a singer and dancer and just starting out with his long and successful screen career. Enjoy.

Ursula Andress' naked body is one of those things that make you believe in God. The other two women (especially the one who plays the maid) have great bodies as well. Then why is the higher grade that I can give to a film with such quality and quantity of nudity only 3 out of 10? Because, to get to Ursula's unbelievable body, we have to sit through a movie that is otherwise unfunny and boring (keep in mind that I watched the full 101-minute version, not the 78-minute American one which probably cuts out a lot of the extraneous material). In typical Italian-comedy tradition, most of the characters are exaggerated caricatures (the army freak, the "latin lover", the constant drunk, the naive maid) that are not funny, simply overacted. Final word: watch this, but keep your finger on the fast-forward button, you're gonna need it. (*)

"Women? They're all scrubbers...!" <br /><br />No, not a good translation; not at all! This lags behind the previous year's "Dad's Army", entirely missing the special, small-screen magic of the seminal television sitcom original, and failing to play interestingly at all with the big screen... you could just about say that this film well represents a Britain entering decline, and more precisely even than that, a *British film industry* entering decline. And that is hardly a recommendation, is it? To be an exemplar of saddening folly...<br /><br />All that remains after the subtlety of the TV original has been surgically stripped away, by Cliff Owen, Galton and Simpson are: endless, dilapidated musical cues, yawn, from the Ron Grainer theme... bolstered sentimentality (that shoddy, thick-eared ending... how much bolder does the second Steptoe film seem in comparison) an increased seediness - with director and writers seemingly detaching themselves completely - fully applicable to something like the 'misbegotten monstrosity' (yours truly on this site) from 1973, "The Mutations". There is a strangely botched, cut-adrift tone about the scene where Harold is beaten up in a rugby club, that I partly hate and recoil it (so far, as a friend intimated, from the mood of the TV series...), but this at least seems an original slant, and emblematic of tensions just rising to the boil in the Britain of 1972... There is, however, an implied prostitute, aye of a 'heart-of-gold' who turns loose woman-traitor 'pon poor auld 'Arold - and beyond-caricature writing of the 'class' element; not to mention, surprisingly misjudged performances from the usually redoubtable leads. Brambell and Corbett collude with the script, and indeed fail to cure it of an essential ham. What would Anthony Aloysius Hancock have made of it all...? I will merely concede that a few moments just about work - chiefly those where G & S play things a little more carefully and B & C touch tenderer nerves - and it is not on the whole an unwatchable affair. <br /><br />But, and oh, how this pains me to say it: it is tiresome, boring, both wilfully detached from reality and what made the TV series great, and also fully in tune with the lazy, tawdry, misogynist 'fuck it, that'll do...' actuality of much of what was allowed to pass for mainstream film-making in the Britain of the time.

Friday the 13th step over! There is officially a worse movie than your hateful series out there. I won this movie in a contest at college, and it was a waste of money even if it was free. Jack Jones stars as a truly awful singer whose trying to find some murderers or something. At least Friday the Thirteenth never bored me. I'd rather have my fingernails pulled than see this again.

Not having seen the film in the original theater release, I was happily surprised when the DVD arrived, since this film did not have the wide distribution it merited.<br /><br />Denzel Washington directorial debut and the finished product have nothing to envy other films about the same theme by more accomplished directors. The film has a very professional look. It shows that Mr. Washington has learned a lot being on the other side of the camera. He brings a different angle to this film.<br /><br />One of the best things the film has is, without a doubt, the fine performance by Derek Luke. He is an actor who, with the right guidance, will go far, no doubt. His take on the troubled young man, at this point of his life, in turmoil and suffering for a bad hand life, up to now, has dealt him, is very true. His Antwone is a fine portrait of a man in pain who is basically very good and has so much to give, but no one seems to see that side of his character.<br /><br />At the worst time of his despair, Antwone is sent to Dr. Davenport, played by Mr. Washington, in a very sober, if somehow subdued manner. Because of the angst within Antwone, he misses the opportunity of opening himself to this man, who wants to help, but because of the constrains placed on his office, just have three sessions and then has to dismiss his patient.<br /><br />Things work out, as Antwone is able to convince the doctor to keep on working with him. Antwone's past is revealed in detail. The abuse he suffers at the hands of Mrs. Tate, his foster mother, is brutal, to say the least. The attempt at the hand of an older woman in the Tate's household of a sexual molestation, gives Antwone a bitter taste that stays with him throughout his adult life, as he has been scarred by the shame he carries with him.<br /><br />Antwone finds love at last with Cheryl, who is patient enough to make him see a different world by the love she and support she gives him.<br /><br />The lead performances are very good indeed. Denzel Washington's Dr. Davenport has his own problems too. He is not a happy camper either. He can help Antwone, but he cannot help himself, or his relationship with an adoring wife. <br /><br />The talent in the film is incredible. Joy Bryant makes a fine Cheryl. Novella Nelson, who is a fine actress is superb as Mrs. Tate, the abusing foster mother.<br /><br />The reunion of Antwone with his unknown family is a bit too sugary and sentimental, but of course, if one is to believe that Fisher finds happiness at last, one has to accept that part of the film as well.

My grandmother bought me this film when I was 5 (I've always love scary movies) and even then I enjoyed it. The atmosphere is awesome and the story original and entertaining. I especially love the scenes where the RV is under attack in the desert. The rocks are actually convincing for such a low-budget flick. The acting is above average for these kinds of films and the music is eerie. This is definitely an uder-rated gem. I recommend it to anyone who likes these strange films from the late seventies, early eighties such as "Alice, Sweet Alice", "Poor Pretty Eddie", "Nightmare", "Hospital Massacre", and "Return of the Aliens, the Deadly Spawn". Definitely a classic!!

This is my third comment here attempting to connect two legendary movie comedy teams: Laurel & Hardy and Abbott & Costello. The connection here is the year 1940. That's the date that the former had their last movie from their longtime home studio of Hal Roach. I'll mention the significance of the latter later on. Besides being the last time Stan and Ollie worked at the Lot of Fun, it's also the final time they would appear with such familiar supporting players like Charlie Hall and James Finlayson who appeared in most of their films. It's also the last time Art Lloyd would serve as their cameraman and Marvin Hatley-who composed their theme song which would be known as "The Cuckoo Song (Dance of the Cuckoos)"-their score. And it would be the very last time Stan Laurel would be allowed to exercise complete creative control over what goes on film. If there is a more gag-laden structure than usual in this L & H film, it's nice to know most of those gags are indeed funny. That includes most of the sound and visual effects, the latter provided by longtime Roach staffer Roy Seawright. In this one, Ollie has "hornophobia" from working at a noisy horn factory so Dr. Finlayson prescribes going out to sea for his rest. Ollie doesn't like to go boating so Stan suggests they just rent one that's docked so they wouldn't have to go anywhere. After they find one they like, we find out that convict Nick Grainger (Richard Cramer) has just escaped...I'll stop there and say this was as good a finale for L & H's longtime home as one could hope for. It's hilarious mostly from beginning to end and knowing this would be their last for the man partly responsible for their teaming is indeed poignant when one thinks of it. Oh, and I have a couple more lasts to mention: it's the final film appearance of both Harry Bernard, who plays a harbor patrolman after years of encountering Stan and Ollie as a policeman, and that of Ben Turpin, the cross-eyed comic who was born in New Orleans which is a couple of hours away from my current hometown of Baton Rouge, whose second L & H appearance this was having previously "married" the boys in Our Wife. The latter performer especially has a genuine comic moment. All right, I mentioned 1940 being the year Stan and Ollie had their last movie released from Hal Roach Studios. It was also the first year that a comedy team, both born in the state of New Jersey, would make their first picture at what would be their home studio, Universal. The director of that movie would be the same one that guided L & H in The Flying Deuces the previous year. His name was A. Edward Sutherland. P.S. It was during this filming that script supervisor Virginia Lucille Jones had an accident involving a rolled-up carpet. That incident caused Oliver "Babe" Hardy to send her roses to her hospital room. They fell in love and married on March 7, 1940. It lasted until Babe's death in 1957.

I've also been looking to find this movie for quite some time, and how great it would be to find it on DVD...<br /><br />I saw this movie when I was about 6 years old, in the Netherlands. And I was very impressed by it. It was shown before Walt Disney's JUNGLE BOOK! <br /><br />What I remember of this movie is fragmented. I remember that an Indian boy was friends with an eagle. This impressed me very much. For some reason he was thrown out of his village (did not grasp the reason for this). When other boys threw stones at him, he climbed a rock and jumped off. At that time he turned into an eagle and flew away with his eagle friend. As an eagle he was still wearing his turquoise necklace. <br /><br />CB

The only reason I give it a 2 is that filmography is so stylized these days such that it has at least something to comment on.<br /><br />This film is asinine. It's like so many other 21st century grind house fodder. The gore is gratuitous and simply revolting. I didn't care about any of the characters, but I did care that some cretin bothered to pen this crap: I'd complain about the money I spent, but my date and I wisely left after 40 minutes and went to an adjoining theater to watch the adventurous and entertaining "Live Free or Die Hard," which probably got a much higher rating from me simply because I endured the utter poop of "Captivity" for 40 minutes.

Truly terrible, pretentious, endless film. Director Bellocchio seems to be infatuated with the pretty face and figure of his actress Detmers - and who can blame him? But maybe, just maybe, he should have focused his attention a little more on making a good, engaging film. I hate it when a sex film poses as an "art film" just to become more "respectable". The frequent, occasionally hot sex scenes are the only reason for this movie's existence. Whether or not they are worth sitting through the rest of the picture is strictly a matter of taste. (*)

Why does this movie fall WELL below standards? Ultimately, the answer lies in the poor, humourless script. A slim/average looking Travolta (looking rather dapper in black I must say, even with a HUGE mullet) and Gross both act very well as two young-ish 'slick-dressed' but nevertheless dimwitted New Yorkers eager to open their own nightclub. Other than that, the rest of the film is just boring to watch. It is SO dull that it's really not worth knowing what happens in the film's climax on any level. Kelly Preston obviously exudes sex appeal and the sexually charged dance with her husband-to-be Travolta is one of the film's few pleasures. Charles Martin Smith is quite fun to watch as struggling KGB honcho "Bob Smith". Personally, I think the movie would have been better if the plot was altered a little so that the settings did not change from NY to 'Indian Springs, Nebraska' (which is in the former Soviet Union?)--you'll understand if you see the movie... Apparently, this movie was filmed in 1986 ready for a 1987 release. I guess Paramount stalled on releasing the movie until January 1989 because of the unbelievable plot. It was reported they deemed it "unreleasable". Nevertheless, this $6,000,000 film garnered a little over an embarrassing $163,000 in revenue as it was released only BRIEFLY in places like Texas and Colorado before heading straight-to-video. This is testament to the overall BAD quality of this movie.

The 60s (1999) D: Mark Piznarski. Josh Hamilton, Julia Stiles, Jerry O'Connell, Jeremy Sisto, Jordana Brewster, Leonard Roberts, Bill Smitrovich, Annie Corley, Charles S. Dutton. NBC mini-series (later released to video/DVD as full length feature film) about the treacherous 1960s, as seen through the eyes of both a white family and a black family. The film's first half is driven by the excellent performance of Dutton as Reverend Willie Taylor and evenly spreads the storyline between the families. However, Dutton's character is killed halfway through and the black family is completely forgotten in a dull, incoherent, and downright awful 2nd half. RATING: 4 out of 10. Not rated (later rated PG-13 for video/DVD release).

I am a big Beatles fan. My favorite Beatle is Paul and my least favorite is John. I already knew quite a bit about the Beatles music and the truth behind the breakup, as well as things like John Lennon's family and Paul's band Wings. I was curious to see how this movie would handle the relationship between John and Paul so many years after the breakup.<br /><br />I was not disappointed by this movie. Although the story itself is fiction, many of the references that the two musicians used were very accurate. These included how Yoko Ono would always be with John wherever he went, the Wings song "Silly Love Songs" being the number one hit that year and the concert on the roof of Apple Studios playing music from the album "Let It Be."<br /><br />The actors did a very good job in playing John and Paul. The accents could had used maybe a bit more work, but they seemed to act a lot like I've read the two former-Beatles used to act like. I also liked the dialogue between them, which was basically what the entire movie was.<br /><br />The ending at first disappointed me, but the more you think about it the more you will appreciate it, especially since this was how it really went in real life. They also show the fantastic skit from "Saturday Night Live" in which the Beatles are offered $3,000 to perform on the show. (as compared to the $220 million others were offering them) Overall, I was not disappointed with this movie. It does really give you more of a feel for why the Beatles broke up and why they never got back together.

When I saw this movie, circa 1979, it became the first movie that I ever walked out of in the middle. There is nothing worse than comedy that just misses being funny, and this misses every time (although I can't speak for the last 25 minutes of the movie). There was nothing original about any of the skits. While I enjoy racy humor where appropriate, these skits were needlessly vulgar. What was even more irritating was that this movie was advertised as "Robin William's first movie", capitalizing on his new found fame in the "Mork and Mindy" television series. Yet his role turned out to be so minor that you cannot even notice him on-screen.

Soylent Green is a classic. I have been waiting for someone to re-do it.They seem to be remaking sci-fi classics these days (i.e. War of the Worlds)and I am hoping some director/producer will re-do Soylent Green. With todays computer animation and technology, it would have the potential to be a great picture. Anti-Utopian films may not be that far-fetched. The human race breeds like roaches with no outside influence to curtail it. We, as humans, have the option of putting the kibosh on the procreation of lesser species if they get out of hand, but there's nothing to control human breeding except for ourselves. Despite all the diseases, wars, abortions, birth control, etc. the human race still multiplies like bacteria in a petri dish. Classic Malthusian economics states that any species, including humans, will multiply beyond their means of subsistence. 6 billion and growing....that's obscene.

Within the realm of Science Fiction, two particular themes consistently elicit interest, were initially explored in the literature of a pre-cinematic era, and have since been periodically revisited by filmmakers and writers alike, with varying degrees of success. The first theme, that of time travel, has held an unwavering fascination for fans of film, as well as the written word, most recently on the screen with yet another version of the H.G. Wells classic, `The Time Machine.' The second theme, which also manages to hold audiences in thrall, is that of invisibility, which sparks the imagination with it's seemingly endless and myriad possibilities. And this theme, too, has again become the basis for a film adapted from another H.G. Wells classic, `The Invisible Man,' the realization of which, here, is `Hollow Man,' directed by Paul Verhoeven, and starring Kevin Bacon and Elisabeth Shue.<br /><br />Sebastian Caine (Bacon) and his colleagues have for some time been conducting experiments for the U.S. Government, exploring the possibility and practicality of invisibility, which they have, at last, achieved in a number of the primates upon which they have tested their method. They have, in fact, progressed to the point that effecting the invisibility is assured; their only problem now is bringing the subject back to the original `visual' state of being. It's a problem, however, that Caine, after diligent effort and too many hours in the lab, has solved-- or so he thinks. And when the application of his theory on a live subject is successful, he decides to present the results to the board of directors, in an effort to thereby maintain the funding necessary for the continuation of the project.<br /><br />At the last minute, though, Caine demurs, fearing that control of the project will be wrested from him before they can proceed to the next level-- the testing of a human subject. And he takes it upon himself to become that subject, securing the assistance of his research team by telling them that they've been given approval by the board to do so. But something goes wrong, and Caine becomes trapped in his cloak of invisibility; and as he and his team struggle to find the solution to his considerable dilemma before it's too late, it all begins to take a toll on Caine's mind. And suddenly, his fear of losing funding and control becomes inconsequential, as he finds himself facing the imminent danger of losing much more than that. Now there's a very real chance that he may lose everything-- Including himself.<br /><br />Verhoeven has crafted what is initially an exciting, even thought provoking film; he establishes a good pace and uses the F/X at his disposal to great effect, though he does tend to allow the striking visuals to overwhelm the character development. Anyone familiar with `The Invisible Man,' or actually anyone who can logically follow the progression of the story, will know early on that Caine is not destined for happier times. Still, Verhoeven has a style of storytelling that is definitely going to capture the attention and engage his audience. But he seems bent on rushing toward the climax, and along the way he abandons any and all of the nuance that has made his film thus far successful, opting to enter into a final sequence that is nothing more than a mindless blood-and-gore fest that betrays his audience and everything he's worked for earlier in the film. Rather than seeking an intelligent resolution to Caine's suffering, and using some inventiveness and imagination to take the film to it's inevitable conclusion, Verhoeven takes the low road, and though it may succeed on a purely visceral level, any meaning one could derive from the story dissolves like so many ashes in the wind, along with anything that would have made this a memorable film. And it's a shame, because Verhoeven has it at a higher level than much of what is offered in this genre, and he allows it to sink unnecessarily to one much lower.<br /><br />Kevin Bacon does a good job of creating a character that is believable, if only on the surface, which seemingly serves Verhoeven's purposes perfectly. There's little depth to Bacon's portrayal, but it has more to do with his director's agenda than his own acting abilities. Verhoeven simply does not allow Bacon the time to develop Caine to any extent; the character is mainly a vessel around which Verhoeven can build his story, and toward that end, it works. The film would have been better served, however, had Verhoeven and Bacon collaborated more closely on at least developing a bond between Caine and the audience that would have prompted some emotional involvement on the viewers part, something that would have drawn them in a bit, rather than leaving them at the gate, as it were, as mere observers of an F/X laden extravaganza.<br /><br />Elisabeth Shue comports herself well in the role of Linda McKay, Caine's willing accomplice in the ill-fated experiment, but it's basically a thankless part that offers little challenge, especially to an actor of Shue's caliber. The same can be said of Kim Dickens (so magnificent in the 2001 film, `Things Behind the Sun'). Her character, Sarah Kennedy, does little more than support the action and F/X. Both actors are capable of so much more, and deserve better than what they are given to work with here.<br /><br />The supporting cast includes Josh Brolin (Matthew), Greg Grunberg (Carter), Joey Slotnick (Frank), Mary Randle (Janice) and William Devane (Dr. Kramer). Entertaining to a point, and even successful on a certain (low) level, `Hollow Man' is one of those films that leaves you contemplating what could have been. Like an annual fireworks display, it will give you some momentary thrills, but after awhile it'll begin to blend in with all the others you've seen, without anything special to set it apart. And it's too bad, because given the talent and abilities of those involved here, it could have been so much more. I rate this one 4/10.<br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br />

This should not have been listed as a Colombo because in my opinion it does not resemble any of the other Colombo ever made. This should have been listed as a movie starring Peter Falk and not playing the caracter of Colombo because it does not do justice at all to our great lieutenant Colombo.

I love the 80s slasher flicks and I remember when "Silent Night/Deadly Night" was pulled from our theaters, I was very disappointed, so I was very excited to see some of these on Fear.net. You Better Watch Out was what I've come to expect of these types of movies. The quality of the special effects were laughable by today's standards, the character development too long, but all in all it was laugh out loud funny! <br /><br />The scenes where he loses it because Santa, aka dad, is feeling up his mom and later when the mob is actually shown lighting torches - not flashlights as you would in the 80s, but real torches! - really tickled my funny bone. However, the scenes where he was checking on the kids in his neighborhood gave me a creepy feeling of a different nature. I also enjoyed trying to figure out who some of these character actors were. It took me awhile to figure out that the main character was the lovable teddy bear on Brothers.

this video is 100% retarded. besides the brain cell killing acting and plot, it's way too long. don't waste your money at the video store. i actually was mad that i sat through this garbage and spent money on it. just absolutely awful.

Enjoyable in spite of Leslie Howard's performance. Mr. Howard plays Philip as a flat, uninteresting character. One is supposed to feel sorry for this man; however, I find myself cheering Bette Davis' Mildred. Ms. Davis gives one her finest performances (she received an Academy Award nomination). Thanks to her performance she brings this rather dull movie to life. **Be sure not to miss when Mildred tells Philip exactly how she feels about him.

The film gets my stamp of approval. The scene in the museum demands acting without dialogue. This is one of the most interesting and unique scenes in the history of film. Dickinson's character Kate is very well developed and her performance is felt throughout the entire film. The best work Angie Dickinson did since Point Blank!

This movie is a lot of fun. The actors really make the movie go the distance though. Without giving away the plot, I would describe it as a new Princess Bride cult favorite that should stand the test of time. You get to see a whole different side to Robert DeNiro in this movie! (Worth the price of admission just for that!) All the elements are there from adventure to romance, and well placed comedy.<br /><br />People of all ages will enjoy it. (My parents even did!) Good special effects, may be scary for the little ones. Good date movie. Great for some escapism.<br /><br />Deserves an A. (Hope it does well at the box office)

Lost is one of a kind...its so enchanting and full of suspense, thrill and emotions all at the same time.I have never seen any TV series like this before. It is full of jungle thrills and has a good screenplay. The actors have emoted life on an island in such a natural way that I feel lost in the island myself while watching it.It is an excellent piece of work narrated in a very intelligent form.The series is like a movie depicting the life of the survivors lost on a deserted island.I am tempted to watch one episode after the other and I highly recommend this series for all the TV show lovers.Watch it to see the magic of being lost in nowhere.

Let's see where to begin... bad acting; I'm not sure if I'd even call it that, as it more along the lines of a no-effort script read. The actors didn't even seem to be into their parts and seemed quite lifeless and listless. Sure there was a scene or two with nudity, but that couldn't save this movie from it's lifeless characters.<br /><br />To call the main character a rapper is an insult to the people who actually do. The lyrics had no rhythm or flow and seemed more along the lines of senseless rants.<br /><br />Budget? Did this movie even have a budget? It seemed like they used less money than I've seen in a home-shot YouTube video. Bad lighting, props, poor sound post production. Bad special effects, if you want to go so far as to call them that. Story could have been good if the people actually seemed interested in making it so, but there was no life to this flick; I don't care who directed it.<br /><br />I've seen some really bad flicks in the past year and this one is definitely at the very bottom. Don't waste your time or you'll be wishing you listened to this unbiased review. Check the ratings, you'll see the 1's are rapidly outpacing the fluffed 10's with hardly anything in between. Wish I would have looked a little closer before wasting my time. What a suck-fest!

One of the best musicals ever made, this is an example of where the producers and director were not afraid to pick actors for their talent, rather than for what people might expect. The lighting and set are unique, giving it a very interesting effect (this has a special name that I cannot think of). The dialog is also unique in that no contractions are used. The movie is well paced, beautifully acted and interesting from start to finish. A real joy is the MUSIC. Such an array of first-rate songs, from beginning to end, that are perfectly performed and orchestrated. Also, the music is very original and very memorable, and I think superior to many musicals from the thirties through the sixties. It certainly has more original and beautiful songs than most musicals, that might have only two or three. Not bad for a director with no experience in this type of movie. Another quality is that it is fresh each time one sees it.

John Leguizemo, a wonderful comic actor, is a New York Latino, able to get inside a myriad of characters, both male and female, to show the bizarre foibles of an ethnic group trying to cope in an alien culture. He is not, however, Italian. He doesn't look, think or behave Italian...Especially Sicilian or Calabrese, immigrant groups who live in Bensonhurst or Bayridge Brooklyn. Every scene in which he interacts with his "Gumbas" rings false, as though he'd wandered in from a college production of "West Side Story" while the other guys were doing a low-rent "Mean Streets". That's only one problem with this ill-conceived, mean-spirited flick. Spike blew this one big time. Btw, CBGBOMFUG means "Country, Bluegrass, Blues and Other Music For Uplifting Gourmets [or possibly Gourmands] Ask Hilly Crystal who founded the club. <br /><br />

Anthony Mann's westerns with Jimmy Stewart are slowly gaining for that director a position with John Ford and Howard Hawks as the best film director in that genre. He certainly knows how to give dimension to nice guy Stewart - in Mann's films there is an edge to Jimmy that is slowly demonstrated to the audience. In WINCHESTER '73 it was the relationship of Stewart to his brother and how it twists him into a figure of vengeance. Here it is a "I trust only myself" attitude, which leads to one complication after another. Even before the film properly begins he (as Jeff Webster) kills two of his hired cowboys who were helping on a cattle drive to Seattle because of some dispute (we never are clear about it - either they wanted to leave the cattle drive, or they tried to steal the cattle). <br /><br />He meets his match in Skagway, the port he has to get to in order to take his herd to Dawson. Skagway's boss is a so-called law man named Gannon (John McIntyre) who reminds one of the real boss of Skagway in the "Gold Rush" Jefferson "Soapy" Smith and Judge Roy Bean. The problem is that neither Smith nor Bean would have gotten quite as sleazy as Gannon in turning every opportunity into a chance to make some money. Stewart's herd interrupted a public hanging - so (as a penalty fine) the herd is confiscated (to be sold later for Gannon's profit). <br /><br />Stewart is partner with Ben (Walter Brennan - who oddly enough won his last Oscar playing Judge Roy Bean). They are also joined by Rube Morris (Jay C. Flippen) and also meet two women, the sophisticated Rhonda Castle (Ruth Roman) and the friendly and helpful Renee Vallon (Corinne Calvert). Rhonda works closely with Gannon, but had helped Jeff earlier in fleeing the authorities in Seattle. However, she has a similar "I only trust myself" attitude to Jeff. She does offer him employment to get supplies for herself to Dawson. He, Ben, and Rube go but at night (while the others are asleep) they go back and steal back their cattle. Renee follows and warns them that Gannon and his associates are following. Jeff holds off Gannon long enough for the cattle herd to be brought over the Canadian border, although Gannon points out that since Jeff has to return by way of Skagway Gannon can wait until he does to hang him.<br /><br />The reunited party of Rhonda and Jeff split over the trail to take to Dawson, Jeff opting for a longer and safer route. After he is proved right, they go by his route and reach Dawson only to find there is a lawless element threatening the community due to the gold fields. The herd is sold to Rhonda, and Jeff, Ben, Rube, and Renee start prospecting. There is soon two groups in the town of Dawson. One led by Connie Gilchrist and Chubby Johnson want to build a decent town. But the Mounties won't be setting up a station in Dawson for months. The other, centering around the "dancehall" run by Rhonda, are in cahoots with Gannon who has a vast claim jumping scheme using his gang of gunslingers (Robert J. Wilke - really scary in one sequence with Chubby Johnson and Jay C. Flippen, Jack Elam, and Harry Morgan). Jeff wishes to steer clear of both, and head with his new wealth and Ben for a ranch they want in Utah. But will they get there? And will Jeff remain neutral?<br /><br />The performances are dandy here, including Stewart as a man who is willing to face all comers, but would otherwise be peaceful enough. Brennan is playing one of his patented old codgers, whose love of good coffee has unexpectedly bad results. Flippen is a drunk at first, but tragedy and responsibility shake him into a better frame of mind - and one who has a chance to verbally stab Stewart in the heart using Stewart's own words against him. McIntyre would achieve stardom on television in WAGON TRAIN replacing Ward Bond, but his work in Mann's films show his abilities as a villain (such as his trade post opportunist who outsmarts himself in WINCHESTER '73). He is, as is said elsewhere on this thread, really sleazy - but he has a sense of humor. Roman is an interesting blend of opportunist and human being, whose fate is determined by her better feelings. And Calvert is both a voice of conscience and a frontier "Gigi" aware that she is more than a young girl but a budding woman.<br /><br />Best of all is the Canadian Rockies background - as wonderful in its way as the use of Monument Valley by John Ford. Mann certainly did a first rate job directing this film, and the viewer will appreciate the results.

...And I never thought a movie deserved to be awarded a 1! But this one is honestly the worst movie I've ever watched. My wife picked it up because of the cast, but the storyline right since the DVD box seemed quite predictable. It is not a mystery, nor a juvenile-catching film. It does not include any sensuality, if that's what the title could remotely have suggest any of you. This is just a total no-no. Don't waste your time or money unless you feel like watching a bunch of youngsters in a as-grown-up kind of Gothic setting, where a killer is going after them. Nothing new, nothing interesting, nothing worth watching. Max Makowski makes the worst of Nick Stahl.

The comparison to Sleuth, the earlier stage-play-turned-film, is obvious and upon my first viewing I too thought Sleuth was better, but Deathtrap has, at least for me, many more repeat viewings in it than Sleuth.<br /><br />I purchased Deathrap in the bargain bin at Wal-Mart, figuring that it had Caine and the underrated Reeve and was worth the 6 bucks. It was one of the finest DVD purchases I could've picked up.<br /><br />It's one of those best-kept-secrets that movie buffs always are always delighted to discover. And it's totally worth repeat viewings.<br /><br />Though Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine turned in bravado performances in Sleuth, I was doubly impressed with Christopher Reeve as Clifford Anderson. Reeve, rightfully associated with his now legendary portrayal of Superman, stole the show in what should've been an Oscar worthy performance. I've always felt Reeve was a type-cast actor who didn't get much of a chance to shine outside of the Superman films and a few other flawed but entertaining films like Somewhere in Time, but this film shows that his potential was truly tapped and put to use, thank goodness.<br /><br />I absolutely relished Michael Caine's performance. He was glib, deliciously manipulative and sadistic. And watching him work with Reeve and Dyan Cannon was an absolute pleasure. In fact, it was thanks to this movie that I got into a "Michael Caine phase" and started renting as much of his stuff as humanly possible. <br /><br />As for Deathtrap, there's enough juicy dialogue in here to fill up its "memorable quotes" section. (Unfortunately, much of the dialogue would inherently spoil the immensely entertaining plot).<br /><br />It's really, really hard to talk about the movie without spoiling important plot points that are infinitely more fun to discover on your own. Needless to say, it's a must-see. But for me, it was the greatest and most rewarding blind purchase of all time.<br /><br />Repeat viewings are a must. <br /><br />And it deserves to sit alongside Sleuth on your DVD shelf.<br /><br />I'll leave you with this beautifully written quote from the film: "I wonder if it wouldn't be...well...just a trifle starry-eyed of me to enter into such a risky and exciting collaboration...where I could count on no sense of moral obligation...whatsoever."

The final pairing of Nelson Eddy and Jeanette MacDonald is basically a complete misfire.The script is weak and has been presented badly.The film just has no life in it.Eddy and MacDonald would have been better off just making a filmed concert for their final pairing.There's nothing wrong with their singing,its just everything else in this turkey thats overcooked.

OH MY GOD.. THE WORST SH*T I'VE EVER SEEN -this is the main thought which came into my mind right after watching the movie. And I really do not understand anybody with opposite myth. Though, maybe the idea was good but the effect miserable. I especially mean the role of H. Graham. What was that??? In my opinion it has destroyed all positive intentions of producers. The character was played in affected and annoying way. Every time she appears it reminds that you' re watching a movie and is destroying a spirit of the moment, then whole movie because the most time what you can see there are her stupid faces with more stupid attempts to create the emotion. TERRIBLE, don't waste your time.

Walking the tightrope between comedy and drama is one of the toughest acts in cinema. How do you get laughs out of other people's misery and not start feeling bad when it goes on too long?<br /><br />Well, this surprising little gem of a movie will deliver great big laughs, beautiful scenery, and quite a good buzz as well. I particularly like the concept that a trick of history made alcohol legal since white Europeans liked it, and marijuana illegal, since 'those other races' used it...undoubtedly true and exposes a racial side to the marijuana laws so openly flaunted by populations all over the world.<br /><br />An extraordinary "DVD Extra" commentary...two of them in fact...run thru the whole movie with both the actors, and then again with the writers. I kept seeing things I was sure were not in the first movie, but then realizing how easy it is to miss much of the subtle comedy on the first take. What a hoot! Don't miss it! 9/10 stars

I like Brad Pitt enormously. He is an actor with brains and wit, not to mention face, pectorals and all the rest. Since I saw him in "Thelma and Louise" a thought has been bothering me, who does he remind me of? "Troy" did it for me. He is the new Brigitte Bardot. The differences are obvious of course. Male, American etc but Brigitte Bardot comes to mind nonetheless. He is so beautiful that he is at his most effective when he plays against it. "Kalifornia" "12 Monkeys" "Fight Club" "Snatch" His self deprecating humor makes him human, almost accessible. Fortunately "Troy" will soon be forgotten. Only still photographs with Pitt, semi naked in ravishing sprint positions will decorate the walls of legions of salivating fans. Strange, "Das Boot" is one of the great films of the second part of the 20th Century. What is Wolfgang Petersen doing directing this? Well, I suppose it would be very hard to say no at the chance of working with the new Brigitte Bardot.

Unlike others, I refuse to call this pitiful excuse for a movie a triumph of style over substance (I don't want to give style a bad name). Still, it's the most apt description that comes to mind.<br /><br />A pointless, unpleasant and ultimately meaningless assault on the eyes and ears, "Wonderland" leaves one wondering only why the film was made in the first place and who in their right mind gave the greenlight to this dreary and tangled mess. A biography of porn star John Holmes? A study of who the man was, why he went into the business and how it affected him? Great. Bound to be compelling, bound to be entertaining. Bound to be enlightening and fascinating on about a million levels (and I have zero interest in porn).<br /><br />But a confusing, violent, Rashomon-style study of a series of murders Holmes was connected with after his career ended? Who in hell cares? What insights do we gain? This film completely ignores the most interesting aspect of John Holmes's life -- that he was a porno star! "Wonderland" might as well have been about anyone: the fact that the main character is the most famous male adult film star in history is almost irrelevant.<br /><br />To make matters about a thousand times worse, the picture is loaded down with jerkoff gimmicks -- annoying machine gun editing, sloppy Dogme-95 camerawork, unnecessary split-screen graphics and animation, etc. etc.<br /><br />In the absence of a compelling story and unique main character, the director (and I use the term loosely) has thrown together a dozen or so techniques from other films and decided to call the resulting mess a movie, among these: the trendy, bleach-bypass look of "Narc" or "Traffic" or "Minority Report;" the frantic, often incomprehensible, throw-the-pieces-of-film-in-the-air cutting style of "Natural Born Killers" or "28 Days Later;" the fill-every-moment-of-silence-with- an-old-song-to-evoke-the-period soundtrack of "Goodfellas" or "Blow;" the groovy, retro title sequence of "Velvet Goldmine" or "Autofocus" or "Catch Me If You Can." The list goes on and on and on. Pathetic.<br /><br />I wanted to like this movie. I had real hopes for it. "Wonderland Avenue" had been around for years; had the context of the murders been emphasized rather than the murders themselves, I think it could have worked. Had the murders (and Holmes's growing involvement with seedy L.A. types) signaled the end of a career, or the end of the swinging '70s, I think the film could have had meaning; it could have served a purpose. As it is -- meaningless. Pointless. Who cares how many perspectives exist on a series of murders generally unknown by the public? The case isn't famous enough to merit such painstaking examination.<br /><br />This film should have been the third act of "The John Holmes Story." That's it. Period. And it could have worked. What's that? Oh, right, right, they didn't want to tell a traditional rise-and-fall story. They didn't want to make "Boogie Nights" or "Goodfellas" or "Star 80" or "Autofocus." They wanted their film to be different. Right?<br /><br />Well, in one sense, they succeeded. There's a big difference between those films and "Wonderland." The difference is those films are good.<br /><br />

Despite being a sequel to the more potent original, this is more of a comical remake of Friday THE 13TH concerning the further antics of psychopathic Angela, killing more nubile teens for their "immorality" at a camp.<br /><br />Pamela Springsteen (sister of Bruce) looks great. There are some pretty darn funny sex scenes with some pretty darn attractive girls, but the movie's so (unintentionally) comedic rather than suspenseful, it's a stinker.<br /><br />* out of ****.<br /><br />MPAA: Rated R for graphic violence and gore, nudity, and for some sexuality, language, and drug use.

This is really a new low in entertainment. Even though there are a lot worse movies out.<br /><br />In the Gangster / Drug scene genre it is hard to have a convincing storyline (this movies does not, i mean Sebastians motives for example couldn't be more far fetched and worn out cliché.) Then you would also need a setting of character relationships that is believable (this movie does not.) <br /><br />Sure Tristan is drawn away from his family but why was that again? what's the deal with his father again that he has to ask permission to go out at his age? interesting picture though to ask about the lack and need of rebellious behavior of kids in upper class family. But this movie does not go in this direction. Even though there would be the potential judging by the random Backflashes. Wasn't he already down and out, why does he do it again? <br /><br />So there are some interesting questions brought up here for a solid socially critic drama (but then again, this movie is just not, because of focusing on "cool" production techniques and special effects an not giving the characters a moment to reflect and most of all forcing the story along the path where they want it to be and not paying attention to let the story breath and naturally evolve.) <br /><br />It wants to be a drama to not glorify abuse of substances and violence (would be political incorrect these days, wouldn't it?) but on the other hand it is nothing more then a cheap action movie (like there are so so many out there) with an average set of actors and a Vinnie Jones who is managing to not totally ruin what's left of his reputation by doing what he always does.<br /><br />So all in all i .. just ... can't recommend it.<br /><br />1 for Vinnie and 2 for the editing.

How can the viewer rating for this movie be just 5.4?! Just the lovely young Alisan Porter should automatically start you at 6 when you decide your rating. James Belushi is good in this too, his first good serious role, I hadn't liked him in anything but About Last Night until this. He was pretty good in Gang Related with Tupac also. Kelly Lynch, you gotta love her. Well, I do. I'm only wondering what happened to Miss Porter?<br /><br />i gave Curly Sue a 7

This is a low budget Roger Corman horror/creature flick. A DinoCroc is created when manipulation of prehistoric genes runs amok. An engineered croc first kills one of its own then gets the taste of human and becomes a fast growing terror after escaping. None of the characters have any depth, but then they are not the focal point. We only get a few glimpses of the huge two-legged dinosaur descendant and some of the best "kill" scenes in a small budget film.<br /><br />My favorite scene is of a moronic character trying to use a three legged dog for bait and becomes croc food himself. Nothing left on the pier but ankle top feet. With no real stand out roles: Jane Longendecker, Bruce Weitz and Charles Napier. Most pathetic is Matt Borlenghi and an obnoxious professional croc hunter Costas Mandylor. I was most impressed with the alluring Joanna Pacula as the respectfully feared Dr. P. DINOCROC is redeeming as a crock of pickles.

In the trivia section for Pet Sematary, it mentions that George Romero (director of two Stephen King stories, Creepshow and The Dark Half) was set to direct and then pulled out. One wonders what he would've brought to the film, as the director Mary Lambert, while not really a bad director, doesn't really bring that much imagination to this adaptation of King's novel, of which he wrote the screenplay. There are of course some very effective, grotesquely surreal scenes (mainly involving the sister Zelda, likely more of a creep-out for kids if they see the film), and the casting in some of the roles is dead-perfect. But something feels missing at times, some sort of style that could correspond with the unmistakably King-like atmosphere, which is in this case about as morbid as you're going to get without incestuous cannibals rising from the graves being thrown in (who knows if he'll save that for his final novel...) <br /><br />As mentioned though, some of the casting is terrific, notably Miko Hughes as Gage Creed, the little boy who goes from being one of the cutest little kids this side of an 80's horror movie, to being a little monster (I say that as a compliment, of course, especially in scenes brandishing a certain scalpel). And there is also a juicy supporting role for Fred Gwynne of the Munsters, who plays this old, secretive man with the right notes of under-playing and doom in tone. And applause goes to whomever did the make-up on Andrew Hubatsek. But there are some other flaws though in the other casting; Dale Midkiff is good, not great, as the conflicted, disturbed father figure Creed, and his daughter Ellie is played by an actress that just didn't work for me at all.<br /><br />In terms of setting up some chilling set-pieces, only a couple really stand-out: a certain plot-thickening moment (not to spoil, it does involve a cool Ramones song), and the first visit to the pet sematary (the bigger one), including the sort of mystical overtones King had in the Shining. For the most part it's a very polished directing job, though it could've been made even darker to correspond with the script. If thought out in logical terms (albeit in King terms) it is really one of his more effective works of the period. But it doesn't add up like it could, or should. Still, it makes for a nifty little midnight movie.

There was a reasonably good looking girl starring the film(Zoe Mclellan) but even her looks couldn't stop me from voting it the lowest possible - one.<br /><br />The plot is bad and irrational.<br /><br />What more can I say. The movie sucks.

Laid up and drugged out, as a kidney stone wended its merry way through my scarred urinary tract, with absolutely nothing better to do than let the painkillers swoon me into semi-oblivion, I happened to catch this movie on cable. I wouldn't want anyone to think that I paid to view it in a cinema, or rented it, or – heaven forfend! – that I watched it STRAIGHT.<br /><br />Having played this sensationally gruesome video game and avidly trod the doomed rooms and dread passageways of The House, battling Chariot (Type 27), The Hanged Man (Type 041), and other impossible sentinels, my curiosity was piqued as to how the game would transfer to the movie screen.<br /><br />It doesn't.<br /><br />The banal plot revolves around a group of "crazy kids" – a la Scooby Doo – attending a remote island for a world-shaking "rave" – whatever that is. (You kids today with your hula-hoops and your mini-skirts and your Pat Boone…) After bribing a boat captain thousands in cash to ferry them there (a stupidity which begs its own network of rhetoric), they find the "rave" deserted.<br /><br />Passing mention is made of a "house" – presumably the titular House Of The Dead – but most of the action takes place on fake outdoor sets and other locales divorced from any semblance of haunted residence.<br /><br />A fallen video camera acts as flashback filler, showing the island in the throes of a – party?! Is that it? Oh, so this "rave" thingy is just a "party"? In the grand tradition of re-euphemizing "used cars" as "pre-owned", or "shell shock" as "post-traumatic stress disorder", the word "party" is now too square for you drug-addled, silicone-implanted, metrosexual jagoffs? <br /><br />It is learned that the party was broken up by rampaging zombies. Intelligent thought stops here…<br /><br />I don't think the pinheads who call themselves screenwriters and directors understand the mythos behind zombie re-animation. Zombies can't die – they're already UN-DEAD. They do not bleed, they know no pain. Unless their bodies are completely annihilated, they will continue being animated. At least, that's what my Jamaican witch priestess tells me.<br /><br />Which means that a .45 shot into their "hearts" is not going to stop them, nor will a machete to the torso. And a shotgun blast to the chest will certainly NOT bring forth gouts of blood. At least in the video game's logic, the shooter pumps so many rounds into each monster that it is completely decimated, leaving a fetid mush that cannot re-animate itself.<br /><br />Yet each actor-slash-model gets their Matrix-circular-camera moment, slaying zombies on all fronts with single bullets and karate chops to the sternum. Seriously, these zombies are more ineffective than the Stormtroopers from "Return Of The Jedi", who get knocked out when Ewoks trip them.<br /><br />I suppose the film's writer, Mark Altman, having penned the not-too-shabby "Free Enterprise", felt compelled to insert a Captain Kirk reference, in the character of Jurgen Prochnow, who must have needed milk money desperately to have succumbed to appearing in this aromatic dung-swill. There is also a reference to Prochnow's primo role in the magnificent "Das Boot", when one of the untrained B-actors mentions that he "looks like a U-Boat Captain". ". I wonder how many of this movie's target audience of square-eyed swine picked up on ANY of the snide references to other films, as when Prochnow declares, "Say hello to my little friend", presaging his machine gun moment. <br /><br />Aimed at a demographic who have not the wherewithal to comprehend the Sisyphean futility of the video-game concept (i.e. the game ends when you die – you cannot win), this is merely a slasher film for the mindless and mindless at heart. Accordingly, everyone dies in due course, except for a heterosexual pair of Attractive White People.<br /><br />A better use for this film's scant yet misused budget might have been to send the cast through Acting School, although Ona Grauer's left breast did a good job, as did her right breast – and those slomo running scenes: priceless! I especially liked the final scene with Ona trying to act like she's been stabbed, but looking like she's just eaten ice cream too fast.<br /><br />Attempting to do something more constructive with my time, I pulled out my Digitally-Restored, 35th Anniversary, Special Edition, Widescreen Anamorphic DVD of "Manos: The Hands Of Fate." Ah, yes! – the drugs were suitably brain-numbing - now HERE was some quality film-making…<br /><br />(Movie Maniacs, visit: www.poffysmoviemania.com)

Everyone should totally see this movie! It's freaking scary, but doesn't resort to lame "jump-out-at-you-just-to-surprise-you-and-pass-it-off-as-scary" things. It really is great. See this freaking awesome movie!!! The director is Stanley Kubrick, easily the greatest director who ever lived. Every single one of his movies are masterpieces, including this one. The Shining is about this family that goes to a hotel in the Colorado Rockies as caretakers for the winters, and get snowed in. Well, the house is haunted. The kid is psychic. The husband is easily impacted by evil haunted hotels, and...well...HILARITY ENSUES!!!! Not really. It becomes this gripping thriller where stuff gets thrown at the viewer from all different directions, and it gets scary. Not just the classic, "Here's Johnny" scene. It's memorable, but can't speak for the whole movies. It's one of those things where words don't explain it adequately, and you just gotta see it. So go on Netflix, and get it! GEEEEEETTTTTTTT ITTTTTTTT!!!!!!!

Clint Eastwood returns as Dirty Harry Calahan in the 4th movie of the Dirty Harry series. Clint is older but he's still got it, Harry was told to have a vacation after some trouble that happened because of a robbery (where the memorable "Make My Day" catchphrase comes from!) But the city he took a vacation was worse, a woman turned vigilante after a rape attack in a funfair and starts getting the punks one by one. The last movie to see Sandra Locke in a Clint Eastwood movie! An improvement after The Enforcer which was a bit more of a comedy and less serious. Clint Eastwood's sunglasses were Gargoyles which are best known for the sunglasses that are worn by Arnold Shwartzeneger in The Terminator. Worth a watch if you like Clint Eastwood, the Dirty Harry films or like action crime thrillers.

Prior to this release, Neil LaBute had this to say about the 1973 original: "It's surprising how many people say it's their favorite soundtrack. I'm like, come on! You may not like the new one, but if that's your favorite soundtrack, I don't know if I *want* you to like my film." <br /><br />Neil, a word. You might want to sit down for this too; as Lord Summerisle says, shocks are so much better absorbed with the knees bent. See, Neil, the thing about the original, is that Paul Giovanni's soundtrack is one of the most celebrated things about it. The filmmakers themselves consider it a virtual musical. Along with Richard and Danny Thompson, and Bert Jansch, it practically kick-started the 1970s Folk New Wave. To undermine it is akin to imagining Jaws without John Williams. Or The Buddy Holly Story without Buddy Holly. The result's one of the most breathtakingly arrogant, pointless remake of a British cult classic since Sly Stallone's Get Carter.<br /><br />The original had apparently left Nicolas Cage "disturbed for about two weeks." So disturbed, during that fortnight's window, that he pitched the idea of re-imagining one of the most nuanced films about inter-faith struggle ever devised to a writer-director previously known for his wholly unsubtle depictions of male chauvinism. It's like some parlor game: what would you get if Sam Peckinpah took on Bambi? Or Gaspar "Irreversible" Noe remade Love, Actually?(Actually, I'd quite like to see that). Unfortunately, someone took this parlor game seriously: All LaBute's succeeded in doing is ripping out the original's guts while saddling it with his own gormless Sex War preoccupations.<br /><br />After failing to rescue a little girl and her mum from a fatal car crash, Cage's highway patrolman spirals into a medicated torpor. Then he receives a letter from ex-fiancée Willow Woodward (this one trades on name-homages for kudos), now living on the private island community of Summersisle – that extra 's' stands for 'superfluous' – and wants Edward to help locate missing daughter Rowan.<br /><br />Summersisle, it transpires, is a female-dominated joint, conceived as a haven for oppressed womenfolk and refugees from the Salem witch trials. Here, the matriarchs observe the Olde ways, and the few males are near-mute breed-mules. It's like Lilith Fair on a grand scale. Summersisle's main export is honey – a symbolic and literal headache for Edward, as he's allergic to bees. "Beekeepers!" cries Edward. "They seem to be everywhere on this island!" Well, that's probably because Summersisle's main export is honey.<br /><br />While making his investigations, Edward overhears of an oncoming Mayday ritual called "the time of death and rebirth". He discovers the previous year's crop failed; nearly dies from bee stings; and eventually comes to the conclusion (a conclusion which admittedly couldn't be more obvious if the locals had tattooed a timetable of events on the back of his hands) that Rowan will be burnt alive in a pagan rite to ensure a bountiful harvest. He also meets the Queen Bee of the hive, Sister Summersisle (Burstyn), who has her own plans for him involving the eponymous Wicker Man: "The drone must die." <br /><br />First, the good news: any concerns Cage would be airlifted from the Wicker Man's flaming jaws at the last minute by a fleet of black CIA helicopters can be laid to rest: he toast. That's about it for the good news. "This is a story whose chapters were carefully written" intones Burstyn with sublime irony. Though retaining the basic cat-and-mouse premise (and credits typography), what's left subjects the original to a scorched-earth policy.<br /><br />Crucial to Shaffer's original screenplay was that his Christian copper, in accordance with ritual, came to the island of his own free will – and most importantly, was a virgin; the perfect sacrifice. In reducing matters to a sexual, as opposed to a religious power-struggle, LaBute presents the flimsiest of qualifiers for a harvest sacrifice. By the time Cage has worked out he was the bait, you honestly couldn't care less.<br /><br />And Cage is one of the very worst things in this; a lumbering, drawling donkey – an arsewit whose tongue seems just slightly too big for his mouth. "Goddamit" he moans after he hallucinates a drowned Rowan, with all the mental torment of a man who's set his morning alarm clock half-an-hour too early. One hopes it's his character's frequent reliance on pills that has reduced him to this state – alternately fatigued, then full of preppy, overbearing vim. If so, it's a fine portrayal of an undistinguished IQ addled with anti-depressants. If not…it doesn't bear thinking about. As Willow, the saucer-eyed Beahan is similarly dreadful, presenting her lines as if in competition with Cage for the…most…half-hearted…delivery. While Burstyn entirely lacks the mercurial menace to convince. Who's afraid of Naomi Wolf? <br /><br />Every element that made the original great – the lovingly detailed depictions of folk customs, the ingenious score, the dialogue (Lord Summerisle's majestic "You did it beautifully!" has been replaced with the rather less attractive "You did it excellently!" Whoah, dude!) – have been substituted for a meandering battle-of-the-sexes thriller with occasional crash-bang wallop. Namely, walloping women; this is a LaBute flick, after all. Cage's Sister Beech bashing is just one of the more embarrassing episodes; impotent little men will be hooting with glee at how them uppity hippie chicks finally got what was comin' to 'em, hyuk hyuk.<br /><br />The closing coda sees the whole rotten mess collapsing under the weight of genre cliché: in a bar, two guys run into a couple of Summersisle maidens on shore leave, flirty-fishing for fresh martyrs. At the moment of their successful pick-up, you half expect the women to turn round and give an exaggerated wink and a thumbs up to the camera.<br /><br />One more thing: keen credit watchers may have noticed that films sporting an unusually high producer count (anything up to 10) tend to be Not Much Cop. The Wicker Man has 18 producers in total.

Opening scene 'explains' why Hurt is later 'immune' to the 'Contaminated Man'. Too bad it doesn't explain anything else: How did he get whatever he 'caught'/what was it/why does it work so fast. Then we go to "Present Day Budapest". OK, was the opener in the past or the future? It turns out to be the past, of course, but for a minute it looks just as likely to be the nd of the movie moved to the beginning. Sorry, I should have paid closer attention, huh? Or maybe it's just badly done. Then a lot of confusion about the different jobs he's had in related fields, and finally a mention about how he should have died from the original experiment the n s a did on him. Aha! So the n s a and private industry got together to poison one of their top guys to watch the effects? He must have been one of the top guys, he's friends with the c e o of the Chemical company, for God sakes. Then there's the substance itself: Technically a poison, but it mutates in immune 'carriers', so we can have whatever we want; a poison, a disease, an allergic reaction, all very different things in real life. Magically, it's not contagious from one dying victim to another, only from the carrier. How convenient. Then there's the h a z m a t protocol: They jump into a situation without having any idea what's in store, or how prepare for it. Did the producers not have enough money to show a proper wash-down after the crew just left the scene of a deadly unknown substance? I kept thinking Hurt was going to die from bad cleanup technique, and the open scene would turn out to be the closer after all.

Veteran director and producer Allan Dwan, whose huge string of films includes both the utterly forgettable and the recurrently shown (for example, John Wayne in "Sands of Iwo Jima") tried his hand at a big musical with "I Dream of Jeanie." Harnessing a lead cast of singers with little past film experience and, as it turned out, virtually no future, he spun a fictional and in no small part offensive story about the great American songwriter, Stephen Foster.<br /><br />Bill Shirley is the young, lovestruck Foster whose kindness to slaves includes giving the money saved for an engagement ring to pay the hospital cost for an injured little black boy. His intended is Inez McDowell (Muriel Lawrence) whose pesky younger sister, Jeanie (Eileen Christy), is slowly realizing she's in love with the nearly impecunious song-smith. Foster is in love with Inez who is revolted by the composer's Number 1 on the Levee Hit Parade Tune, "O Susannah." Enter minstrel Edwin P.Christy (Ray Middleton) to help launch the profit-making phase of Foster's career.<br /><br />This is, by the musical-film standards of the early Fifties, a big production. The sets are lavish in that special Hollywood way that portrayed fakes with all the trimmings. The singers aren't half bad and the Foster songs are almost impossible to ruin.<br /><br />But this is also a literal whitewash of the antebellum South. The biggest number features black-face for all on stage, an historical anomaly and a contemporary piece of unthinking racism. Were these portrayals of blacks anywhere near reality, the abolitionists would be rightly condemned for interfering with so beneficent an institution.<br /><br />"I Dream of Jeanie" apparently sank into the studio's vault with barely a death whisper. Now revived by Alpha Video for a mere $4.99 it's a period piece with charming songs and repulsive sentimentalizing about the victims of America's great crime, slavery.<br /><br />This was what Hollywood was putting out two years before Brown v. Board of Education. Must have warmed the hearts of some moviegoers who wore their bed linen to the theater.

*Possible Spoiler*<br /><br />'Return to Cabin by the Lake' is a useless movie. The acting was not good and the plot wasn't even remotely interesting.<br /><br />'Cabin by the Lake' is a good TV movie. The sequel was not. Judd Nelson was very good in the first film and put a whole lot more into his character than in this. It seemed as if HE wasn't even interested in doing the sequel. His acting was good but it could have been better. I really don't want to comment on the rest of the cast because in my opinion, they're not even worth mentioning. But I'll do it. The character of Alison isn't even hardly shown in the first part of the film. All of a sudden she's the center of attention next to Stanley Caldwell. The role didn't make sense and it should have been thought out a little better. Dahlia Salem was absolutely terrible. Her acting was way below decent and the casting people should have looked for somebody else, anybody else. The director, Mike, was a confusing character. He seemed to have a purpose for being there but it didn't seem like his death was necessary. The acting for this role was good, nothing great but better than Salem's.<br /><br />The plot was real lousy if you think about it. Stanley, who is presumed dead, makes his way onto the set of 'Cabin by the Lake', the movie based on his script. He stumbles upon the director and in a short time, the director is dead and Stanley is running the show. Yeah, out of nowhere the crew is just going to let this stranger come into the picture and finish the film not knowing anything about him. There's some killings, not a whole lot, and the one's that are shown are ridiculous. One of the actresses on the set gets electrocuted while filming a scene. Another character gets chewed up by a motorboat. And one gets tangled up in a plant before drowning. These writers must have been hard up for excitement.<br /><br />I just have to say that I was not impressed with the filming of the movie. The way that it kept changing from looking low budget back to normal started to become irritating very fast. Also, the new cabin by the lake was poorly created. We aren't shown it but only in a few scenes, and the whole thing with the chain in the basement was useless. It worked in the first film only because we were shown the room a lot more, but it didn't work in this one.<br /><br />There were too many characters in this sequel. All of them except for a few had no reason to be there. The acting of what little is showed was really bad and...they just didn't have a purpose in this movie.<br /><br />All in all, 'Return to Cabin by the Lake' is a sequel picking up from where the first left off. 'Cabin by the Lake' I can take but this was just not impressive. Judd Nelson should have avoided this one and so should you. It's nothing like the first and it went entirely too slow. Nothing happened in the first hour and it continued to drag on for the second. Not to mention that the writing was horrible. Put this on only if you need some help getting to sleep.<br /><br />So, we see that Stanley defies death and is still alive and well. By the way he talks, it sounds like there could be a possible third installment to a movie good just by itself. Quit throwing in sequels and we may be alright!<br /><br />(Did the film makers not realize that they showed us how they filmed the lake scenes from the first one? They were all done in a tank. Never, never reveal the secrets of filming.)<br /><br />

Bela Lugosi plays a doctor who will do anything to keep his wife looking young and beautiful. To this end, he drugs brides during their wedding ceremonies to make it look as if they are dead so he can steal their bodies. I'm not exactly sure what he does with the bodies. I don't remember it ever being fully explained. All I know is that he extracts something from them and injects it in his wife. (I'll just guess that it's spinal fluid. Spinal fluid was all the rage of mad scientists in the 40s.) You can pretty much guess the rest from here.<br /><br />There are a couple (well, really more than a couple, but I'll only write about two) of problems that I have with this movie. One is the way Bela is used. Sure, he does a decent enough job in his own overacting sort of way (BTW, the rest of the cast is simply abysmal). But, to have him hiding in the back of a hearse or having him creep into the female reporter's bedroom to do nothing is just silly. Also, why have him beat and/or kill every henchman he has? Is it to make him look evil? Well, someone who is kidnapping comatose brides doesn't really need to be made to look more evil.<br /><br />The second problem I have is the idea of drugging brides. Why brides? Wouldn't any female under the age of 20 do? Watching Bela go through these gyrations to get his victims, I was reminded of the idiotic Fisherman in I Still Know What You Did Last Summer. In each case, there would appear to be an easier way of reaching your objective than employing a seemingly impossible plan that depends way to much on circumstances out of your control. (BTW, an alternate title for this movie is The Case of the Missing Brides. I guess that partially explains the need for 'brides'.)

I read a few reviews of this TV movie which all said that the film dragged on for too long and that it was basically only sensationalistic entertainment. I agree that perhaps, the film goes on a bit too long (2h30 would have been enough...) but I certainly do not think it sensationalize the subject matter. Jim Jones' expansive power trip and slow degradation into mental illness, paranoia and drug abuse are never treated in a voyeuristic manner. The movie takes its time in showing how Jones recruited followers (Brenda Vaccaro's and Brad Dourif's character are stand-outs in that matter) but also in observing an uncanny shift in Jones' perception of reality. It is mind-boggling to see an egalitarian, left-wing and compassionnate preacher become such a destructive and cruel dictator. Perhaps the movie doesn't explore Jones' motivations enough, which can make the whole ordeal a bit superficial at times (may have to do with censorship as well...) But Powers Boothe's mesmerizing performance makes it all come true. I am not familiar with the details of the real Jim Jones' life, but Boothe sure makes the monster he plays believable and real. The movie features many strong scenes, among them the preaching messes of Jones, Jones's meeting with Father Divine (a remarquable James Earl Jones), Congressman Leo Ryan (Ned Beatty)'s visit to the Guyana camp and of course, the suicide scene. It is quite a gloomy spectable to watch and Boothe is quite commanding in those last moments. Madge Sinclair shines in this scene as one of the suddenly sceptic follower, and so do Veronica Cartwright (as Jones' wife) and Brad Dourif, especially when their time comes to drink the murderous potion. The relative calm of the end of this scene, the tasteful direction and the contrasting beauty of the natural surroundings all work in making those images quite impossible to erase from one's mind. A disturbing reflection on human nature and its weaknesses. Worth watching, if only to keep in mind one of the truly horrific events of the 20th century. Not to let it be repeated again. Like, ironically, the inscription in Jim Jones' camp: "Those who do not know the past are bound to repeat it".

I had high expectations of this movie (the title, translated, is "How We Get Rid of the Others"). After all, the concept is great: a near future in which the ruling elite has taken the consequence of the right-wing government's constant verbal and legislative persecution of so-called freeloaders and the left wing in general, and decided to just kill off everyone who cannot prove that they're contributing something to the establishment (the establishment being called "the common good", but actually meaning the interests of the ruling capitalist ideology).<br /><br />Very cool idea! Ideal for biting satire! Only, this movie completely blows its chance. The satire comes out only in a few scenes and performances of absurdity, but this satire is not sustained; it is neither sharp nor witty. And for an alleged comedy, the movie has nearly no funny scenes. The comedy, I assume, is supposed to be in the absurdity of the situations, but the situations are largely uncomfortable and over-serious, rather than evoking either laughter or thought.<br /><br />The script is rife with grave errors in disposition. The action should have focused on the political aspects and how wrong it would be to do such a thing, but instead oodles of time are spent on a young woman who was the one that wrote the new laws for fun, and who's trying to save everybody, by organizing a resistance that ships people to Africa. All this is beside the point! A movie like this should not pretend to be so serious! It's a satire! A political statement. But it doesn't even begin to actually address the problem it's supposed to be about. Maybe it was afraid of going too far? How cowardly. That's not art. It's not even real satire.<br /><br />Søren Pilmark, a very serious and by now one of Denmark's absolutely senior actors, was very good. He largely carried what little entertainment value the movie had. Everybody else: nothing special (well, perhaps except for Lene Poulsen, who did supply a convincing performance).<br /><br />In fact, a problem with most Danish movies is that the language never sounds natural. Neither the formulation nor the delivery. Why is it so difficult to make it sound right? Why must it be so stilted and artificial? I hope, when people look at these movies fifty years from now, they don't think that this was how people talked in general Danish society.<br /><br />3 out of 10.

This isn't cinema. It isn't talent. It isn't informative. It isn't scary. It isn't entertaining. It isn't anything at all.<br /><br />I got this because my cousin says, "Diablo! COOL!" Yeah, right. The only thing cool about this experience was the lone fact that I didn't buy it but rented it instead.<br /><br />It's shot like a bad soap opera. No wait. Soap operas at least LOOK professional...sorta. This? This looks like it was shot with someone's camcorder. It's horrid! Wretched! It sux.<br /><br />The cinematography is detestable! WHO IS this director anyway? I don't even care enough to look him up. He STINKS! The performances by these poor unsuspecting actors were far better than this crap-fest deserved.<br /><br />2.6/10 on the "B" scale. <br /><br />That registers about a 0.3/10 on the "A" scale from...<br /><br />the Fiend :.

This movie is easily the worst of the series. Though New Line might just be looking at sales, they all know the only reason this one made more money than the one prior was due to its 3D ending. It wasn't that the 3-D was good either, because it was 50's 3D with the red and blue lenses(anaglyph.) It was just the fact that people wanted to see what it would look like. Beyond that this movie was so poorly done! Bad script, bad characters, bad acting, worse directing. This movie is trying to push the camp factor almost to the point of being like a "Looney Tunes" episode.<br /><br />Seriously, not for horror audience, because it is corny and not scary, and not funny or amusing for comedy crowds. Just a total mess with some really bad cameos that are still trying to play this whole thing as camp and having it fall way short of what they probably wanted.<br /><br />I remember most of us who had been fans of this series were just praying that it would end at this point because of how bad it had gotten. This is one of the movies that helped take horror out of popularity and ride a fad of belief that audiences really wanted to laugh with some stupid comedy than see a good and scary horror film.

Bad acting. Bad writing. This was a poorly written film. It's too bad because it had some potential. It's not even close to American Pie or Something about Mary as previous comments might have you believe. Rent it at dollar night from you local video store if you're kind of bored.

Tim (Gary Daniels) wants desperately to break into serious television reporting. When a job he begged for goes awry, he is fired. His beautiful but empty girlfriend (Elizabeth Hurley) says sayonara, too. Coming home, Tim is startled to discover his house has an uninvited visitor (Christopher Lloyd) from the planet Mars! Calling him Uncle Martin, Tim soon tries to help his new friend navigate life on earth. But, Martin gets in trouble wherever he goes, from the bathroom to the laundry room and more. Lovely Lizzie (Daryl Hannah) finally sees an opportunity to make time with Tim but the course of true love does not run smooth in this case, either. Soon everyone in television is stalking Tim, hoping for a story about a true alien. What's a man to do? For those who loved the old television show of the same name, with Bill Bixby and Ray Walston, this film is not worthy to tie the proverbial boots. Its truly, undeniably awful, with no plot and a reliance on supposed special effects which fall flat, too. Daniels is okay as the earthling but Lloyd is simply terrible as the alien, overacting up a storm. The rest of the cast is adequate, as are the costumes, set, and production details. Even if your children see the cover and beg for this film, convince them to pick out another flick at the video store. Be assured, kids and adults will find this movie a colossal bore, so opt for A Night at the Museum or Around the World in 80 Days instead.

In Christian Duguay's movie, Hitler: The Rise of Evil, Hitler's early years in life and politics is shown in a successful way with some minor historical errors and some exaggeration. It is quite natural for a Hollywood movie to contain such things as the main purpose of production is the income that they will get from the movie. Even though such errors may disappoint some members of the audience who believes that everything should be done by the book, I believe that most of them fits well with the rest of the movie, making it more interesting. We should not forget that this movie is not a documentary. Who cares how did his dog died anyway.<br /><br />Throughout the movie, Hitler is portrayed as a psychologically unstable figure that gets angry very easily and is very passionate about his ideals. But he was not portrayed as a super-villain but more like an ambitious politician. I believe that this is a nice perspective as the movie is not contaminated by tons of negative emotions and this made the movie somewhat objective. Yes he was a little mad, and his methods were rough but he was still a human not a totally insane figure as portrayed in "Inglorious Bastards". I believe it made the movie more realistic even with some inaccuracies in the historical facts.<br /><br />The flow of history is nicely reflected to spectators. Even though the movie's focus was around Hitler we also had chance to see what is happening in the country as a result of these actions via newspapers, discussions of people and the songs in a Jewish cabaret. Also society's reaction was also reflected to movie but it was very limited. Struggles of journalist Fritz Gerlich and ironic plays that are played in the cabaret was amusing and interesting but that was all. Mostly we only saw his followers rampaging the streets and cheering him.<br /><br />Another thing that was missing in the movie is information about the origins of his hatred for Jews. In the beginning of the movie, some ideas about this is given but they were quite superficial. All of a sudden he was a politician who is giving speeches about necessity of extermination of Jews.<br /><br />In conclusion, Hitler: The Rise of Evil cannot be considered as an excellent movie that everyone will like but it is not unsatisfactory at all. If you can stand directors that change history for cash, it is an interesting movie reflecting Hitler's personality in a successful way.

There are really two sections of this film. Firstly there's the laughable prologue to the film which is so hysterical and cornball that it would almost feel appropriate that the 'The Simpsons' Troy McClure should be doing the narration.<br /><br />Then the rest of the film begins (starting off with a title song which really doesn't fit in with the rest of the film) which, while technically OK, is killed by a vague, inconsistent and unconvincing plot and not just uninteresting characters, but characters that make no sense.<br /><br />This is especially so with Mickey Rooney's Spiventa, who was supposedly in on the plot and part of the 'organisation' the whole time yet what would have happened had Hackman made the seemingly arbitrary decision to take him along when breaking out? In that case he would've been a totally superfluous and unnecessary character, which in the end he still is.<br /><br />The overall problem of the film is that it's totally unwilling to put any detail on who or what is behind this conspiracy. It's as if the filmmakers didn't have the courage to imply that a particular section of society would be capable of creating such an organisation and instead settled on the hope that a lack of explanation would suffice and the audience would form their own conclusions.<br /><br />Put simply, the film fails on all levels.

I used to watch Pufnstuf every weekend when I was about 10. It was on right after Bay City Rollers. I saw it come on to Family Channel one day, and taped it for my then three-year old daughter. I'd forgotten all the things I'd loved as a child, the magic flute, the zoom broom, Witcheepoo's makeup.<br /><br />This show is decidedly low tech. The mayor is surely a precedent to Mayor McCheese, and everyone is a stuffed creature with annoying googly eyes. But kids love this stuff. They would way, way rather watch a guy work a sock puppet than sit in front of high-tech computer animation. There is (mild) slapstick, but no adult themes such as sex or people dying, and kids accept Jimmy's schemes. Kids think it would be neat to carry a bag of smoke around and convince someone their house was on fire, and I loved how every time my daughter saw a jet stream in the sky she thought Witchypoo was flying overhead. The music is old, but you really get used to it, and my daughter really loved it. She used to sing "different is hard, different is lonely" in the car. My daughter watched this show at least once a day for about 5 months, and it's still one of her favourites.<br /><br />I see that a new Pufnstuf 2000 is in the works. I really hope they try to keep the old flavour and don't do anything like computer-animating characters etc. I think a whole new generation would love Pufnstuf.

I think I laughed twice. The line where the main character says something about being from the streets. And then I forget the other time I laughed. It was probably in the beginning.<br /><br />This has to be one of the thinnest movies ever. Doesn't Hollywood realize that this kind of humor is degrading and sad, really. You can only insult yourself so many times.<br /><br />2/10

That is no criticism of the film, but rather a comment on how blind we are to our own past. <br /><br />I recently watched Winter Soldier, and The Ground Truth was like watching a remake or sequel-- except it was about Iraq rather than Vietnam. Similar to Winter Soldier because of it's one-sided message, both films illustrate how gleefully we rush to engage in conflicts based on false pretenses, and allow our young and brave (and often naive) to bear the brunt of this greedy war profiteering. Both films effectively show that the mentality forced into the minds of the young and willing make them efficient killing machines, but the training falls woefully short of teaching the diplomatic and policing skills necessary to effectively win the hearts and minds of the people they're supposedly fighting for. This is ultimately what lost the war in Vietnam, and will likely lose the war in Iraq as well. <br /><br />My only negative comment is that the film is so one-sided it could be easily passed off as left- wing propaganda. Not by me, mind you, but by those aiming to discredit the film and message. A more balanced point of view would speak to a larger audience.

Cypher is a clever, effective and eerie film that delivers. Its good premise is presented well and it has its content delivered in an effective manner but also in a way the genre demands. Although one could immediately label the film a science fiction, there is a little more to it. It has it's obvious science fiction traits but the film resembles more of a noir/detective feel than anything else which really adds to the story.<br /><br />The film, overall, plays out like it's some kind of nightmare; thus building and retaining a good atmosphere. We're never sure of what exactly is going on, we're never certain why certain things that are happening actually are and we're not entirely sure of certain people, similar to having a dream – the ambiguity reigns over us all – hero included and I haven't seen this pulled off in such a manner in a film before, bar Terry Gilliam's Brazil. Going with the eeriness stated earlier, Cypher presents itself with elements of horror as well as detective, noir and science fiction giving the feeling that there's something in there for everyone and it integrates its elements well.<br /><br />There is also an espionage feeling to the film that aids the detective side of the story. The mystery surrounding just about everyone is disturbing to say the least and I find the fact that the character of Rita Foster (Liu), who is supposed to resemble a femme fatale, can be seen as less of a threat to that of everything else happening around the hero: People whom appear as friends actually aren't, people who say they're helping are actually using and those that appear harmless enough are actually deadlier than they look. Despite a lot of switching things around, twisting the plot several times and following orders that are put across in a way to make them seem that the world will end if they're not carried out; the one thing that seems the most dangerous is any romantic link or connection with Lucy Liu's character – and she's trying to help out(!) The film maintains that feeling of two sides battling a war of espionage, spying and keeping one up on its employees and opponents. The whole thing plays out like some sort of mini-Cold war; something that resembles the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. in their war of word's heyday and it really pulls through given the black, bleak, often CGI littered screen that I was glued to. <br /><br />What was also rather interesting and was a nice added touch was the travel insert shot of certain American states made to resemble computer microchips as our hero flies to and from his stated destinations – significant then how the more he acts on his and Foster's own motivation this sequence disappears because he's breaking away from the computerised, repetitive, controlled life that he's being told to live and is branching out.<br /><br />Cyhper is very consistent in its content and has all the elements of a good film. To say it resembles the first Jason Bourne film, only set in the sci-fi genre, isn't cutting it enough slack but you can see the similarities; despite them both being released in the same year. Like I mentioned earlier, there feels like there is something in this film for everyone and if you can look past the rather disappointing ending that a few people may successfully predict, you will find yourself enjoying this film.

Let's see. In the "St. Elsewhere" finale we found out that there was no hospital and that every thing had been in the mind of an autistic child. "Newhart" ended by telling us that it had all been a dream. And "Roseanne" ended by telling us that it all had taken place in her mind. Very "creative". Annoying was more like it. Yes, it was just a TV show and wasn't at all reality. It's just that when you get caught up in a great movie or TV show you end up at least wanting to believe that it's all "real". At least as far as the reality it portrays on screen. This type of series finale had been done twice before and was old hat, frustrating and simply not fun to watch. Now "Newhart" being all a dream? At least done in a creative way that far exceeded the expectations of anyone who loved the show. The idea itself was not too engaging but it was so brilliantly done that its arguably the Best Series Finale Ever. Roseanne left me feeling cheated after being such a loyal fan.

If you haven't seen the gong show TV series then you won't like this movie much at all, not that knowing the series makes this a great movie. <br /><br />I give it a 5 out of 10 because a few things make it kind of amusing that help make up for its obvious problems.<br /><br />1) It's a funny snapshot of the era it was made in, the late 1970's and early 1980's. 2) You get a lot of funny cameos of people you've seen on the show. 3) It's interesting to see Chuck (the host) when he isn't doing his on air TV personality. 4) You get to see a lot of bizarre people doing all sorts of weirdness just like you see on the TV show.<br /><br />I won't list all the bad things because there's a lot of them, but here's a few of the most prominent.<br /><br />1) The Gong Show Movie has a lot of the actual TV show clips which gets tired at movie length. 2) The movie's story line outside of the clip segments is very weak and basically is made up of just one plot point. 3) Chuck is actually halfway decent as an actor, but most of the rest of the actors are doing typical way over the top 1970's flatness.<br /><br />It's a good movie to watch when you don't have an hour and a half you want to watch all at once. Watch 20 minutes at a time and it's not so bad. But even then it's not so good either. ;)

If Dick Tracy was in black and white, the pope wouldn't be religious. Giving a new sense to the concept of color in a movie, we are offered an unique experience throughout a comic-strip world, and it's one of the few movies which succeeded in doing so, thanks to a serious script, good direction, great performances (Al Pacino is astonishing) and most importantly a powerful mix of cinematography, art direction and costume design. Using only primary colors, the experience is quite different from anything we have seen before. And there is also a quite successful hommage to all the gangster-movie genre, pratically extinct from modern cinema. Overall, I see this movie as a fresh attempt and a touch of originality to a cinema which relies more and more on the old and already-seen formulas. 7 out of 10.

One of those beautifully intense movies that draws us so intimately far in, it ends much to soon! Than were left looking at the screen like, "No they didn't!", lol. Good performances all around! The acting is marvelous with Emily Blunt simply outstanding! I knew she would give a solid, convincing performance catching young Victoria's regality, temper, and vulnerability through out the entire movie. Also, the production is outstanding in every way: style, substance and sensitivity. A remarkable glimpse at a remarkable time in Britian's history told via a very personal and touching biography of the school age princess until her reign as Queen, later marrying Prince Albert, than ending with the birth of their first of nine children. It had a well written screenplay and flawless editing. Rupert Friend as the ever so patient and compassionate young Prince Albert vying to win the young Queen's attention, than securing her love, before Lord Melbourne(Paul Bettany), was engrossing to watch. Just as engrossing was the relationship between the teenage Victoria and her mother, which was fury at times, as with her mother and King William (whom also disliked her mother). The acting and scenes were captivating, highly emotional. <br /><br />I would recommend this to anyone interested in the historical and political situation existing in that era, and indeed, anyone who loves a compelling true romance story

While the 3-D animation (the highlight of the show) did it's job well, most other elements fell flat. It was as though the filmmakers thought "well, it's gonna be 3-D so we don't have to work that hard on the plot or character development." And the fact that it's a children's movie is absolutely no excuse. The public is drawn to three dimensional characters (Shrek, Nemo's Dad) just as much as they are drawn to three dimensional graphics. The only dimension any of the main characters showed was two dimensional Scooter who twists the plot from time to time with his compulsion to eat everything in sight.<br /><br />And the absolute kicker? Buzz Aldrin's appearance at the very end (after watching a very robotic cartoon version of the same historical figure for an hour and half) comes on the screen and ruins everyone's good time by calling the film's main characters "contaminants" and announcing that the situation put forth on screen was actually an impossibility.<br /><br />???!!!??? Did you just wanna tell the kids the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus don't exist while you're at it?

This Raggedy Ann and Andy Movie is so adorable. We love watching Ann and Andy sing and dance, along with the camel with the wrinkled knees. This movie is what made the Camel with the Wrinkled Knees so popular, singing his song, "I'm nobodies I Love You". If you love Raggedy Ann and Andy Watch the movie and you will see why it's a movie the kids love, and adults!

If you want your vision of Chaplin limited to a lovable tramp and you get your belly laughs from pathos, watch something else. If, however, you love slapstick comedy as performed by one of the best, do watch this one.<br /><br />The image is of the tramp who really cannot get the girl. He spots another couple kissing on a park bench, and he has a blast ruining their fun.<br /><br />This is one of Chaplin's "park comedies," filmed in Mack Sennett's park, with pickpockets and cops and couples. These shorts work, as the format allows Chaplin to shine as he weaves through predicaments.<br /><br />I checked the box, as this could be considered a spoiler, though it's not if you've seen these films. Everyone ends up in the pond except Chaplin. He gets the girl, who in this case was played by Minta Durfee, a.k.a. Mrs. Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle.

There seem to have been any number of films like this released during the 70's. And the fact that I cannot recollect the title to a single one of them off-hand is a measure of their impact. These are what novelists would call 'pot-boilers'. They are scarcely more than a vehicle for keeping movie-stars in the public eye.<br /><br />We have Micheal Caine, Peter Ustinov, Omar Sharif, Rex Harrison and William Holden; more than enough names to get bums on cinema seats. Every taste in hero is catered for. Though one suspects that most of the audience still went away disappointed.<br /><br />Their talents are simply thrown away, and I wonder that stars with so much money and such reputation can be yet so desperate or lacking in good sense. This sort of movie hardly adds gilding to a CV. Sometimes maybe actors should choose their director instead of the other way round.<br /><br />It was pretty obvious that it would be crap even from the outset. That ludicrously mismatched jaunty-jazz theme music, which also percolated up every time some incidental noise is needed, had all the atmospheric conviction of elevator Muzak. Who imagined employing a jazz band when a scene depicted the steamy jungles of central Africa, or the endless Sahara with camels and palms as a backdrop? Definitely a serious goof-ball. Ennio Morricone would have known what to do; and his results would have oozed enough atmosphere and tension to raise my rating a good two points. This director should have taken the trouble to watch 'Lawrence of Arabia', or even Sergio Leone's westerns; he might have learnt a few things. But then again, probably he wouldn't.<br /><br />Alfred Hitchcock played the disappearing wife theme to good effect in his film 'Frantic'. It was later remade with equal panache staring Harrison Ford. In each case the confusion surrounding her loss and the tension of the chase was tangible. Here, when Michael Caine might be otherwise compelled to employ a little brain and bravado, Rex Harrison kept popping-up out of no-where like some wily old genii, to put him back on track whenever the narrative stumbled. <br /><br />At least the photography was rather good, with excellent use of the often beautiful environment. But then the dumb music must pipe-up and blow to atoms what little ambiance this created.<br /><br />Action scenes were also contrived and stilted, with such ineptly choreographed fight sequences that they might have been staged in a first-year drama class. And, of course, the players must fight to a jazz accompaniment - as you do.<br /><br />And that's about as much comment as this item deserves. Except to say that the script was pretty wretched as well.<br /><br />Stick with your hobby on this one. Even if it contained your favourite movie-stars, you're sure to be disappointed too.

Time for Hollywood to sit up and take notice! If the actors are acting snooty, all you need to do is get the animators who worked on this little marvel. Renaissance is probably the first animation flick which makes you forget that you are not seeing human beings. Although the voice overs by the cast (Craig, McCormack, Pryce etc.) are some of the best i have ever heard but even then the emotions portrayed by the 'cartoons' are unnerving.<br /><br />This style of animation is not very new but the use of light and shadows makes the movie a living painting. Ironically, such technical wizardry makes you forget that this is actually a very very nice movie. The pacing and plot development are marvelous and the dialogs crisp.<br /><br />Plot: Disappearance of a mega corporation's top employee unravels a tale of deceit and corruption with a Cold hearted hero at the helm. Can't say much without giving it all away...except that while the movie keeps you at the edge of your seat, the climax leaves you speechless.<br /><br />A must watch..even for the 'grown-ups' who smirk at 'cartoons'

Pendragon Pictures' new film "H G Wells' War of the Worlds", the first faithful adaptation of the original novel, has been in development for about 5 years. A theatrical release was intended for earlier this year (March, 2005) but this never happened. The DVD was rushed out to coincide with the release of Spielberg's version, which hits theatres June 29.<br /><br />I liked this film, with certain reservations.<br /><br />How faithful is the adaptation? It's not quite 100% faithful to Wells' book, but 90 - 95% faithful is good enough for me. At least several scenes were totally new, such as Ogilvy the astronomer's confrontation with a farmer, and the unnamed writer/narrator awkwardly having tea with his cousin. But on the whole, this film follows the book very closely -- certainly much more than the classic 1953 version by George Pal.<br /><br />Its greatest fault is that it was obviously made on a very cheap budget. The majority of it seems to have been shot blue-screen and composited with digitally rendered backgrounds. This is particularly annoying during most of the interior shots, and scenes of crowded city streets. The overviews of 1898 London look like something from a video game. Numerous scenes in horse-carriages were faked -- I guess they couldn't afford to rent a horse. The only scenes shot for "real" seem to be those in open fields or forests.<br /><br />But within those budget restrictions, they managed to do quite a lot. Artistically, the film looks right. The Martians and their tripods are quite well done, and very true to Wells' descriptions. I was particularly impressed with the heat ray. Although the Thunder Child sequence, which should have been one of the film's highlights, is very disappointing. It's a great shame that they couldn't afford more actual sets, or better quality animation.<br /><br />The acting and direction won't win any Oscars. For the most part, they are competent, not bad, but not outstanding. The music is quite good also, though not on a par with any of the major Hollywood composers.<br /><br />I'm actually glad this didn't get a theatrical release, because the budget limitation would have made it look much worse on a big screen. As it stands, I would rate this similarly to a BBC-TV adaptation of classic literature.<br /><br />A few nitpicks: Most of the scenes are presented with various colored filters (mostly red). This may have been an artistic choice, but it is used very inconsistently, and seems more like a sloppy job of mastering the DVD. And the writer/narrator's obviously fake moustache mutates from scene to scene.<br /><br />Bottom line -- Is it worth seeing? If you can look past the technical and budgetary limitations, and get into the story, I think you will enjoy this, especially if you've actually read the original H G Wells novel. If, however, you are easily put off by cheap production values, you'd best pass on this (unless you're a MST3K fan). Be warned, however that the film runs a full 3 hours, so I don't recommend watching it all in one sitting.<br /><br />BTW: An entirely different version of War of the Worlds (aka "INVASION") came out on DVD the same month that Spielberg's hit the theatres: http://imdb.com/title/tt0449040/. This was also made on a budget, but is updated to the present day like the Spielberg film - but it's much better! And to top it off, Jeff Wayne is making an animated film of his best-selling album from 1978, but that won't be out until 2007.

A dedicated fan to the TLK movies, with the first one being a milestone and the second probably the best sequel Disney has produced, along comes this film... Now I'm not arguing with animation, voice work, music, but this is no more than a Timon/Pumbaa screwloose in the TLK atmosphere. Although it isn't bad, it doesn't add anything. Basically this movie is one big joke... and that's about all that saves it. Make a real TLK3, Disney! The potential is there.<br /><br />4/10

What an awful movie. I love monster flicks but I couldn't watch even half of the terrible acting, cardboard characters and abysmal special effects. There is nothing redeeming about this movie. The characters come from either an endless supply of suicidally stupid cannon fodder or else they are vacuous, uninspiring sock puppets. The plot is formulaic, cut and paste, standard science-run-amok drivel. Even the CGI is horrible. You know it's bad when you can't even depend on the movie to provide some good eye candy. No surprises here,just same old same old. This is truly one of the worst films ever made. Director Roger Corman should be hung from a lightpost so that children can use him as a pinata.

OK Clara Bow silent film from 1927, it's a spin-off of Rain, with Bow playing the half-Hawaiian wild daughter of the local pineapple king who falls in love with the staid English engineer--Clive Brook. Bow competes with the local widow (Arlette Marchal) for his attentions, but both women get a big surprise when his wife shows up (Patricia Dupont). The predatory wife is ready for a divorce until she discovers he might be on the verge of a fortune. Bow settles her hash fast.<br /><br />Bow has personality to spare and has a few great scenes: her opening nude bath, her hula in a grass skirt, and the dog rescue scene with Bow and Brook doing their own stunts.<br /><br />Note: the IMDb credit list is wrong. The film credits (from the DVD I have) list Patricia Dupont as playing Mrs. Haldane---not Margaret Truax as listed on IMDb.

I'm a bit conflicted over this. The show is on one hand awful, the acting is terrible (even when we get actual name actors like Brad Pitt and Bill Moseley in one episode), the dialogue is moronic and the premise/moral of each episode feels like something lifted out of a 50s educational short. There's no way you'll be scared for a moment from any of these episodes, and Robert Englund's cameos are short, pointless and corny in a sort of a Bob Saget on America's Funniest Home Videos kind of way.<br /><br />On the other hand this is one of the funniest things to ever be on television. The 80s fashions, the soft focus makes the actors look like their on the set of The View at all times, the premises lend the material more to self-parody than scares, so we're left with an episode where a high school kid is afraid if he fails his SAT's his girlfriend will dump him and his parents disown him, another is afraid she'll be locked up in prison because she's a substandard mom (her husband is played by Brad Pit), another is afraid that all the parents in the world are in league against him when he runs away from home, another is afraid she'll be confused with her socially-retarded twin, another is afraid if he doesn't break up his mom and step-dad he'll get killed for having a party at his house. The list goes on and on.<br /><br />Being that these are dreams I suppose you could look past the ludicrous plot points and devices, but they're so out of left field that there's no opportunities for the writers to actually scare the audience. You have characters dressed like something out of a 80s-themed nightmare wandering around delivering bad dialogue in very hammy fashion and making illogical decisions that serve no other purpose but to move the story to the next weird plot point (typically watching as a peripheral character does something uncharacteristic of a sane person while our main character stares aghast and too shocked to do anything about it).<br /><br />If you're looking for something that'll scare you stay away. If you're looking, on the other hand, for one of the funniest things to come out of the 80s ever. Watch it.<br /><br />Its been showing on Chiller TV lately (pretty much every day) and I've been watching, earlier out of morbid curiosity, and now just so I can get a good laugh in each day. With Arrested Development and Extras off the air this is officially the funniest thing on television right now.

This is one of those topics I can relate to a little more than most people as I hate noise & have no idea how those in big cities, New York especially how people get any sleep at all! It astounds me that people can stand all the noise out there these days. The basic plot of the film is that it makes for an interesting topic. It's too bad that's about it. Tim Robbbins is decent although except for a couple of scenes (especially with the absolute supermodel looking Margarita Leiveva) he didn't seem to really be altogether there. My biggest hope for this film is that casting agents will see the absolutely stunning & talented actress to boot, Margarita Levieva. She doesn't have a lot to do, but she is supermodel beautiful. Even when they are trying to make her look at more girl next door. It makes me sad that there can be people such as Paris Hilton & Kim Kardashian in the world w/no redeemable skills or talent, to have more fame and success than this talented beauty. I didn't care for much of this film because the script isn't very good, but am glad I got to see some new talent. I hope that producers & directors think about Margarita when they need a beautiful new actress to be in there big budget film. If they can make Megan Fox a star (c'mon she isn't that hot, & her acting "talent" is worse than made-for Disney channel TV shows) from 1 film, it should happen easily for her, as she is gorgeous & has talent! I'd recommend her changing her last name so we can pronounce it and make it more marketable. Here's hoping this makes her career, & if there is any justice she can pop up on some big summer movie or two in the next couple years.

This was a fine example of how an interesting film can be made without using big stars and big effects. Just tell a true story about the struggles of two African American women over a turbulent century.<br /><br />This movie challenges us all to look at our own personal prejudices and see that people are people, not white, black, etc.<br /><br />Good movie with a good message.

Nothing is fantastic! Simple as that! It's a film that shouldn't work, yet does. Natali stays in the realm of Sci-Fi, however this film is also a comedy. Cypher it seemed was a big budget draining affair for Natali (at $7.5million! Woo-hoo Pa!) so with Nothing he scales down again. This is low budget, independent film-making at it's best. Simple, good old fashioned storytelling and an attempt at making a film for artistic merit as apposed to Hollywood's usual reasons for mostly financial gain. Nothing is a film about Nothing and before you ask, no it is not anything like Seinfeld! Basically Andrew and Dave are a couple of losers. They live in a strange looking house beneath two freeways. Andrew is a telesales travel agent who is agoraphobic while Dave is Andrews best mate who stays with him rent free to help him out. Dave is tired of it however and has a gorgeous girlfriend who he wants to move in with. By bizarre mis-fortunes however, Dave finds out his girlfriend embezzled a huge amount of money from Daves work-place incriminating Dave, and Andrew is wrongly accused of sexually assaulting a girl scout (Canadian humour people!). As it turns out Andrew's house is to be demolished as well and he can't stop it happening as the house was built on land it should not have been built on. Both Andrew and Dave are inside the house when the police and the demolition team come calling. They are desperate and can't escape, and in the panic and confusion just as the police burst in everything fades to white. What has happened? Have Dave and Andrew died? They wake to find themselves still in the house only it is quiet. No police, no demolition team, no angry girl scout mother! What happens is Dave and Andy discover they have the ability to "wish or hate away." As it turns out they have hated away the entire outside world. They are left alone. The house is surrounded by nothing, which is portrayed as pure white. So what this means is that the films setting is a house set and then just white. The film is an interesting view on human isolation and the psyche and of course as they spend more time alone together with no food and no water, they begin to tire of each other. They discover they can hate away hunger, which is useful but obviously things get out of hand shall we say. I can't reveal much but I must say bouncing heads are quite a sight to behold.<br /><br />This film is quirky, funny, interesting. The effects are simple yet effective and Natali brings together two buddies from Cube, David Hewlett, and Andrew Millar to lead the film. They have chemistry and also work very well. They have to hold 90% of the movie by themselves and much of it in a pure white background, yet it works. Certainly I expect this to get the same diabolical treatment as Cypher did and it should appear on DVD in a year or two in the states. Nothing is a top quality and unique film and although not as good as Cube or Cypher it once again proves Natali as one of the best up and comers.<br /><br />Natali is someone who has really interested me in his three features so far and I cannot wait for his next feature. I prey to god he doesn't do the proposed Necropolis, written and directed by ADD sufferer, the ever crap Paul Anderson. Vincenzo old buddy if Paul comes round to your pad, RUN!!! RUN LIKE THE WIND!! I hope and prey this guy doesn't take to Hollywood like Alex Proyas did (with the enjoyable yet pussy-footed, sugar coated, helium light: I Robot!). Keep your eyes peeled for this guy. ****

"The House That Dripped Blood" is one of the better anthology films of the time period.<br /><br />**SPOILERS**<br /><br />Tracking down a missing film star, Inspector Holloway, (John Bennett) finds that the last reported sighting was in a large mansion in the countryside. During the course of looking through the house, he is told four different stories about past residents of the house.<br /><br />The Good Story(s): Method for Murder-Moving into the mysterious manor to get some peace and quiet while Charles pens his latest masterwork, Horror novelist Charles Hillyer, (Denholm Elliott) and his wife Alice, (Joanna Dunham) are thrilled with the story, which centers around a serial strangler named Dominic. After a series of strange accidents and experiences in the house, Charles begins to believe that the creation my have come to life and is haunting him and his wife. Probably one of the better entries in the film, it's easily the creepiest. The atmosphere here is what sets it apart. The scenes with the fictional character are genuinely creepy, the mystery surrounding him is really effective and there's always a classic creep-out moment. The classic moment is the kill in the psychiatrist's office, which is an all-time high for creepiness. The build-up to it, with the creaking sounds, quick flashes of a mysterious being, and the thunder and lightning in the back ground work well for this one's favor.<br /><br />Sweets for the Sweet-Moving into a new house, widower John Reid, (Christopher Lee) hires former school teacher Ann Norton, (Nyree Dawn Porter) for his young daughter Jane, (Chloe Franks) while he's away on business. Ann gradually begins to unravel a dark secret from Jane's past, which John vehemently denies. When she learns the true nature of what has happened, it's far more shocking that what she could've thought possible. With the creepiest outright plot and the biggest twist of the stories, this is a quite pleasant entry. The mystery of the family is wonderfully played out, with small amounts of clues piled up here and there, and the final revelation is downright nerve-wracking. That part alone is the main reason why this one works, and Lee doesn't harm it either.<br /><br />The Bad Story(s): Waxwork-Tortured by memories of his lost love, Phillip Grayson, (Peter Cushing) and his friend Neville Rogers, (Joss Ackland) both become infatuated with a statue of a woman in a Wax Museum, as the statue takes over their lives, they discover a shocking secret about the museum that haunts the both of them. There's a clever premise here, and it does provide an excuse to spend time in a wax museum, which are always creepy. This is no exception, and it looks eerie, which is helped by the florescent lighting on display on the sculptures. A dream sequence provides a great moment of suspense, but what ultimately kills this one is the slow pace. It takes a long time for events to unfold out, and most of the time is spent on exposition. It also builds up to a shock ending that can be seen coming from a mile away. Those really lower this one a bit. Had the twist been changed, it would've scored higher, the rest is acceptable.<br /><br />The Cloak-Veteran horror film actor Paul Henderson, (Jon Pertwee) upset at the lack of realism on the set of his new film, goes off and buys a new vampire cloak from a specialty store. The cloak soon turns him into a vampire, going crazy on the set with co-star Carla, (Ingrid Pitt) and other vampiric acts at home. Unconvinced the cloak is the cause, he does everything he can to prove it's just in his imagination. This has a pretty decent premise, and there is plenty of opportunity for some decent scares, but what sinks it is several factors. First, it's just too goofy for it's own good. The plot twist at the end is a perfect example, which is so overdone that it's not really a shock at all, and just comes across as just plain silly. There's so few scenes of scares or attempted scares that it's just a bore to sit through. It's the weakest one in the film.<br /><br />The Final Verdict: A quite decent omnibus film, there's a few small problems scattered through each of the stories that renders this a less than perfect but still highly watchable film. Highly recommended for those into the similar films at the time or who enjoy British horror films.<br /><br />Today's Rating-PG-13: Violence

Care Bears Movie 2: A New Generation isn't at all a bad movie. In fact, I like it very much. Yes I admit the dialogue is corny and the story is a bit poorly told at times. But Darkheart, while very very dark is a convincing enough shape shifting villain, and Hadley Kay did a superb job voicing him. Speaking of the voice acting, it was great, nothing wrong with it whatsoever. The animation is colourful, and some of the visuals particularly at the beginning were breathtaking. The songs and score are lovely, especially Growing Up and Forever Young, the latter has always been my personal favourite of the two. The care bears, who I do like, are adorable, and the human children are well done too. And the ending is a real tearjerker. All in all, harmless kiddie fun. 8/10 Bethany Cox

Hello everyone, This is my first time posting and I just love the movie No child of mine and I could watch it over and over!! well I taped it a long time ago like a few years ago and I dropped it and broke it and I haven't seen it in a few years!! could any one please tell me when it will come on again!! I would really appreciate it alot!!You can email me if you want to cause that is my favorite movie of all including Empty Cradle to and if anyone knows when that comes on to PLEASE let me know,I would really appreciate it ALOT!!!<br /><br />

I'm sure deep in the recesses of Jack Blacks mind the character of Nacho Libre is absolutely hilarious but no it isn't. You can tell ol Jacks having a whale of a time hammin it up playing a smarmy, slimy Mexican friar with dreams of becoming a wrestler but this movie is a total misfire in just about every single department.<br /><br />I just sat there through most of the movie thinking "Is this supposed to be funny" and "This is the guy from Tenacious D right?". The truth is this film has NOTHING to offer. AT ALL! It's a lousy script with crappy characters and really naff acting and direction. You'll watch endless moments where you think something funny is surely about to happen but it just doesn't. I was bored stupid about 10 minutes in but though it would surely pick up. It didn't. 90 minutes later I'd barely managed to stave off an aneurism it was that painful.<br /><br />It's like, remember years ago when you'd see anything with your fave actor in it, even some of their really early pap from before they were famous, and you'd be really embarrassed that said actor was actually in such a load of plop. Yeah it's like that.<br /><br />I've enjoyed some of Jack Black's earlier movies like Shallow Hall and I'm really looking forward to seeing Pick of Destiny but come on man. If you do this to us again Jack I'm gonna have to come round there and hammer your kneecaps or something. At the least give you a serious talking to.<br /><br />I know it's a cliché but this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen and for so many reasons....

I could not agree less with the rating that was given to this movie, and I believe this is a sample of how short minded most of spectators are all over the world. Really... Are you forgetting that Cinema used to be a kind of art before some tycoons tried to make it only entertainment? This movie is not entertainment, at least not that easy entertainment you get on movies like Titanic or Gladiator. It has style, it is different, it is shocking... That's why most of you have hated it so much: because it does not try to be pleasing to you. It's just a story, a very weird one I admit, but after all, only a weird story. It is not a great story, not even a great cinema work, but I believe it is worth a 7-stars rating only for the courage of both author and director to shot a story that is not made to please the audience, thus selling billions of copies and making the big studios even richer. This movie is, for me, European-artistic-like movie made in the US, and everyone involved in the making of it deserves respect. Be it for the courage, or be it for the unique sense of humor.

There isn't more I can say that saying this film was awful. The whole Chineseness is awakened in your being because of the ancestors was a hard sell. But telling the audience that every Chinese knows Chinese history without even studying it just laughable. That is like saying every American knows American history without studying or every Filipino, etc, etc. It just isn't believable.<br /><br />The story is flat out hideous. It talked about Shin being from a Monastery in China - later identifying it from Bejing. However, the early sequences of the film show the map focusing in on Mongolia. I know the current Chinese regime wants to claim areas like Mongolia for its own, granted. But its a distinct nation and it even labels "Mongolia" on the map. Did Disney Studios fail 5th Grade Geography? <br /><br />The relationship between Wendy and Shin is superficial at best, and yet she somehow feels connected to him. Her training is just cheesy as well. And, lets cut to the chase: everything about this film is bad. Its bad enough to laugh at and cry over. The Taekwondo action was over played and unrealistic in many instances.<br /><br />The evil eyes thing was cheesy. However, the left out ending would have been the only descent thing about it. They should have left the evil eyes ending in it. But instead somehow evil is defeated. Yey! <br /><br />Overall,not worth the time of the dog in the film. Brenda Song should get on with another studio. "F"

This Peabody Award winning episode is one of the highlights of the 1st Season where a holodeck malfunction traps Captain Picard, Beverly, Data, and a Starfleet historian named Waylan within a 1930's San Francisco setting. This episode is an homage to Raymond Chandler's "Maltese Falcon" where Patrick Stewart assumes the Humphrey Bogart role - complete with fedora and trenchcoat. The office itself is almost an exact replica of the one featured in Bogey's "Maltese Falcon." <br /><br />This episode also briefly introduces us to a mysterious insect race called the Jarada that communicate with mostly a high-pitched buzzing sound. Communication with this alien race is difficult, and it is up to Picard to communicate with this race in their native tongue so that negotiations and diplomacy can finally begin. The best part of this episode, though, is the appearance of the famous Hollywood B-actor Lawrence Tierney in the role of the gangster Cyrus Redblock. He was such a handsome man back in the 1940's. Oh, well...