Datasets:

paduraru2009

/

imdb-sample2

like 0

Ariauna Albright is a really good actress but why she participated in this lame written travesty is a mystery. What could have been entertaining winds up as classic boredom. The unique thing about Ariauna is that she can act as well as look real sexy as opposed to her partner Lilith Stabs who looks fine but it is obvious she spent the money for acting school at the spa or beautician. This was a production that cried out for some T & A & with a imaginative script writer could have achieved it in the flow of things. However Ariauna does what she can under the circumstances & to a extent salvages her reputation. The Tempe company should be aware that when you dress two attractive women in skimpy fetish cop uniforms the viewers will expect some fetish play & T & A. Nough said.

**Warning! Mild Spoilers Ahead!**<br /><br />(Yes, I realize it's tough to spoil an historical documentary, but I do reveal some of the backstory and methods.)<br /><br />This is an exceptional documentary not just because of the remarkable footage, but also due to the story behind it. Because the Naudets did not set out to tell the story of 9/11, but rather that of a rookie firefighter, the men's emotions and the viewer's connection with them are more real and powerful than they would be in a standard retrospective. <br /><br />In a filmmaking sense, "9/11" is textbook. If the events were an actual script, they would be superb, as the characters are established, then thrown a curve to which they must react. This is all the more amazing considering the pain and emotion of the raw footage that the directors had to wade through to piece this story together. <br /><br />The first portion of the film provides a glimpse of life inside a fire station; specifically, how a rookie assimilates himself into a crew of veterans. That part alone is quite good, and had the documentary been allowed to run its intended course, it probably would have been solid. The brothers appear to realistically portray the process of becoming a NYC firefighter. <br /><br />Then of course, all hell breaks loose. The chaos following the WTC attacks is vividly seen, as various characters that we have gotten to know are thrust into terrifying situations. Seeing not only the attacks, but also the first-hand reactions is a very moving picture of extreme human emotion. <br /><br />The aftermath, in which firefighters are discovered to be lost and found, is human drama at its peak. Life and death hang in the balance. Unlike many movies, the viewer not only doesn't know who will live and die, but genuinely cares about them. <br /><br />The only negative thing I have to say about this is that the Robert DeNiro (whom I like) blurbs were uninformative, unnecessary, and didn't advance the story at all. They were probably added just to attract more television viewers.<br /><br />Bottom Line: The best documentary I've ever seen. Nonpareil portrayals of raw human emotion and drama. 9.5 out of 10.

I was surprised at just how much I enjoyed this most thoughtfully delivered drama, which owing to its rather unimpressive 6.6 rating, I nearly missed; as I rarely give the time of day to any movie rated below 7/10. Having said that, I'm so glad I gave Stone Angel the viewing it so very much deserved. And so should you, if you are one of the increasingly rare sensitive, soulful and thoughtful sorts of person left on this earth in living form.<br /><br />I must say that in many ways (though not all), viz. its themes, execution, style, production etc., Stone Angel very much reminded me of the much praised "The Notebook". I am so surprised that other commentators didn't pick up on the many similarities which repeatedly struck me throughout this movie, so I can only assume that those who've written comments have yet to see the Notebook. They may not share any Alzheimer's theme, yet I can confidently say that if you very much enjoyed "The Notebook" you will certainly find much to engage your time most fruitfully with "The Stone Angel". But even If you've not seen The Notebook, nor read the book on which this move is based, (which, incidentally, I haven't either) you should definitely find much to hold your attention firmly - as long as your favourite genres don't include fast paced action thrillers. This is a movie for thinkers and those who like to reminisce about time's passing, how life changes as the years pass, and what might have happened in one's life as one gazes back through the years.<br /><br />This bizarrely underrated yet great movie really deserves a rating of approximately 8/10. I can only blame its current lowish rating of 6.6/10 on the 11% of idiots who gave it 1/10. After all it has attracted less than 300 votes at the time of my writing this comment. Nonetheless, if those 11% who gave it the lowest ranking possible were really expecting car chases and explosions why didn't they look... for even a few seconds at the movie's premise and promotional lines? Oh dear... Whatever the world is coming to, don't miss this most underrated gem of a movie - but only *if* you have a brain (i.e., your top ten doesn't include Transformers, Fight Club nor The Terminator).

Otherwise it is one of the worst movies I've ever seen - and I mean ever. My wife and I were both bored out of our minds within 10 minutes. Not to mention being boring, it is entirely unbelievable. Women (non-lesbian) don't bathe together - nor do they "accidentally" kiss. Brothers and sisters don't live together well into their 30s and run around swing dancing together and engaging in footraces in central park. Men don't find out their wife and sister romantically kissed the night before the wedding and then never discuss it with said wife. Absolutely ridiculous.<br /><br />Heather Graham is possibly the worst actress in films today. She smiles when she should be crying and vice versa. The only movie she has ever been good in is Boogie Nights - and that is because she wasn't acting.<br /><br />I cannot stress enough how bad this movie was.

The photography of this bid-budget production is surprisingly bad. Colors are muddy and brownish and the photography has very 80ish look to it. Direction and editing are often quite uninspired and TV-movie like, too. *And* at first the movie only seems to want to torture its viewers with lurid images of sex and violence. Hans Zimmer's score is also a typically simple and bland work of this overrated, untalented composer.<br /><br />But if you are willing to watch the movie further you are rewarded with a very moving family story, a sort of European version of Edna Ferber's family epos Giant. While at first you wonder why Clara married this idiotic man, even his character gets more depth and more background one can judge him by. Clara delivers the movie's spiritual lesson, a great and moving statement set against the terrible happenings in her country. Her daughter, whose lover is a young Antonio Banderas at the beginning of his international career, understands that lesson and ultimately tries to live by it. The way the plot was constructed with the ending mirroring the beginning was great. The actors all do a great job, too. I was wondering "Who is the actress playing Blanca?" all the time, but of course, it was a really young Winona Ryder!<br /><br />All in all, this movie really made me want to read the book.

I can't believe it's been ten years since this show first aired on TV and delighted viewers with its unique mixture of comedy and horror. This is the show that gave birth to a good part of modern British humor: Dr. Terrible's House of Horrible; Garth Marenghi's Darkplace; The Mighty Boosh; Snuff Box. Many have imitated this show's style, and I don't deny some have surpassed its quality. But Jermy Dyson deserves being remembered for having started the trend, with actors Mark Gatiss, Steve Pemberton, and Reece Shearsmith.<br /><br />Together they created Royston Vasey, a sinister small town in England's idyllic countryside, where unsuspecting tourists and passers-by come across an obsessive couple that wants to keep the town local and free of strangers; where the unemployed are abused and insulted at the job center; where a farmer uses real people as scarecrows; where a vet kills all the animals he tries to cure; where a gypsy circus kidnaps people; and where the butcher adds something secret but irresistible to the food to hook people on.<br /><br />This is just a whiff of what the viewer can find in The League of Gentlemen. By themselves, the three actors give birth to dozens and dozens of unique characters. The make up and prosthetics are so good I actually thought I watching a lot more actors on the show than there were. But it's also great acting: the way they change their voices and their body movement, the really become other people.<br /><br />Most of the jokes start with something ordinary, from real life, and then blows up into something unsettling, sometimes gut-wrenching. Sometimes it's pure horror without a set up, like in Papa Lazarou's character. Just imagine a creepy circus owner on make-up barging into someone's house and kidnapping women to be his wives. No explanation given. It's that creepy. Then there are the numerous references to horror movies: Se7en, The Silence of the Lambs, Nosferatu, The Exorcist, etc.<br /><br />Fans of horror will love it, fans of comedy will love it. As any traveler entering knows, there's a sign there that says 'Welcome to Royston Vasey: You'll Never Leave.' Any viewer who gives this show a chance will agree. Once you discover The League of Gentlemen, you'll never want anything else, you'll never forget it.

Kevin Kline and Meg Ryan are among that class of actors which I am always interested in seeing, despite reviews. I have always found Ms. Ryan to be a charming and winsome actress in nearly all her roles, and Kevin Kline is almost always worth watching.<br /><br />I say "nearly" and "almost" in large part because of this movie.<br /><br />First off, Meg Ryan does not play a likeable character, she plays a weak-willed whiner who begins grating on your nerves shortly after the opening credits and doesn't give up until several days later. That said, Kevin Kline's character is even more annoying and less likeable. So, even if you normally like these two actors, I recommend your give this movie a pass.

Guys and Dolls is a unique play based on the characters. Sky Masterson<br /><br />(Marlon Brando) is a high-class gambler who takes up a bet with Nathan Detroit (Frank Sinatra) for one-thousand dollars. Nathan needs the money so he can<br /><br />run his usual crap game and make a fortune. The bet was that Sky wouldn't be able to take just any girl to Havana, Cuba and the "doll" he chose was Sarah<br /><br />Brown (Jean Simmons) who was in charge of a missionary. Sky finally bribes<br /><br />Sarah enough to go to Havana with him. They end up falling in love with each other, but later she accuses him of something he had no part in. Nathan ran a crap game in the missionary the night they were gone. Nathan's 14 year fiancé Adelaide (Vivian Blaine) disapproves of Nathan's gambling and tries to stop him from doing it. However, when the movie ends it all ends happy with a double<br /><br />wedding.<br /><br />The songs in this movie are just wonderful no matter who sings it. Marlon<br /><br />Brando has no singing voice at all and true they could have dubbed him but it didn't really matter. He did a wonderful acting job (obviously seeing as it's Brando) and played his character very well. I have seen a few movies with Jean Simmons and thought that this movie was her weakest one, she also couldn't<br /><br />sing at all. However, the singing is made up by Frank Sinatra, Vivien Blaine, and Stubby Kaye. Vivien Blaine and Stubby Kaye was also in the original<br /><br />Broadway production of Guys and Dolls. Vivien Blaine had a terrific voice and was the perfect Adelaide. If you like musical, and even if you don't, i advise you to watch this.

I voted this a 10 out of 10 simply because it is the best animated story I have been able to see in quite some time. The animation is stunning. The artwork behind each and every landscape was beautiful. From the colors to the lighting to the not standard fare of artistry. I was amazed. Moving beyond the beauty on the screen, you are immersed in a storyline that is at once timeless and at the same turn fresh. Character development is brief yet these touchstone moments are exactly what is needed to clue the viewer in to what and why and how the character has come to where they stand. I'm impressed with the entire affair and think this is a must see for the entire family.

This is an excellent stand-up DVD! Eddie Izzard is the funniest person I have seen in years. His routine is hilarious and makes for great conversation with others who have seen it. I HIGHLY recommend this one. The part about the history of Europe is a bit slow, but the ending jokes in French are quite good, because you don't have to speak French to get it (although if you do, it is still hilarious). Also, the parts about being a transvestite are quite good. The first scene (about San Francisco) is not great, but funny the first time. Skip over those if you can. It's almost not worth watching. However, this really is a funny, funny stand-up show that everyone should see. "I was dead at the time!"

an acted/manipulated documentary about one of the most darkest places of guatemala. portrayed as a fun, secure... but sad place, were a bunch of sex workers get to play in a soccer team, assembled in what seems like no more than a week! the documentary's main focus is to prove that society repels this kind of "workers", even though no solution to these poor women is ever achieved, except that the people who documented this,made them some sort of "stars" (just like the title says so) in exchange of being exploited for making this realityshowlike documentary. it does have, however, its own documented reality... but, that sadly has nothing to do with the main storyline. i would not accept to see it again; but i would recommend it for general cultural purposes only.

To confess having fantasies about Brad Pitt is a pretty tough admission for an heterosexual to make. But what can I tell you? Maybe is that famous extra something that everybody talks about and makes a star a star. It crosses that barrier. It pulls you into unknown sensual and emotional territory. Brando had it in spades, Montgomery Clift, Gary Cooper, James Dean of course and in more recent times, Tom Cruise, Jude Law, Johnny Depp, Ewan McGregor and Billy Crudup. Women fell in love with Garbo, Dietrich, Katharine and Audrey Hepburn, Grace Kelly, Marilyn Monroe, Julie Christie, Charlotte Rampling, Meryl Streep, Vanessa Redgrave, Julia Roberts and very very recently Natalie Portman. But Brad Pitt has, singlehandedly, redefined the concept. He is the only reason to go out, get in the car, find parking, buy a ticket, popcorn and get into a theatre to see "Troy" If you liked epics in the "Jupiter's Darling" style you may enjoy this. But if you don't, go all the same, we want to keep Brad Pitt in business.

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

Honestly, I find this film almost too depressing for my own good. It is VERY depressing until pretty much the very end. There is no way I can justify passing judgement to any character who did things I didn't like (well, except for the disgusting character played by Fredrick Forrest). But it's still so frustrating to see people behaving this way, putting up walls around themselves when just a word or so could break the ice and promote healing.<br /><br />A horrible tragedy strikes a Montana family. They believe they've lost one son, but it turns out they've lost 2. The key is, if they just communicate and face their grief together, they won't end up losing their second son permanently.<br /><br />But they just can't. Something is blocking this family from sharing their sorrows. Some family retreat into silence and resentment while certain others point fingers of blame (and then go ahead and cheat on their poor pregnant wife by seducing the pretty girlfriend of the deceased...that Andy character truly is a snake!) The only member of the family that isn't threatening Arnold in some way is his Grandpa (Wilford Brimley). Grandpa seems to be able to speak to the boy without judgements or even kid gloves. He seems to know what the child is thinking about even though Arnold isn't saying much these days. It is truly a blessing for the poor kid to have that one someone he can turn to. No one else seems to grasp the fact that Arnold might be in shock, in denial, or that his way of grieving may not be the same style, or at the same speed, as they would expect. It's so easy to judge and to be angry and to feel someone is "made of stone" just because they don't grieve in a way we believe they ought.<br /><br />The story is very quiet and naturalistic. You're not going to get some spoon-fed narration or some Hollywood feel-good resolution. I was very concerned by the fact that this child was so burdened with guilt that he felt it necessary to hitchhike several hundred miles to apologize to that piggy Andy's wife, for something he should not blame himself for. Arnold may have accidentally killed his brother, but nobody is responsible for the end of that marriage, which apparently was a lousy one anyway, except for the two people in the marriage. It's only dumb luck Arnold didn't get into the car with a pedophile or a murderer.<br /><br />Robert Duvall and Glenn Close are frustratingly effective as the parents who somehow cannot find it in themselves to communicate with their son, to find out what Arnold is going through. Jason Presson, whom I've not seen anywhere else except for a childhood favorite called EXPLORERS and a creepy ghost story called THE LADY IN WHITE, did an incredible job as Arnold, a great performance from a child actor.<br /><br />Aside from being somewhat slow at times, THE STONE BOY is an excellent, and very depressing movie.

THIS IS NOT A CHILDREN'S MOVIE!!!<br /><br />This movie is like a "bad acid trip" for kids under the age of 5. For a month my 4 year old from time-to-time would ask me "Why was that rabbit bleeding from its mouth" or "Why did the bulldozer bury all the rabbits?". (And that wasn't the worst of it). We stopped it about a 1/2 hour in but the damage had been done. Intensely morbid, oppressive, violent. Fortunately he's finally forgotten about the whole wretched thing. Whomever decided this movie should be marketed to children should be brought up on charges. ... (Go ahead censure me, my conscience is clear.).

The plot: A crime lord is uniting 3 different mafias in an entreprise to buy an island, that would then serve as money-laundering facility for organized crime. To thwart that, the FBI tries to bust one of the mafia lords. The thing goes wrong, and by some unlikely plot twists and turns, we are presented with another "cop buddies who don't like each other" movie... one being a female FBI agent, and the other a male ex-DEA agent.<br /><br />So far, so stupid. But the strength of this movie does not lie in its story - a poor joke, at best. It is funny. (At least the synchronized German version is). The action is good, too, with a memorable scene involving a shot gun and a rocket launcher. But the focus is squarely on the humour. Not intelligent satire, not quite slapstick, but somewhere in between, you get a lot of funny jokes. <br /><br />However, this film is the opposite of political correctness. Legal drug abuse is featured prominently, without criticism, and even displaying it as cool. That's the bit of the movie that seriously annoyed me, and renders it unsuitable for kids, in my opinion. <br /><br />All in all, for a nice evening watching come acceptable action with some funny jokes, this movie is perfect. Just remember: In this genre, it is common to leave your brain at the door when you enter the cinema / TV room. Then you'll have a good time. 8/10

What's the point of reviewing a movie like this? It's painfully and embarrassingly bad, not even in a way that allows you to make fun of it.<br /><br />Movies like "Little Man" depress me. They represent film at its most disposable. This movie was made for a bunch of 18-24 year old dipsh*t frat boys who the studio was hoping would come out and see it on opening night before word leaked out about how bad it was, so that the film could quickly recoup its investment.<br /><br />A hundred other filmmakers with great ideas probably couldn't get their films made because resources were going toward making this puddle of vomit.<br /><br />Grade: F

Intergalactic criminal Kol (Ross Hagen) has been sentenced to death and awaits execution on a spaceship designed for just such a purpose. But tonight there's going to be a jailbreak, and Kol flees on a conveniently-placed escape pod and flies towards Earth (which apparently is nearby). There he confronts a group of "teenagers" (who look thirty) and a game warden (John Phillip Law), who help protect him from his worst nightmare... the bounty hunter and executioner android (or more properly "gynoid") the Alienator.<br /><br />From the cover of the box, I was confident this was going to be an awful movie. But, as awful as it turned out to be, it was a ton of fun as well (probably at least partially because I was watching it with someone who happens to be intensely awesome). The director (Fred Olen Ray), who has specialized in making over one hundred low-grade films (most notably "Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers"), does what he does best and throws together a plot that only half makes sense and gives us rudimentary special effects. Bonus: P.J. Soles appears (as "Tara"), obviously at a low point in her career.<br /><br />Sure, there's plot holes. Why are there hillbilly rednecks in California (allegedly Los Angeles County if I understood the warden correctly). What's up with the space woman's tacky blouse? Why is there a subplot about the ship captain forcefully trying to win her heart when this story goes nowhere? What the heck is "Quadrant 5"? How does chicken wire create an electromagnetic field that will short-circuit an android, yet land mines do virtually nothing? Why does Kol look like a drunk, Native American football player with emphysema? And the Lund guy (Robert Clarke)... does his character even have a point? Does the game he plays with the captain have a point? Does this movie have a point? But the biggest mystery is the android (or gynoid) the Alienator, played by Teagan Clive. What is an "alienator"? Why does it look like Daryl Hannah from "Blade Runner", only much larger? Because, see, if something is a cyborg, it's part human. But if it's an android, it's all machine. This was an android, so there was no reason to make it look human. It could have looked like anything. Yet, the person who designed her made her the size of a linebacker, with David Bowie's hair and a leotard that shows me just a little too much. If you're going to make a female android, wouldn't the purpose be to have her be seductive and lure enemies in? Mission not accomplished. They say beauty comes in all shapes and sizes, but I think I found a huge exception.<br /><br />If "Mystery Science Theater 3000" were still around today, this film would be on a very short list of movies that need to get harangued.<br /><br />Beyond the butt-nasty Alienator (sorry, Teagan, female weight lifters are gross) the film is alright. Maybe there's not much of a story and maybe the characters aren't really very interesting. And maybe the scene with the deer is incredibly adorable for no particular reason -- what use does a killer robot have with a deer? But overall, I actually liked the movie. I won't be pimping it out to my friends or running out to my local video store to pick up the latest DVD copy (which I'm sure is just packed with amazing special features -- not). But I consider seeing this movie time well spent and look forward to similar adventures in the future.

The Robin Cook novel "Coma" had already been turned into a pretty successful movie in 1978. A couple of years later it was the turn of another Robin Cook bestseller to get the big screen treatment , but in the case of "Sphinx" virtually everything that could go wrong does go wrong. This is a dreadful adventure flick consisting of wooden performances, stupid dialogue, unconvincing characters and leaden pacing. The only reason it escapes a 1-out-of-10 rating is that the Egyptian backdrop provides infinitely more fascination than the story itself. Hard to believe Franklin J. Schaffner (of "Patton" and "Planet Of The Apes") is the director behind this debacle.<br /><br />Pretty Egyptologist Erica Baron (Lesley Anne-Down) is on a working vacation in Cairo when she stumbles across the shop of antiques dealer Abdu-Hamdi (John Gielgud). Hamdi befriends Erica and is impressed by her enthusiasm and knowledge. Consequently, he shows her a beautiful and incredibly rare statue of Pharoah Seti I that he is keeping secretly in his shop. The very existence of the statue arouses intense excitement in Erica, for it could provide vital clues in locating Seti I's long-lost tomb, a prize as great as the discovery of Tutankhamun's tomb in 1922. Before Hamdi can tell Erica any more he is brutally murdered in his shop, with Erica watching in silent terror as he meets his grisly end. Afraid yet tantalised by what she has seen, Erica attempts to track down the treasure. She finds herself helped and hindered in her quest by various other parties, none of whom are truly trustworthy. For one there is Yvon (Maurice Ronet), seemingly a friend but perhaps a man with sinister ulterior motives? Then there is Akmed Khazzan (Frank Langella), an Egyptian for whom Erica feels a certain attraction but who may also be hiding dangerous secrets from her.<br /><br />The biggest problems with "Sphinx" generally result from its total disregard for plausibility. Down couldn't be less convincing as a female Egyptologist – one assumes she would be quite well-educated and resourceful, yet she spends the entire film screaming helplessly like some busty bimbo from a teen slasher flick. On those rare occasions that she actually isn't running from a potential villain, she does other brainless things such as taking Polaroid flash photos in a 4,000 year old tomb! The plot twists are heavy-handed to say the least, mainly comprising of revelations and double-crosses that can be predicted well in advance. One can't even try to enjoy the film on the level of dumb but entertaining action fare, because the pacing is awfully sluggish. What little action can be found is separated by long stretches of tedium. A famous review of the movie declared: "Sphinx stinks!" Never before has a 2-hour film been so aptly summed up in 2 words.

This film on paper looked like it could possibly be good, after watching though i realised that this film was completely terrible!! The plot has no meaning, and i think i counted the best part of 5000 cut scenes each one making the film more annoying boring and ridiculous. I watched this late night pitch black no noise at all just to add to the SCARINESS of it but the truth is the only thing that scared me was the music, what they would call tragic music, they play opera i mean be serious!! This film sums up all of what is not good about this type of film. To be honest ill say no more but watch at your own risk this film is just complete rubbish, ENJOY!!

"Elvira, Mistress Of The Dark" is a sort of "Harper Valley P.T.A." with touches of the supernatural. Elvira (Cassandra Peterson) walks off her job as television horror movie hostess after the new station's owner gets fresh with her. She's now relying on a Las Vegas show to carry her through, but learns she needs to come up with more money to get the show started. Things look hopeless to raise that money until she receives notice of her aunt's death, which then takes Elvira to Massachusetts for the reading of the will. A house in need of repairs, a dog, and a cookbook are all that is left to her by her aunt, and again it seems Elvira is having trouble coming up with the money for the Las Vegas show. The adults of the small and narrow minded town make things worse by making things more difficult for Elvira. Only the local hunk (Daniel Greene), and a group of teenagers will befriend her. Elvira's Uncle "Vinnie" (W. Morgan Sheppard), presses to make a deal with Elvira for the cookbook, but Elvira soon learns of her powerful heritage that includes spellcasting, and a couple very effective casseroles. Elvira no longer wants to sell the cookbook to her uncle, but he is determined to get his hands on it knowing of its power. Elvira then faces being burned at the stake on the town's old charge of witchcraft, and the showdown between her and her uncle. The plot is pretty simple, but the humor and well developed characters keep it moving at a nice pace. "Elvira, Mistress Of The Dark" is full of cute, gross, bawdy, and clever humor carried through by the many sight gags, puns, props, songs, and parodies. The film's touches of the occult make this one of the best horror parodies ever made. It is a well made film with terrific acting by all performers; including Edie McClurg, and Jeff Conaway (of "Grease.") There are also nice special effects. Many people (including myself) wondered if the Elvira character could carry a feature film, and the answer is delightfully, YES!

One of my best friends brought this movie over one night with the words 'Wanna watch the worst horror movie ever?' I always enjoy a good laugh at a bad horror flick and said yes. I had expected your typical cheesy b-slasher but this was beyond B. This is Z-slasher, the lowest of the low. With obviously low budget, extremely bad acting, bad lightning, no plot, really bad so-called 'special effects', shaky cameras and a horrible soundtrack this makes movies like House of Wax look like Oscar-winning masterpieces. The only good thing about it is about 15 seconds of one of the characters getting topless - she had some very nice tits. Most of what I said during this film was along the lines of 'Wow this is actually SO BAD', 'This is the worst movie ever' and 'I'm not drunk enough for this'. So in conclusion: don't waste your time (or money!).

I'd read about FLAVIA THE HERETIC for many years, but I only got to see it early last year, when I went on an insane movie-buying binge, and, for whatever reason, it has been on my mind lately, though it's been some months since I watched it.<br /><br />It's a striking film, set in Italy somewhere around the 15th century. Definitely Medieval-era (though I don't think any specific year is ever given). This being the time of Christian ascendancy, the age is a time of utter madness, and the movie captures this very well.<br /><br />Flavia, our protagonist, is a young lady who encounters a fallen Muslim on a battlefield. He seems a warm and intriguing fellow, and she's immediately taken with him. Her father, a soldier of a a family of some standing, comes along, almost immediately, and murders the wounded man right before her eyes. But she'll continue to see him in her dreams.<br /><br />Her father ships her off to a convent that seems more like an open-air insane asylum--the residents, so harshly repressed by unyielding Medieval Christianity, slowly go mad. Flavia comes under the influence of one of the nuttier nuns. But in a mad world, only the sane are truly mad, and this sociopathic sister clearly recognizes the insanity around her. Her take on the times in which they live strikes a chord with Flavia, who, being young and apparently sheltered, is beginning to question everything about this world in which she finds herself trapped.<br /><br />The movie is unflinching in its portrayal of that world, showcasing a lot of unpleasantness. We see a horse gelded, a lord rape one of the women of his lands in a pig-sty, the pious torture of a young nun. Through it all, Flavia observes and questions, rejecting, eventually, the Christian dogma that creates such a parade of horrors in terms that would gain the movie some criticism over the years for seeming anachronistic. I disagree with that criticism. Flavia's views, though sometimes expressed in ways that vaguely mirror, for example, then-contemporary feminist commentary (the movie was made in 1974), revolve around what are really pretty obvious questions. It is, perhaps, difficult to believe she could be so much of a fish out of water in her own time, but that's the sort of minor point it doesn't do to belabor. Flavia is written in such a way to allow those of our era, or of any era, to empathize with her plight. Getting bogged down on such a matter would be missing the forest for the trees.<br /><br />Flavia is heartened when the Muslims arrive, invading the countryside, and she finds, in their leader, a new version of the handsome Islamist who still visits her dreams. Smitten with her almost immediately, he allows her to virtually lead his army, becoming a Joan of Arc figure in full battle-gear, and directing the invaders to pull down Christian society, and wreak vengeance upon all those she's seen commit evil.<br /><br />Is she the herald of a new and better world? She may think so, but Muslims of that era weren't big on feminism, either, as she soon learns the hard way. As they say, meet the new boss...<br /><br />This is really just a thumbnail of some of the things that happen in FLAVIA THE HERETIC. The movie is quite grim, and with a very downbeat, rather depressing ending. Not a mass-audience movie at all, to be sure. It's quite good, though, and doesn't belong on the "nunsploitation" pile on which it is often carelessly thrown. I think there's much value in the final film, and I'm glad I saw it.

This movie is like the thousand "cat and mouse" movies that preceded it. (The following may look like a spoiler, but it really just describes a large class of movies) There is the passionate, wise main character, his goofy but well-meaning sidekick with his ill-placed attempts at humorous comments, the initially-hostile but soon softened gorgeous lady who triggers the inevitable "unlikely" love story, the loved ones taken hostage, and of course the careless evil adversary with his brutal minions. Everybody has seen tons of these movies already, and "National Treasure" is like any one of them, with only a slightly modified wrapping. Every turn of the story was easily predicted (and I can assure you I am not the sharpest tool in the shed). I am quite tired of feeling tricked for money after exiting the theater from a Hollywood movie, and if you have ever felt that way too, heed my warning; stay miles away from this movie.

What a GREAT movie! This is so reminiscent of the wonderful Disney classic family movies of the 60's and the 70's. I was so pleasantly surprised, after the past 20 years of absolute detritus Disney's live productions crews have churned out.<br /><br />This movie is an absolute joy. The child stars were just that; professional, quality actors. I am most impressed with the quality of this movie.<br /><br />Sigourney Weaver was a total sycophantic *insert hyperbole here* running a prison camp for wayward boys. Siobhan Fallon was wonderful as the star's mother.<br /><br />I won't recant the story here as there is little point in doing that yet again, but the story is wonderful, the direction was extraordinary and the acting quality was superb! This work reminds you what it's like to be a child, without going all sugary or being too grim. The deleted scenes featured on the DVD version were truly best left deleted. They were too harsh for this movie and would have taken so much from it. While the abuse was hinted in the finished product, it was not outright shown beyond a certain extent. It was best that way.<br /><br />This was an absolutely delightful movie to watch.<br /><br />It gets a 9/10 from...<br /><br />the Fiend :.

I was unsure whether or not Andy Sidaris could repeat his success with the cinematic hit "Malibu Express." With his film Fit to Kill he has proved that Sidaris is a serious filmmaker and not just a one-shot director. The plot written by Sidaris, which was ungratefully passed up by the Academy, is a complex screenplay involving many unseen twists and turns. The main characters composed work for a sexually based radio station known as KSXY. Cleverly, KSXY is actually their secret headquarters. In "Fit to Kill" they confront their long-time nemesis Kane, who is trying to steal one of Russia's most prized diamonds. A well-written screenplay is not all, excellent acting by the cast helps to ensure this film as a cult classic. Panned by the critics and the box office, this film will be appreciated in years to come. It is now suffering the same fate as Clockwork Orange and Taxi Driver did, but in the future will undoubtly become recognized. I am disappointed no critic circles have recognized Andy Sidaris's trademark filmmaking. The costumes, the special effects, all help to compliment this already beautiful piece of filmmaking. It may do you best to ignore the dismal 3 rating on this film and go out and rent it for yourself. My personal rating is 10/10. The drama is as thick as the blockbuster Runaway Bride, and the action better or equal to the cinematic masterpiece Last Action Hero. Andy, keep up the good work.

The movie follows the events of the novel "Cel mai iubit dintre pamanteni"( could be translated as "The most beloved among humans" ), written by Marin Preda ( a very controversial book and movie), a novel which became something like The Bible or the story of Hamlet, very popular and hard to get, due to its satiric contents over the Communist regime. It represents the drama of the intellectual man, the humanist, in a "red" world. A movie filled with passion, fear, sexuality, all the great ingredients for a great movie recipe.One of the greatest Romanian movies,despite its psychological charge(after all, it is an European movie).

Eight Simple rules started as a very entertaining series. I love John Ritter and his character Paul Hennessey and the relationship he had with his children was the best part of the show.<br /><br />I have always preferred Kerry to Bridget, Bridget has been done before, Kerry is quite unique and i can relate to her in many ways, although i'm not sure i like the direction her character went in later series.<br /><br />Early episodes were fun, good simple teenage plots about Paul and Cate disciplining the kids, however i think the show lost it's sparkle when John Ritter died. I admired the cast and crew for wishing to continue the series but when he died, i felt the programme did to. To me the whole point of the show was based around the guide of the '8 simple rules of dating my teenage daughter' it was written by a real man with teenage daughters and the relevance and the angle of the show had changed without the Hennessey dad.<br /><br />Bridget seemed to get more annoying, Rory stayed the same and Cate was always giving her offspring life's lessons which before seemed funnier when it was all left to Paul. I think the Granddad is funny (Especially when he's watching Great escape) but feel C.J is unnecessary to the show. He is funny in parts but I felt the story lines at the time of his arrival were very similar to other American comedy series. Over all the newer ones aren't bad just missing excitement and does anyone else find it irritating that Cate works at the school and C.J and Granddad's always there too? I would always recommend this show to friends as it was very strong at the beginning and well worth watching for Paul and Kerry, but later ones were about average at best.

This is a really old fashion charming movie. The locations are great and the situation is one of those old time Preston sturgess movies. Fi you want to watch a movie that doesn't demand much other then to sit back and relax then this is it. The acting is good, and I really liked Michael Rispoli. He was in Rounders, too. And While You Were Sleeping. The rest of the cast is fun. It's just what happens when two people about to get married meet the one that they really love on the weekend that they are planning their own weddings. I know... sounds kooky... but it is. And that's what makes it fun to watch. It will make your girl friend either hug you or leave you, but at least you'll know.

Tim Robbins is oddly benign here, cast as a garage mechanic in 1950s New Jersey who falls in love with a perky blonde who turns out to be Albert Einstein's niece! Although he's on-screen much of the time, Robbins cancels out the inner-workings of his intense persona and fades into the background (it's easy to forget he's even in the picture!). Lumpy romantic comedy with a gimmick, that being Walter Matthau playing Einstein (who does what he can with a cartoonishly conceived character). Otherwise, it's sugary and sunny, directed rather drowsily by Fred Schepisi, who shows heart but no wit or brains. Meg Ryan is her usual affable self and the chemistry between she and Robbins is charming, like that of an affectionate sister and her big brother. ** from ****

And it's not because since her days on "Clarissa Explains It All" that I've had a bit of a crush on Melissa Joan Hart, who at the time this show was popular was already well into her 20s, but was still able to get teenage roles. "Sabrina, the Teenage Witch" was Hart's next big leap after her "Clarissa" days. Based on the comic strip, Sabrina Spellman is - you guessed it! - a teenage witch who attempts to balance her witchcraft antics with the demands of everyday teenage life. She is aided in her endeavors by her two aunts and a wise-cracking black cat as she goes from high school, to college, and finally to her career in journalism.<br /><br />As usual, Hart is the show's heart & soul. "Sabrina, the Teenage Witch" is quite moving and very funny, and it's a shame that it took me so long to realize how great it was. I only wish there were some newer episodes that we could all enjoy.<br /><br />10/10

It's got Christopher Lee, it's got huge banks of 1970s computers that make Teletype noises as letters appear on the screen, it's got radioactive isotopes that not only glow in the dark but emit pulsing thrumming noises, it's got volcanoes! evil aliens disguised as nuns! tidal waves! earthquakes! exploding cars! exploding coffee machines! and as a climax the entire planet blows up. How on earth does this film managed to be so incredibly, mind-numbingly DULL? The answer, my friend is because 90% of this movie is made up of establishing shots, most of them involving long tracks, pans, or zooms in combinations, or occasionally all three, that do nothing except give the crew something to do. There are endless shots of our protagonists driving, getting in and out of cars, driving again, walking around looking at stuff, getting in cars and driving... I just sat there watching endless parade of nothingness in stupefaction muttering "Say something, please somebody, just say something... DO something... anything!..."<br /><br />The dialogue, when it does come, is terrible.<br /><br />"Maybe their minutes are measured on a different scale than ours." was a typically meaningless line. The script culminates in the destruction of the world by stock footage, justified in this speech from Lee as the head alien:<br /><br />"The planet Earth has emitted an over-abundance of diseases, they are contaminating the Universe. All the planets light years away from here will suffer unless it is destroyed!" <br /><br />This is is Neanderthal SF script writing. This is the sort of motivation you find in the sort of 1950's Japanese monster suit movies aimed at 7 year olds. It is, and I collect such things, the most god-awful line from an English language SF movie since Buster Crabbe retired. It beggars belief that this movie was released in the same year as Star Wars and Close Encounters.<br /><br />Lee, who always struck me as a smart, useful actor with a sure knowledge of his limits, delivers his lines as if he is going to kill his agent for getting him into this pile of drek. I don't blame him.

The reviewer who called this movie a bust has clearly missed the point. It's obvious he hasn't been young or innocent in a very long time, or he might have understood that the tragedy of it was that the well-meaning young characters actually thought they COULD make a difference by putting up posters and holding a rave for peace. If only it was that easy. But the cynics sit and sneer at people who earnestly try their best to make things better, as the situation gets worse and worse every single day. Well, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.<br /><br />The central theme is that revenge begets more revenge, which begets even more, in an ever-expanding bloodbath. Both sides will tell you tales of atrocities committed by the other side, which they think justify their committing even MORE in retaliation. Where does it end? And apparently he missed the significance of "the bubble" referred to in the name, which was that people living in Tel Aviv are strangely cut off from the ugly realities of what is going on all around them, which is partly why they seemed so naive. (He also seemed to think that Ashraf could slip through the checkpoints without a problem, which tells me he wasn't paying attention when Ashraf related the delays and problems he had encountered.) <br /><br />I found it very brave of the director, the screenplay writer, and both star-crossed lovers, to update the Romeo & Juliet story to a modern troubled land, and to make both lovers male. Let's be honest here: Very few people would have a problem if one of them had been a female (young love wins all hearts) -- but when people's uneasiness with their sexuality is added to the fact that, incredibly, these same people would rather have them HATE each other, then the conclusion is inevitable.

The first review I saw of Page 3 said "what is madhur bhandarkar finally wants to say?". Should he say something so decisive.<br /><br />The most beautiful thing about Page 3 is it doesn't take sides. No propaganda whatsoever. This is the film that captures so many angles of an issue(I don't know what do I call as an "issue" here) and yet like any mediocre movie doesn't come up with an solution. I was so intrigued when I realized that the movie ended almost in the same scenario just like it started.<br /><br />The movie defines so many characters who are completely with completely different priorities and different ideologies and yet they are all a part of the system which is all the more apathetic. I wish i can say more but there would be more spoilers ahead. So watch Page 3 if you wanna see one of the most mature films of the recent times.

I saw this movie with my friend and we couldnt stop laughing! i mean there was nothing scary about this movie! It was funny all the lines Freddy said were hilarious! I think they shoudln't have even made a new nightmare and just gone to Freddy Vs. jason. Although some parts were gross (like the head blowing up). and any elm street film from 1- 5 sucked. this was the best besides Number 1. I wouldnt recomend this movie if you want a good horror. But if you have nothing else to do rent this and you'll laugh alot.I want to see the texas chainsaw massacre I think it would be scary. Freddy's Dead The Final Nightmare overall grade: B-

I cherish each and every frame of this beautiful movie. It is about regular people, people we all know, who suffer a little in their life and have some baggage to carry around. Just like all of us. Robert DeNiro, Ed Harris and Kathy Baker breathe life into their portrayals and are all excellent, but Harris is especially heartbreaking and therefore very real. You would swear he really is a trucker who drinks so he won't have to feel anything. Baker as his put-upon sister also has some delicate moments - when DeNiro gives her flowers in one scene, it seems like she was never given flowers before and probably wasn't. Very worthwhile.

I saw this movie at a drive-in in 1959. Until "Howard the Duck" I considered this the worst movie I had ever seen. This movie tried to combine all the genera in one; comedy, horror, teenage angst, and the hot rod that must have sired "My Mother, The Car." Maybe it deserves a second viewing to see if it is an accurate reflection of it's time.

As many reviewers here have noted, the film version differs quite a bit from the stage version of the story. I have never seen the stage version of the story, and therefore I have a more favorable review of the film than many other reviewers. Perhaps Richard Attenborough was not the best choice for director of the film, but the film is still an entertaining account of several dancers trying to make the big time in choreographer Michael Douglas' show. The film does right by not selecting any famous actors or performers to wind up in the final try-out group. This way our attention is focused on the dancers' movements and individual stories and struggles as they unfold during a marathon day of try-outs. Douglas is also probably not the best choice for the part. Apparently some songs were cut out in favor of a new one, and the backstage cliché-ridden story of a romantic liaison between a dancer and the choreographer was added. I have to say in all fairness this was the weakest part of the film. The repeated intrusions Cassie made during try-outs appear to mirror the almost desperate pleas one often has to make when engaging in the artistic professions in the absence of talent and/or luck. However, this aspect of the film has been done to death in the past, and it's curious to see this tired old shoe kicking its heel up once again. The revelations of the dancers themselves began promisingly enough with the "I can do that" number, but then it plodded a little at various points while the dancers were telling their stories. Frankly, their stories differed little from real life folks who never get a chance like this. *** of 4 stars.

This series has its ups and occasional downs, and the latter is the case, here. There's an agreeable amount of spatter, with an inventive implementation of the Baby Cart's weapons, but the editing film is a seriously disjointed, the film-making itself rougher than usual. At times, the action slows to a crawl as the camera follows the wordless wanderings of the "cub," who nearly gets lost early on. All in all, disappointment.<br /><br />That said, there's a spaghetti eastern quality to the music and action that may win the approval of dedicated viewers. This installment spends much of its time following the minor misadventures of the little boy, who begins to stare into the abyss of death his father opened for him.

Since this picture is classified a "pure entertainment" work and since there are already many comments on it, I'd like hereby to address something relevant to the abuse of humour. We can see that Marlon Wayans is playing the joker role in this film. Certainly as long as he has been involved in the casting job, he has always been acting as a little man-an actor can change his customary dress but can hardly change his physical appearance-and the latter one can be an advantage when necessary. However far away from what I expected, I saw an image very disguising, pretending to expose different aspects of the baby life by mistake of a forty-year- old criminal. And with a ridiculous happy ending. So what is the point? Many elements are mixed up, some principal ones are violence, sex and criminal activities, amongst which the story is badly composed and to some extent, lack common sense: where is Vanessa when the peace of her house is violated and her husband's life being pursued? In addition the diamond is even bigger than the world's No.1 Cullinan! But the most sickening facet is the continuous attempt to make up the little man as a superman by showing his physical weak points. And they call it humour. A diamond is precious, hard and fragile; it cannot be cut by any other material but only be conquered by the hot blood of a male goat. Hence it's no more a diamond but pieces of debris.

As a low budget enterprise in which the filmmakers themselves are manufacturing and distributing the DVDs themselves, we perhaps shouldn't expect too much from Broken in disc form. And yet what's most remarkable about this whole achievement is the fact that this release comes with enough extras to shame a James Cameron DVD and a decidedly fine presentation.<br /><br />With regards to the latter, the only major flaw is that Broken comes with a non-anamorphic transfer. Otherwise we get the film in its original 1.85:1 ratio, demonstrating no technical flaws and looking pretty much as should be expected. Indeed, given Ferrari's hands on approach in putting this disc together you can pretty much guarantee such a fact.<br /><br />The same is also true of the soundtrack. Here we are offered both DD2.0 and DD5.1 mixes and whilst I'm uncertain as to which should be deemed the "original", the fact that Ferrari had an involvement in both means neither should be considered as inferior. Indeed, though the DD5.1 may offer a more atmosphere viewing experience owing to the manner in which it utilizes the score, both are equally fine and free of technical flaws.<br /><br />As for extras the disc is positively overwhelmed by them. Take a look at the sidebar on the right of the screen and you'll notice numerous commentaries, loads of featurettes and various galleries. Indeed, given the manner in which everything has been broken down into minute chunks rather than compiled into a lengthy documentary, there really is little to discuss. The 'Anatomy of a Stunt' featurette, for example, is exactly what it claims to be, and the same goes for the rest of pieces. As such we get coverage on pretty much ever aspect of Broken's pre-production, production and post-production. And whilst it may have been preferable to find them in a more easily digestible overall 'making of', in this manner we do get easy access to whatever special feature we may wish to view.<br /><br />Of the various pieces, then, it is perhaps only the commentaries which need any kind of discussion. Then again, there's also a predictable air to each of the chat tracks. The one involving the actors is overly jokey and doesn't take the film too seriously. Ferrari's pieces are incredibly enthusiastic about the whole thing. And the technical ones are, well, extremely technical. Of course, we also get some crossover with what's been covered elsewhere on the discs, but at only 19 minutes none of these pieces outstay their welcome. Indeed, all in all, a fine extras package.

This movie has Wild Bill Hickok, Calamity Jane, Buffalo Bill and General Custer all together. Gary Cooper plays Wild Bill and Jean Arthur plays Calamity Jane and Charles Bickford plays the bad guy who sells weapons to the Indians and you can hardly recognize him. This was the first time Cecil B. DeMille and Gary Cooper worked together and the next movie the made was basically the same but set in a different time. This movie starts out with Lincoln's assassination and it also deals with an Indian war. Calamity Jane is in love with Wild Bill and Buffalo Bill has gotten married and now wants to stay home. This movie also deals with Custer's last stand and is far from accurate. Gary Cooper is good as usual and i usually don't like Jean Arthur but i liked her here.

This movie was awful and an insult to the viewer. Stupid script, bad casting, endless boredom.<br /><br />In the usual tradition of Hollywood, the government of the US is shown as always evil. The Communist-sympathizer nitwits in Hollywood, most of whom are as dumb as a box of rocks, love taking the lone nutcase Eugene McCarthy and picturing him as the leader of a vast movement. The truth is that at the time he was considered a fringe character who was exploiting a legitimate concern about the Soviet Communists for political gain.<br /><br />Oh yeah, and the US brought over all those evil Nazis. Like Werner VonBraun, without whom we would have no space program. He actually loved being American and became a great asset to the country.<br /><br />And yet the irony is that the fools in Hollywood, an uneducated lot who live a fantasy existence, still believe that the government should run EVERYTHING and give us all what we want. And yet, this is the same government that they continually portray as a consummate evil in films like this.

First thing I noticed in this movie of course, was the unnecessary amount of nudity. It's not oozing nudity or anything, but a lot that was not needed. Annik Borel plays a disturbed woman believing her families ghost stories that her ancestor who eerily resembles her was a werewolf, and believes their fate are destined to be the same. Which actually I found quite interesting. The original Wolf Man was intended to be a completely psychological movie, but Universal threw in the actual Wolf man you were never supposed to see for n extra buck or two. I find this concept of someone not really being a werewolf interesting. Unfortunately this is not the film I was searching for.<br /><br />Instead we know shes not a werewolf from the beginning, so there's no thrill or twist, also they attempt to make the film seem like a this really happened scenario. They fail there too adding one or two parts of the film referring to this being reality. At first I was excited upon reading the description of the film. But I slowly realized it was a cover just so they could expose the main characters breasts as often as possible.<br /><br />Annik Borel is either a decent actor playing a great psychotic role, or a really bad actor playing a psychotic role. Since the character Danniele has no brains and is just a nut who runs around insane and snarling and snapping like a wolf, it takes little skill to play. She has moments were her performance breaks through for a creepy moment but is quickly ruined by the poor camera work and light. The idea is great, but hideously executed throughout the film. 3/10

Yeah, well, I definitely had regrets about giving up my Saturday night watching this strange little, yet very long, movie. Apparently neither did the main character for stealing two hours of my life. Here's the epitome of the antihero in 'No Regrets.' We have this jerk, so messed up, so wandering, so selfish, aimless and unlikable that it was extremely hard to get past the attraction a highly favored businessman's up-and-coming son, Jaemin, unless it was just that: physical attraction. He claims otherwise, that it's love. But after watching this, it's like loving Charles Manson because you dig the beard. (Alright, he's not that bad, but still no real redeemable characteristics.) I could never get past the reason Jaemin endless stalks Sumin. It was never shown, just told, that Jaemin loves Sumin. Perhaps it's a culture thing that flew over my head: crazy/stalking = mad love over in Seoul. It has to be, because a little more than half the movie is one stalking the other and the last part is stalking back and forth to the point I thought this was turning into a screwball comedy. I was waiting for a tiger named "baby" to make an appearance. Okay, so Sumin works two jobs while going to school, so far so good on someone trying to better themselves. But after his first taste of his stalker's attraction, he gives up his day job for some kind of prostitution ring. What? OK, well, as previously mentioned, the obsession doesn't stop due to the job/career change and if you throw in a bunch of other very angry characters you get one messed up movie where unbelievable occurrences just seem to happen without buildup. Basic movie, not 100% terrible, but you can do better with foreign gay-themed movies.

Admittedly, I watched this piece with already VERY low expectations. Dieter Bohlen is a rather untalented composer parvenu whose lack of talent is only surpassed by the size of his ego.<br /><br />This was the first cartoon movie that I watched that was 100 per cent humor free. It is rude, offensive, redneck and blatantly anti- women. As such, it is a creation befitting Bohlen, but the average viewer will be rather put off by it. No wonder that it was never shown in a cinema theater: It would've bombed BIG time!<br /><br />Not even the expense of 6.5 MegaEuros were able to save this utter piece of crap. Save your time... and money!

This has to be, hands down, hats off, one of the most uproarious comedies ever made. Starting with the animated blowing, popping bubbles, the entrance to the Daytime Awards, the usual phony drivel spewed by the stars on the red carpet, the rehearsed and badly acted acceptance speech, the venomous comments uttered by the actor's jealous co-stars and producer, under phony smiles. Now THAT is only in the first few minutes. Then, all hell breaks loose from there and it only gets more frantic and ridiculous. Ridiculous in a good way, no, make that a great way. This was the first time I'd seen the always charming Teri Hatcher. While I may not be a follower of Desperate Housewives, she herself is always watchable - same goes for Lois & Clark. Not a huge follower, but if I run across an episode I'd watch it. Robert Downey, jr., does a great turn as slimy, smarmy, snaky, sycophantic David Seaton Barnes, the producer who'd give his right eye to see Sally Field's Celeste Talbert leave the show, if only to finally get to get it on with Cathy Moriarty's Montana Moorehead.<br /><br />Moriarty absolutely shines in this movie, just as she had everywhere else she's appeared. Here, all she has to do is scream "I HATE YOU I HATE YOU YOU CREEP!" or give one of her anti-Celeste-co-conspirators an evil grin, and she has me rolling in the aisles. Yes, Cathy Moriarty is a very gifted actress, and one hell of a comedienne. Sally Field gratefully departs from the usual 70-MM-sized Lifetime Tragedy of the Week movies, and we're all reminded why she is who she is today, having started off in comedy afraid of nothing. Her ensuing years of drama had hidden her sense of humor, but like a caterpillar in a cocoon, the brilliant comedienne she is had blossomed and it was joyous to see her as hilarious as she was. The thing with dramatic actors and actresses is that you see in such heavy, serious roles, that you associate them with their character and you can't believe it when you see them finally having some fun on screen.<br /><br />How lucky were the producers to land Carrie Fisher, if only for a glorified cameo. She doesn't realize what a presence she bears on screen. She takes a role which, in the hands of a lesser actress, could easily have been forgotten, but she owns the character and it seems as if she wrote it herself.<br /><br />How lucky was Elisabeth Shue to get thrown in the middle of all this! At the time, she wasn't really known for much. Adventures in Babysitting was kind of cute (yes, I was dragged to an evening show for which I had to pay full price), but she didn't hold my attention - - much. But here, she makes the most of her character - star's niece who falls in love with the star's ex-co-star-and-lover who, of course, turns out to be the niece's father, and the star turns out to be the poor girl's mother.<br /><br />I'll stop there - I feel I practically wrote a book about this brilliant screwball comedy, or at least a novela. If you've seen it, then reminisce. If you haven't, you've missed a real classic, but not really. The DVD's are made of a material that'll last for at least 25 years, and this movie is timeless, so what the hell.

I saw Saving Grace right after it came out on video. Since then it's become one of my favorites! The plot isn't particularly complex but it doesn't take away from the entertainment. It's chuck full of comedic moments and has a very endearing quality to it. The characters are what makes the movie so good. They each have their own quirky qualities which adds to the humor, the two old ladies played by Linda Kerr Scott and Phyllida Law leaps to mind. Superb acting was done by all, particularly Brenda Blythen. She and Craig Ferguson were great together in pulling off some of the funnier moments. If you're looking for a good comedy I'd definately recommend this movie!

This really was a waste of time...the movie has a weak plot, the story is fragmented and ends very abruptly with many loopholes....though the animation is top notch. <br /><br />Once the movie started, I tried to give it the benefit of the doubt by telling myself that it might get interesting in the later stage, but it was never unique. This same plot has been played over and over again, but what made it worse was that the major plot hole was the whole story on how to kill the baddies...The writer could have done so much more with the entire concept, but seemed that he or she did not have their heart in it and wanted to close the movie as soon as it started.<br /><br />Overall, too much hype but not able to deliver.

A Christmas Story Is A Holiday Classic And My Favorite Movie. So Naturally, I Was Elated When This Movie Came Out In 1994. I Saw It Opening Day and Was Prepared To Enjoy Myself. I Came Away Revolted And Digusted. The Anticipation that Rang True In A Christmas Story Is Curiously Missing from This mess. A Red Ryder BB Gun Is Better to get than a chinese top.And It Is Not Very Funny At all. Charles Grodin Is Good but the Buck Stops There. Bottom Line:1 Star. Don't Even Bother.

For anyone who has seen and fallen in love with the stage musical A CHORUS LINE, the movie is a shoddy substitute. Not only are songs cut, but unnecessary plot twists added, new dance sequences choreographed, and, let's face it, Richard Attenborough just doesn't know how to film dancers.<br /><br />Onstage, Michael Bennett's A CHORUS LINE was just that: Michael Bennett. His idea, his choreography, his direction, his gift to Broadway and the rest of the world. It was two hours of hard-hitting, in-your-face realism that really made you feel for these "boys" and "girls." The movie, however, lacks empathy and depth: the actors look like they are auditioning for A CHORUS LINE rather than actually auditioning. Every move, every line of dialogue seems so weighted and planned; Michael Douglas, especially, as Zach is too in control for us to believe that he is this extraordinarily bitchy choreographer. Even when he throws his temper tantrums, you never quite believe him because every gesture, every accented word, every nuance is so obviously rehearsed. And as for him not dancing: Kevin Kline auditioned for the role of Zach on Broadway. Michael Bennett loved his reading, but Kline couldn't dance and ultimately lost the part. How I wish they had done the same for Douglas! A CHORUS LINE is supposed to be a show about nobodies, and aside from a few recognizable faces (Vicki Frederick, who played Cassie on Broadway, as Sheila and Khandi Alexander, of TV's NewsRadio, as one of the many auditioning dancers) you're not supposed to KNOW any of these people. Because you DO know these people. Having a star in any of the roles is a terrible decision: when you focus on Michael Douglas and his ranting instead of on the girls and boys on the line and their stories, you lose something.<br /><br />It is truly unfortunate that the best sequence in the show (Montage: Hello Twelve, Hello Thirteen, Hello Love) is cut drastically to make way for a terrible new song entitled "Surprise, Surprise" that surprisingly received a nomination at the Oscars. Cassie's "mirror dance" has a new song and tragically boring choreography -- one wonders why they bothered to shoot a movie version at all if they were going to mess with a working formula this much.<br /><br />For fans of musical theatre and those who enjoyed the stage version, this movie is a sad mockery of everything they cherished and loved. For those who never got to see the original production, either on Broadway or on tour, this movie is the only reference they will have to go by. And they'll have to wonder just how it got to be the longest-running musical in Broadway history -- until a little show called CATS overtook it in the late 1990's. But THAT is a different story, and don't even get me started there.

The clichéd Polynesian males drink, fight and make a stream of sexist, stupid and unfunny remarks. Real life Polynesians are much funnier than these stereotyped, cardboard characters. The supposedly Samoan girl didn't look or act Samoan at all, seemed more like the stock white female who has sex with anyone on a whim. With weak as water story lines you can't say anything about the acting - even the most brilliant actors could do nothing with this script. It's sad to see Polynesian actors willing to play such sad stereotypes in a film with not one good scene, and only two or three 'jokes'. What a waste of Kiwi taxpayers' money, what a lost opportunity to make a great film about a vibrant community. It's better not to make movies if they're as bad and mindless as this.

For shame, for shame that a fine actor such as Joseph Fiennes would allow himself to be cast in this piece of nauseating drivel. The movie was not only bad, but down right horrible and of no redeeming quality. The plot, (was there one?) seemed to go no where. The Russians played silly kill or be killed games and the rest of the cast should be declared null and void for their pathetic performances. I gave up about 3/4 of the way through and turned it off. A "1" for awful only because there is nothing lower. Don't waste your time on this one, you'll not miss anything.

Originally called The Changer. The Nostril Picker is a poorly constructed tale about a loner named Joe Bukowski (Carl Zschering) who "likes em young". Unable to socially interact with girls he bumps into a tramp who teaches him a special Vietnamese chant. This "chant" involves whistling 'London Bridge is Falling Down' whilst hopping around like an epileptic morris dancer. Nonetheless, Ugly Joe tries it out and hey presto! He is now a girl. Ideally he needs to be a young guy in order attract girls. But lets not talk about ideals here - this film was made in 1983 and released in 1993, in an ideal world it should have NEVER been released.<br /><br />The Film Asylum dubbed this horror hokum as "mind numbing, ham handed story telling". Its worse than that. The Nostril Picker really takes the biscuit, in fact the whole god-damn cookie jar. Terribly scripted dialogue delivered by brain-dead actors, a ridiculous plot and a predictable twist. Just when things couldn't get any more absurd the story goes off on its own nonsensical tangent. For instance, Joe decides to kill the girls by changing back into himself. But i thought he wanted to get close to them? Not content with being a murderer Joe also turns into a cannibal and eats some of his victims, of which there were only around 3-4.<br /><br />The highlight of this terrible movie involves Joe picking up a hooker (Steven Andrews) then taking "her" back to his apartment. What happens next defies belief... Joe turns back into a man, but also discovers the hooker is a man. How does he react? Well, in a Benny Hill-esquire fashion, he chases "her" around the apartment with a bunch of squirty dildo's only to trip up on a blow up doll. God knows what Patrick J Matthews and Stephen Hodge were thinking of. At least this scene paved the way for another priceless moment. This involved the male hooker reporting the incident to a curly haired police officer with a 2-bit joke shop 'cop' uniform. The hilarious acting is a must see. Especially the hooker's inability at saying "dildo" and his demand for "satisfaction".<br /><br />Apart from the above mentioned incident this monotonous slash flick was a complete bore. You know a movie's bad when the DVD trailers were more exciting. Normally, i'd fast forward to the good bits, only there weren't any here. The main action sequences involved Joe simply stabbing his victims repeatedly. Forget quick cuts, Matthews utilizes fadeouts (one during a stab scene) to limit any form of suspense there might already be. One girl's non-reaction to her fingers being chopped off is laughable. Normally i'd relish the words "uncut" but in this case they were far from a blessing. Just more agonizing cinematic torture. The whole movie felt like an unedited episode of Midsummer Murders, only less entertaining. I'd hate to see the cut version.<br /><br />To sum up, The Nostril picker is the most unentertaining thing i've seen since Richard Hammond's 5 O' Clock Show. Dismal performances made worse by a terribly tinny soundtrack and bad dubbing. Don't be fooled by the box label, this is NOT a cult classic unless it qualifies for the lets-use-shitty-horror-dvds-for-coffee-coasters cult. Which i think it does. Unless re-edited to 30 minutes stay away from this coma inducing mess.

I am from the Dallas/Fort Worth area and lived in Arlington for a few years. This movie was way off as far as making it look like Arlington. I saw mountains in the background of one scene! Texas doesn't have mountains. I guess that happens when a movie that is supposed to be in Texas is filmed in Canada. The accents are also really bad. They should have gotten actors from Texas to play the parts. There a lot of aspiring actors from Texas out in Hollywood. The movie is really sad though, because it is a true story. I pray that the killer is found and convicted. The one good thing is that bc of her death, we now have the Amber Alert to help find missing children quickly after they are abducted.

This movie is a should-be classic. It's not perfect, certainly. The pacing, while perfect for the stage, is in movie form slow as a tortoise with arthritic knees. Jean Seberg is misdirected to be too sweet and too gentle. She fully shows enough acting talent, skill, and craft to convincingly play the clever, passionate, and confident Joan, but, unfortunately, the director missed the point of the character. George Bernard Shaw is my favorite playwright. In no other play has his dialog been more sharp, nor the lines more musical. However, processing this film requires that you look at it as a lawyer. This movie is a case, and the viewer is the judge. That is how this picture is to be enjoyed. 7/10.

While this film certainly does possess the stench of a bad film, it's surprisingly watchable on several levels. First, for old movie fans, it's interesting to see the leading role played by Dean Jagger (no relation to Mick). While Jagger later went on to a very respectable role as a supporting actor (even garnering the Oscar in this category for 12 O'CLOCK HIGH), here his performance is truly unique since he actually has a full head of hair (I never saw him this way before) and because he was by far the worst actor in the film. This film just goes to show that if an actor cannot act in his earlier films doesn't mean he can't eventually learn to be a great actor. Another good example of this phenomenon is Paul Newman, whose first movie (THE SILVER CHALICE) is considered one of the worst films of the 1950s.<br /><br />A second reason to watch the film is the shear cheesiness of it all. The writing is bad, the acting is bad and the special effects are bad. For example, when Jagger and an unnamed Cambodian are wading through the water, it's obvious they are really just walking in place and the background is poorly projected behind them. Plus, once they leave the water, their costumes are 100% dry!!! Horrid continuity and mindlessly bad dialog abounds throughout the film--so much so that it's hard to imagine why they didn't ask Bela Lugosi or George Zucco to star in the film--since both of them starred in many grade-z horror films. In many ways, this would be a perfect example for a film class on how NOT to make a film.<br /><br />So, while giving it a 3 is probably a bit over-generous, it's fun to laugh at and short so it's worth a look for bad film fans.

This film is underrated. I loved it. It was truly sweet and heartfelt. A family who struggles but isn't made into a dysfunctional family which is so typical of films today. The film didn't make it an issue that they have little money or are Dominican Republican the way Hollywood have.<br /><br />Instead the issue is Victor is immature and needs to grow up. He does, slowly, by the film's end. He has a ways to go, but it was a heartfelt attempt to move forward. His grandmother is very cute and the scene where the little boy throws up had me laughing for the longest time. A truly heartfelt indie

first, i'd like to say that, while i know my share about star wars, i am not a fanatic. i do not know how many chromosomes a Wamp Rat has or the extended family of TK427. what i know is this: Star wars, all the movies(less so with episode 2 though), captured something magical. it's hard to say what, what button Lucas has found and boldly pressed, but it works. Star Wars is more than a movie. it's an idea.<br /><br />How, may you ask? i shall explain. star wars touches on the most universal of stereotypes, good vs evil. it does this so obviously, so profoundly, that literally any person from any environment can understand. Episode VI does the very well, concluding the epic struggle between a son and his used and manipulated father, yet also, with the addition of the prequels, reveals even more to the hinted back story. suddenly, it's Darth Vader at the front, and viewers realize that it's the story about Anakin, not just Luke. but even before 1-3, there was amazing depth to it all. it felt real, as if capsule fell from the sky into Lucas's lap, detailing a historical account of a galaxy far, far away.<br /><br />Star Wars is definitely something far above the norm, and i must admit, whenever i see them, particularly this one, i feel very small. i feel as though i've been thrust into a world where good and evil are so clearly defined. i get a tingling feeling when i see them, a feeling that something, somehow, has touched me more than any physical thing could ever hope.

Ben & Arthur COULD have been a 10. Sam Mraovich wrote, directed, stared, and produced this movie. Sam should have given his idea to a good writer, director, and left the acting to somebody who could act. this is a good example of one person controlling the whole production. there was nobody to tell him, "Sam this is bad, really bad".<br /><br />Jamie Brett Gabel's acting was the only good point, but he could have been so much better with a good director, and better actors to work with. <br /><br />This movie is so bad i think Sam Mraovich should be tied to a chair and made to watch this movie (twice). the acting and direction was so bad, this movie was turned into a comedy. you just had to laugh, and in the wrong places. <br /><br />A second good point....this would make a great date movie. after the first two minutes you would quit watching the movie and pay more attention to your date!

"Hitler: The Rise of Evil" was shrouded in controversy before it ever aired, and that controversy may obscure the accomplishment of the film.<br /><br />Those who criticzed the film, which they hadn't seen, did so with good intentions, based on the misguided thought that it would be overly sympathetic to Hitler. However, they misunderstood the point: to humanize the evil Hitler is not sympathize with him. It is far more disturbing to realize that the unspeakable acts committed by one of history's greatest villains were committed by a human being. A sick, diseased maniac, to be sure, but a human being nonetheless. It is necessary to know the story of how Hitler was able to come to power to prevent it from happening again.<br /><br />"Rise of Evil" is highlighted by a brilliant, career best performance from Robert Carlyle, who makes Hitler a human being without ever redeeming him in any way. Carlyle flawlessly captures the look and mannerisms of the Nazi leader, while never letting the impersonation become cartoonish or distance us (something Anthony Hopkins was not quite able to accomplish when he portrayed Hitler in "The Bunker", another very good made-for-television film). While were are repulsed by Hitler's depravity and virulent ant-Semitism, Carlyle gives him a certain magnetism and power the real Adolf Hitler must have possesed. After all, while else would a nation have followed him?<br /><br />Of the various subplots, by far the most compelling features Matthew Modine as reporter Fritz Gehrlich, who makes it his life's work to draw attention to the reality of of Hitler and Nazism. While Modine's performance is a little stilted in part 1, by part 2 he seems to have settled in, the character gives us a real-life hero in a film full of villains. Peter Stormare and Liev Schrieber also give strong support.<br /><br />Part 1 of this two-part mini series suffered a little bit from being overly choppy, including a look at Hitler's childhood which lasts only the duration of the opening credits. And in part 2, sections detailing Hitler's relationship's with his niece, and his mistress Eva Braun, are less successful than the central plot, but do serve to give us further insight into his mental and emotional state.<br /><br />Ultimately, no film about Hitler can make us understand him. The average person is, thankfully, incapable of ever understanding a man who would try to exterminate an entire race of people. "Hitler: The Rise of Evil" tries less to make us understand Hitler, and more to make us understand how he came to be power. It is an important story that must be told, and it is impossible to believe anyone who has seen the film would accuse it of having anything but the best of intentions, and the capability of doing anything but good.<br /><br />9 out of 10. *** 1/2

honestly, i don't know what's funnier, this horrific remake, or the comments on this board. Masterpiece's review had me in tears, that's so funny. Anyway, this movie is the among the worst movies ever, and certainly the bottom of the barrel for sequels. The "Omen" name on the title made me stop and watch it this morning on HBO, but it's a slap in the face to the other three, especially the original. There are so many classically bad moments, but my favorite is the guy catching fire from the juggler at the psychic fair!! good times ! This movie is to the Omen series what "Scary Movie" is to the entire genre. Avoid unless you're looking for a good laugh.

I am not a parent, neither am I a male. But I was able to identify with every character's heartaches and pains.<br /><br />This is a movie teenagers should watch. Maybe that way they will start appreciating the value of family again. I'm sorry for those that don't understand the value of love, family and friendship.<br /><br />It was very interesting to watch Patrick Duffy in a different role than that of Bobby Ewing. And it is great to see a 19 year old Ben Affleck giving his best in a moving and sincere performance. He showed at an early age, that he is capable of heartfelt drama. He should be offered more serious roles. Note Hollywoodland... his first serious role in years and he went out and won Best Actor at the Venice Festival in 2006.<br /><br />This movie can be appreciated by people of all ages. Maybe shouldn't be watched by children under 10 because they might get scared that the same may happen to their families, but I recommend it to the entire family.<br /><br />I bought this movie on DVD and have watched it with friends many times. Because it portrays the values that are important in life.

Revolutions always present opportunities for dramatic films since, in fact, most revolutions are in themselves dramatic events. Unfortunately, what this film lacks in drama is compensated for by an overabundance of boredom. One cares not who wins, loses, dies or lives--just end it as soon as possible. This is due in large measure to what seems to me to be a superficial use of background technology. Scenes of Paris and the French countryside have a cardboard quality about them. They might better be done on a bare stage and left that way. One cannot expect the amazing effects of "The House of the Flying Daggers" or "The Golden Compass," but , after all, this is a 2002 digitally mastered production. Characters seem to enter a scene for the sake of entering a scene, so much so that one loses count of the number of times character enter and leave rooms. In my view, this film turns the French Revolution of the 1790s into the "papier-mache" revolution of a "papier colle" world.

Elegance and class are not always the first words that come to mind when folks (at least folks who might do such a thing) sit around and talk about film noir. <br /><br />Yet some of the best films of the genre, "Out of the Past," "The Killers," "In A Lonely Place," "Night and the City," manage a level of sleek sophistication that elevates them beyond a moody catch phrase and its connotations of foreboding shadows, fedoras, and femme-fatales. <br /><br />"Where the Sidewalk Ends," a fairly difficult to find film -- the only copy in perhaps the best stocked video store in Manhattan was a rough bootleg from the AMC cable channel -- belongs in a category with these classics.<br /><br />From the moment the black cloud of opening credits pass, a curtain is drawing around rogue loner detective Marc Dixon's crumbling world, and as the moments pass, it inches ever closer, threatening suffocation. <br /><br />Sure, he's that familiar "cop with a dark past", but Dana Andrews gives Dixon a bleak stare and troubled intensity that makes you as uncomfortable as he seems. And yeah, he's been smacking around suspects for too long, and the newly promoted chief (Karl Malden, in a typically robust and commanding outing) is warning him "for the last time." <br /><br />Yet Dixon hates these thugs too much to stop now. And boy didn't they had have it coming? <br /><br />"Hoods, dusters, mugs, gutter nickel-rats" he spits when that tough nut of a boss demotes him and rolls out all of the complaints the bureau has been receiving about Dixon's right hook. The advice is for him to cool off for his own good. But instead he takes matters into his own hands. <br /><br />And what a world of trouble he finds when he relies on his instincts, and falls back on a nature that may or may not have been passed down from a generation before. <br /><br />Right away he's in deep with the cops, the syndicate, his own partner. Dixon's questionable involvement in a murder "investigation" threatens his job, makes him wonder whether he is simply as base as those he has sworn to bring in. Like Bogart in "Lonely Place," can he "escape what he is?"<br /><br />When he has nowhere else to turn, he discovers that he has virtually doomed his unexpected relationship with a seraphic beauty (the marvelous Gene Tierney) who seems as if she can turn his barren bachelor's existence into something worth coming home to. <br /><br />The pacing of this superb film is taut and gripping. The group of writers that contributed to the production polished the script to a high gloss -- the dialogue is snappy without disintegrating into dated parody fodder, passionate without becoming melodramatic or sappy. <br /><br />And all of this top-notch direction and acting isn't too slick or buffed to loosen the film's emotional hold. Gene Tierney's angelic, soft-focus beauty is used to great effect. She shows herself to be an actress of considerable range, and her gentle, kind nature is as boundless here as is her psychosis in "Leave Her to Heaven." The scenes between Tierney and Andrews's Dixon grow more intense and touching the closer he seems to self-destruction. <br /><br />Near the end of his rope, cut, bruised, and exhausted Dixon summarizes his lot: "Innocent people can get into terrible jams, too,.." he says. "One false move and you're in over your head." <br /><br />Perhaps what makes this film so totally compelling is the sense that things could go wildly wrong for almost anyone -- especially for someone who is trying so hard to do right -- with one slight shift in the wind, one wrong decision or punch, or, most frighteningly, due to factors you have no control over. Noir has always reflected the darkest fears, brought them to the surface. "Where the Sidewalk Ends" does so in a realistic fashion. <br /><br />(One nit-pick of an aside: This otherwise sterling film has a glaringly poor dub of a blonde model that wouldn't seem out of place on Mystery Science Theater. How very odd.) <br /><br />But Noir fans -- heck, ANY movie fans -- who haven't seen this one are in for a terrific treat.

Noel Coward,a witty and urbane man,was friends with Louis Mountbatten.Mr Coward,a long-time admirer of all things naval,was commissioned to write a story loosely based on the loss of Mountbatten's ship.In a peculiarly British way it was considered that a film about the Royal Navy losing an encounter at sea would be good propaganda.It was also considered a good idea to have Mr Coward play the part of the ship's captain.Amang the many qualities needed to command a fighting ship,the ability to speak in a very clipped voice and sing sophisticated "point" songs does not come very high up the list at Admiralty House,or at least one would hope not.A captain must earn and retain the respect of the wardroom and the lower deck alike. Mr Coward might have had the respect of the gentlemen of the chorus at Drury Lane and Binkie Beaumont might have been terrified of him but his ability to tame,mould and direct a ship's crew in wartime must be brought into question.He folds himself languorously around the bridge,patronising the other ranks and barking orders at the officers,he only needed a silk dressing gown and a cigarette holder to seem right at home. Much is made of the "warship as a microcosm of British Society"theme,and the crew largely comprises of the usual cheery cockneys,canny northerners etc.without whom no war can be fought.They spend most of their time on board smoking,moaning about Lord Haw Haw and getting blown up. Never mind,there's plenty more where they came from.Once ashore they go straight to the pub where they spend most of their time smoking,moaning about Lord Haw Haw and getting blown up .By contrast Mr Coward lives in a dream cottage with a rose covered door somewhere very quiet with very little chance of getting blown up.He,his lady wife and their two rosy cheeked cherubs converse in ludicrously convoluted tones and said lady wife spends much of her time knitting things for the poor unfortunates who comprise his crew and who she refers to by their surnames.That nice young master Johnny Mills has a prominent role as a completely unbelievable lower deck type who worships Mr Coward in much the same way as a thrashed dog will worship its master.He marries his girlfriend after kissing her on the cheek,presumably on the grounds that she might be pregnant after such unfettered passion. So yes,we do have a microcosm of British society here,but perhaps not in the way the makers of "In which we serve" intended. At the end Mr Coward gets one last chance to patronise his men as the few survivors shuffle past him,"Goodbye Edwards,it was a privilege to sail with you"he enunciates as if he was reciting "How now brown cow". It may have been David Lean's feature debut,but the hand of Noel Coward looms large right across this picture.He was a funny and clever man,better suited to writing waspish plays about poor little rich girls and boys interspersed with the occasional wry song.He had a talent to amuse,no doubt,but he could neither write nor speak convincing dialogue. Being Noel Coward was a full-time job,he had no time to be a real person.

A pretty worthless made for television movie that pretty much follows the killer insect script. Ants mysteriously turn into killer ants near a hotel. I think it is from the hotel food because the sewage from the hotel kitchen drains directly into the ant bed. There is a lack of suspense in this film and it is not scary either. Watching a bunch of ants sting their victims is not very terrifying.<br /><br />Spoilers section The stupidity of the hero is near incredible. He is told that the health inspector that the ants could not be the hero. It has to be a mysterious virus. After the inspector says this, the hero takes his bulldozer and wrecks the huge ant colony. This disturbs the millions of ants and traps the people in the hotel.<br /><br />End spoilers Overall, this movie is extremely lame. I don't understand why it got a DVD release when so many deserving movies have none. My only guess for the DVD release is that Suzanne Summers is featured in the film. This is a movie to avoid.

METAMORPHOSIS I am working my way through the Chilling Classics 50 Movie Pack Collection and METAMORPHOSIS is the seventh movie in the set. Released in 1990, METAMORPHOSIS seems to be a remake of "The Atom Age Vampire," which also featured a scientist striving for similar results. Set in modern times, METAMORPHSIS is not my kind of horror movie.<br /><br />A university researcher is working to crack the human genome in order to create a serum that would prevent aging. Pressured by the administration to publish his papers; and, produce some results (or risk losing funding), the scientist decides to use himself as a guinea pig! At first thinking that he suffered no adverse side effects, he eventually discovers that the serum has indeed altered him in the most unexpected manner! <br /><br />The acting is stilted; and, the performances left me with a much diminished interest in the film. The score is pandering. And, the science behind the experiments and their findings is not only fallacious; it's absurd; it's ridiculous – at best. <br /><br />As others noted, the end turns into a 30+ minute gag, which is seemingly endless. Without giving too much away, I'd call this one, "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde meet the Creature From the Black Lagoon meets Home Alone."

The potential movie extravaganza, set during the 19th century, failed to produce. With big-name actors like Maggie Smith, Albert Finney, and many others, there was no reason for the movie to fail. However, the movie lacked an ending, had a sorry excuse for a plot line, and fell to pieces with its continuity. A typical story of a rich girl and a poor boy, brought together by love and destroyed by beauty (or lack thereof) and disapproval, has a touching side of a mother's early death and an absentee father. The father, played by Finney, is a disturbed man, tormenting his daughter in life as well as death. He believes his daughter's lack of good looks would ruin his fortune by marrying beneath their social status. The actors vainly attempted to salvage what was left of the storyline. Washington Square is a black hole of ruin and destruction, wasting precious time of those who sorrowfully watch. I give this movie a 1 instead of a 0, purely for the actors' attempts. Save yourself, stay clear of Washington Square.

I think the deal with this movie is that it has about 2 minutes of really, really funny moments and it makes a very good trailer and a lot of people came in with expectations from the trailer and this time the movie doesn't live up to the trailer. It's a little more sluggish and drags a little slowly for such an exciting premise, and i think i'm seeing from the comments people having a love/hate relationship with this movie.<br /><br />However, if you look at this movie for what it is and not what it could have been considering the talent of the cast, i think it's still pretty good. Julia Stiles is clearly the star, she's so giddy and carefree that set among the conformity of everyone else, she just glows and the whole audience falls in love with her along with Lee. The rest of the cast, of course, Lee's testosterone-filled coworkers, his elegant mother-in-law, his fratlike friend Jim and his bride-to-be all do an excellent job of fitting into stereotypes of conformity and boringness that make Stiles stand out in the first place. <br /><br />Lee doesn't live up to his costars, i don't think, but you could view that as more that they're hard to live up to. Maybe that's one source of disappointment.<br /><br />The movie itself, despite a bit of slowness and a few jokes that don't come off as funny as the writer's intended, is still pretty funny and I found a rather intelligent film. The themes of conformity and "taking the safe route" seemed to cleverly align on several layers. For example, there was the whole motif of how he would imagine scenarios but would never act on them until the last scene, or how he was listening to a radio program on the highway talking about how everyone conforms, or just how everything selma blair and julia stiles' characters said and did was echoed by those themes of one person being the safe choice and one being the risky choice.<br /><br />The other good thing about the movie was that it was kind of a screwball comedy in which Jason Lee has to keep lying his way through the movie and who through dumb luck (example: the pharmacy guy turning out to be a good chef) and some cleverness on his part gets away with it for the most part.<br /><br />While it wasn't as funny as i expected and there was a little bit of squandered talent, but overall it's still a good movie.

I've seen this film criticized with the statement, "If you can get past the moralizing..." That misses the point. Moralizing is in the conscience of the beholder, as it were. This is a decent film with a standard murder mystery, but with a distinct twist that surfaces midway through. The resolution leaves the viewer wondering, "What would I have done in this position?" And I have to believe that's exactly what the filmmaker intended. To that end, and to the end of entertaining the audience, the film succeeds. I also like the way that the violence is never on stage, but just off camera. We know what has just happened; it's just not served up in front of us, then rubbed in our faces, as it would be today with contemporary blood and gore dressing. Besides, the violence is not the point. The point is the protagonist's moral dilemma, which is cleverly, albeit disturbingly, resolved.

This was by far the best war documentary ever made. From the very beginning of the first episode when Sir Laurence Olivier described the horrific events in Oradour-Sur-Glane 'The day the soldiers came'. To the final days of the war when the mushroom clouds appeared over Japan, I never missed a second of this classic series and I remember it well even though it was screened way back in 1974. Each and every aspect of this tragedy was covered in detail. This whole series should be compulsory viewing for as many of the world's children as possible so that the tragedy of World War Two is not repeated and that bigotry, hatred, greed and intolerance are not confused with patriotism or religious zeal.

In the 1930s studios would use short films like this one sort of as testing grounds for new actors, given their relative ease of production in comparison with full length feature films, so it's interesting that this one should star Shirley Temple, who had long since established herself as The Most Famous Child Star of All Time. Then again, she probably wasn't the one being tested, I would imagine that would have been Frank Coghlan Jr., who played Shirley's brother Sonny in the movie and delivered a comparatively less impressive performance. Then again, a 9-year-old Shirley Temple was probably not an easy act to accompany.<br /><br />The film opens with an unimpressive sight gag involving a leaky ceiling, which I suppose was designed to have Shirley Temple give a scornful look at the ceiling, illustrate the working class status of the family in the movie, and provide a clean transition into the next scene, which features Shirley gleefully stomping in the rain.<br /><br />It's Sonny'y birthday, and his father makes occasional and horrendously botched efforts to hide the fact that he wants to give Sonny a dog that he really wants for himself, but Sonny is afraid of dogs because he was bitten by one once and has been creeped out ever since. It's curious that, when his father insists on getting a dog, Sonny decides to run away from home rather than have a dog in the house, and as he is running away with no destination in sight, it's also curious that the movie illustrates what seems to be an indifference to homeless people that surpasses even the astounding indifference that exists today.<br /><br />Sonny passes a man cooking bacon in an iron skillet at the side of the train tracks (right after a train flew by which, given how close to the tracks he was, you would think would have blown the guy right off the tracks, but no matter). After Sonny gives up on sharing breakfast due to the sour stare that his gleeful smile receives from the guy, he continues on and the homeless guy disappears from the movie. It's interesting to consider what a longer film would have done, because this one leaves this poor guy as a loose end.<br /><br />Not that that matters, Sonny soon hears a dog whining underneath a trestle as he passes over it, and jumps down to find a dog covered in burrs. It might seem trite that he immediately takes the dog up and adopts it since he just left home because of his fear of dogs, but it seemed to me that he just needed to be reminded not of his power over dogs, but of their lack of power over him. As soon as he saw a dog in need he overcame his fear.<br /><br />Hey, if that's all it takes, all I have to do is find a helpless spider and I'm set! <br /><br />It's a very convenient movie in which everything works out exactly as it is supposed to, but it's cute enough and enjoyable enough (and short enough, as it were) to still be a fun movie. We already don't expect an epic plot in a 19-minute film, but Pardon My Pups still packs in a substantial amount of story and character development in its short running time. And it also features a fight scene at the end of the movie that must have made Charlie Chaplin proud. I am hardly an expert of Shirley Temple's films, but it's not hard to see how she became The Most Famous Child Star of All Time.

I gave this movie a very fair chance, and it betrayed me. This is very little more than a black and white excuse to bore the hell out of the audience even as the egotist Bogdanavich (who did way better with TARGETS) gets "great performances" out of a ton of hams in their debuts. Lots of teenage sex clichés come out of this movie, such as Doing the Teacher's Wife, Impotence, Doing the Ugly Prostitute(which is very awkwardly shot and grinds things to a complete halt, not that things were really going anywhere anyway) and skinny dipping.<br /><br />I suppose this movie is supposed to be funny because of all the sex nonsense, to me, it was just annoying. I was seriously much more entertained by cleaning my finger nails than watching this mess.

This Hong Kong filmed potboiler packs in more melodrama than week's worth of 'The Young & The Restless'. This one is more of a throwback to the original 'Emmanuelle' trilogy(especially 'Goodbye Emmanuelle') than a D'Amato sleazefest. Chai Lee(Emy Wong)undergoes a stunning transformation from dour nurse to hot-to-trot streetwalker. Future Italian porn star/politician, Illona Staller, who would later go by the name Ciccolina(and have sex with an HIV positive John Holmes) plays Emy's competition. Exotic locales and some decent soft-core scenes round this one out. Recommended for fans of the original 'Emmanuelle', of which I am one!

If my memory is correct, when this movie was released it came across as something of a comedy - a funny look at the adult entertainment industry. If that's what it's supposed to be, it doesn't really work. It just isn't that funny. Setting that rather significant (since this is called a comedy!) failure aside, since I have no personal knowledge of the subject matter, I'll avoid comment about the authenticity of the story - which deals with the goings on behind the scenes in a Toronto massage parlour, except to say that - if this is true - the life is pretty dull. <br /><br />For over an hour, this movie really doesn't give us much of anything except some background knowledge of the main characters. Conrad is the newly hired manager of the massage parlour whose basic job apparently is to make sure the girls aren't giving "full service" - a euphemism for actual sex. As for the girls themselves, Betty's goal is to buy a parlour of her own so that she can run her own business, Cindy is an illegal immigrant to Canada working to support her family back home and Leah is - well, Leah is a somewhat strange, undefined character with a nipple fetish - true - who seems to be in the business because - well, because she's in it! I have no idea what her character was about. Those three may well fairly reasonable composite characters who accurately represent the motivations of the women who get involved in this business.<br /><br />The movie meanders about and doesn't offer much until the "twist" reveals Conrad to be the bad guy. We should have gotten to that point sooner. The only thing truly interesting here was that part of the story - Conrad's secret plan and the revenge plotted against him by the girls. That plan for revenge was pretty good, and you're grateful when it comes out because basically up to that point you're wondering why you wasted your time with this. Had the story been more focused on the revenge, this might have actually been a fairly funny movie.<br /><br />The performances from the 4 leads were all OK, although I didn't think anyone came across as outstanding. All four characters were a bit shallow. Cindy was a sympathetic character, and so was Conrad for a while, although he turns out to be the bad guy of the movie. Given the subject matter, there's surprisingly little nudity (and what there is is restricted to one scene.) In fact, there even a certain air of innocence around a lot of this. As for the overall quality of the movie, it's a low-budget effort, which shows, although you expect a certain griminess, I suppose, of a movie set in the context of a body rub parlour, so that's forgivable. It certainly says something, though, that this was released 8 years ago now and is still the only credit on writer-director Soo Lyu's resume and - given the normal lack of depth in the Canadian film industry - that it wasn't even deemed worthy of being nominated for any Genie Awards - the Canadian version of the Oscars. 4/10 - and I'm being a bit generous with that.

As someone who was staggered at the incredible visuals of "Hero," I was anxious to see this film which was billed as being along the same lines, but better. It also featured an actress I like: Ziyi Zhang. Well, I was disappointed on both counts. I bought the DVD of this film sight-unseen, and that was a mistake. It was not better.<br /><br />I realize these flying-through-the-air martial arts films are pure fantasy but this story is stretched so far past anything remotely believable it just made me shake my head in disappointing disbelief. A blind woman defeating hundreds of opponents? Sorry, that's going a little far. Also, the major male character 'Jin" (Takeshi Kaneshiro) was so annoying with his dialog, stupid look on his face and stupid laugh, that he ruined the film, too.<br /><br />Despite the wonderful colors and amazing action scenes, this story - to me - just didn't have an appeal to make it a movie worth owning. This film is no "Hero" of mine!

I love watching early colour films - you mean those 40s clothes weren't all grey? <br /><br />Margaret Rutherford dominates this movie. Her "eccentric" garb is actually rather attractive and yes, she has an amazing hourglass figure. But I feel she was given her head rather too much. She probably developed this characterisation over many performances, and nobody told her "If it gets a laugh, leave it out." She does too much deranged fooling about when she's supposed to be surprisingly down to earth. The Madame Arcati joke is that mediums were usually portrayed as wispy females in long drapery. Arcati behaves like a retired headmistress (We'll really put our backs into it!). The contrast between her breezy, commonplace manner and her wacky beliefs isn't really brought out.<br /><br />Just because all the actors are English (apart from Cummings), the Americans feel they have to use the words "Brit", "stiff", "lip" and "upper". Oh, give it a rest! The three main characters lose their tempers constantly and make risqué remarks (Did he make love to you? Yes, but very discreetly - he was in the cavalry!).

I don't think I've ever been so bowled over by the sheer absurdity of a movie in my entire life as i was when i walked out of this piece of crap. NOTHING in it makes any sense. none of it is clever or well thought out. out of lack of truly suspenseful moments they repeatedly use that total cop-out trick where you build up the music before the character does something like open a door or push aside a curtain and then nothing's there. thats OK to do once, maybe, but i counted three times. there are things thrown in for no apparent reason, characters, half-formed story lines.... the characters weren't well developed at ALL. the ending was.. bad. bad, bad, bad, everything, every component, of this film is terrible. and I'm just here to warn you all of that.

I'm not even gonna waste time on this one; it's not funny, not scary, practically unwatchable and only occassionaly gory(the FX suck though(no pun intended)). This is a disclaimer; WATCH AT YOUR PERIL! Ask yourself 1 question; Are slugs scary?

Roman Polanski is considered as one of the most important directors of our time, as the mind behind classics such as "Rosemary's Baby" and "Chinatown". Probably what makes Polanski's cinema a very interesting one is the fact that while he is capable of creating commercially attractive films such as the afore mentioned masterpieces, he is also fond of making low-key movies that are of a more personal nature. "Le Locataire", or "The Tenant", is one of those movies; a horror/suspense story about paranoia and obsession that is among his best works and probably among the best horror movies ever done.<br /><br />Polanski himself plays Telkovsky, a young man looking for an apartment in France. When he finally finds one, he discovers that it is empty because the previous tenant, Simone Choule, attempted to kill herself by jumping out of the window. After Simone dies of the injuries, Trelkovsky begins to become obsessed with her, to the point of believing that her death was caused by the rest of the tenants in the building.<br /><br />While sharing the same claustrophobic feeling of his other "apartment-themed" films ("Repulsion & "Rosemary's Baby"); this film focuses on the bizarre conspiracy that may or may not be entirely in Trelkovsky's head, the catastrophic effects the paranoia has on his mind, and the bizarre obsession he has with the previous tenant.<br /><br />Trelkovsky's descend into darkness is portrayed perfectly by Polanski. While at first his performance seems odd and wooden, slowly one finds out that Polanski acts that way because Trelkovsky is meant to be acted that way; as a simpleton with almost no life, who traps himself in this maddening sub-world that happens to be inhabited by a collection of bizarre people. The supporting actors really gave life to the people in the building creating memorable characters that are very important for the success of the film.<br /><br />Also, the beautiful cinematography Polanski employs in the film helps to increase the feeling of isolation, and gives life to the beautiful building that serves as cage for Trelkovsky. The haunting images Polanski uses to convey the feeling of confusion and madness are of a supernatural beauty that makes them both frightening and attractive.<br /><br />If a flaw is to be found in the film, is that it is definitely a bit slow at first. this may sound like a turn-off but in fact the slow pace of the beginning works perfectly as it mimics Trelkovsky's own boring life and how gradually he enters a different realm. Also, the convoluted storyline is definitely not an easy one to understand due to the many complex layers it has. However, more than a flaw, it is a joy to face a thought-provoking plot like this one.<br /><br />While "The Tenant" may not be for everyone, those interested in psychological horror and surreal story lines will be pleased by the experience. "Le Locataire" is really one of Roman Polanksi's masterpieces. 10/10

The problem with "The Killer Elite" is that just by seeking this film out, and investing time to watch it, you are putting more effort into the experience than many of its principals did, particularly director Sam Peckinpah.<br /><br />The already volatile Peckinpah was heading into rough weather with this film. According to at least one biographer, this was where he became acquainted with cocaine. Add to that his binge drinking, and it's no wonder things fell apart.<br /><br />It's a shame, because the concept behind the film is a good one, and the first ten minutes promise much. Mike Locken (James Caan) and George Hansen (Robert Duvall) are private contractors who do a lot of dirty work for the CIA. They move quick, live well, and seem like the best of friends - then something happens to shatter their brotherhood.<br /><br />An opening scene shows them blowing up a building - why exactly we aren't told, par for the course in terms of this film's murky motivation. But the implication is these guys hurt people and don't really care - antiheroes much like the Wild Bunch of Peckinpah's not-so-long-ago. An opening title tells us they work for ComTeg, then adds with obvious tongue in cheek "...the thought the CIA might employ such an organization for any purpose is, of course, preposterous." That's a pretty clever way of letting the audience know all bets are off.<br /><br />Add to that a traditionally strong Peckinpah backup cast, including Burt Young, Gig Young, and Peckinpah regular Bo Hopkins in the plum role of a madman who can't pass up an opportunity to be shot at for $500 a day, and you only wish that the scriptwriters, including the celebrated Sterling Silliphant, tried to do something more with the story than turn it into a platform for lazy one-liners and bad chop-socky knockoffs. An attempt at injecting a dose of liberal social commentary is awkwardly shoehorned in. "You're so busy doing their dirty work, you can't tell who the bad guys are," someone tells Locken, as if either he or we need it pointed out.<br /><br />Worse still are Peckinpah's clumsy direction and sluggish pacing. We're 40 minutes into the film before we get our first battle scene, a completely chaotic collection of random shots where a bunch of people we haven't even met before are seen fighting at San Francisco Airport, their battle intercut with a conversation in an office suite.<br /><br />By the end of the film, what's left of the cast is having a battle inside a fleet of mothballed Victory Ships, ninjas running out in the open to be gunned down while Caan tosses off one liners that undercut any hint of real suspense. "Lay me seven-to-five, I'll take the little guy," he wisecracks just before a climatic samurai duel between two ninja warriors - from China, which we all know is the land of the Ninja. (The battle takes place in San Francisco, but surprisingly no Mounties arrive to break things up.)<br /><br />Caan is much better in smaller scenes, like when Locken, recovering from some nasty injuries, is told by one of his bosses, played by a smooth Arthur Hill, that he's been "Humpty-dumped" by the organization. Caan refuses to stay down, and his recovery scenes, though momentum-killing for the movie, feature fine acting from him and Amy Heflin, Van's daughter, as a supportive nurse. Caan was one of the 1970s' best actors, and his laconic byplay with Heflin, Duvall, Hopkins, and both Youngs give "Killer Elite" real watchability.<br /><br />But you don't watch "Killer Elite" thinking about that. You watch it thinking of the film that got away.

Yes, as unbelievable as it may be, in 1968 a musical won the Academy Award for best picture - and it was the third musical to win that award in a five-year period, the first being My Fair Lady in 1964 and then The Sound of Music in 1965. The difference between My Fair Lady, The Sound of Music and Oliver! however is that Oliver! is immeasurably better! No comparison. The first two movies are insipid wet noodles compared to the remarkably robust Oliver!. The acting is great; the songs are great; the story is great and the dancing is great. This movie is dynamic, topical, relevant to the human experience and unlike the overblown Gangs of New York, Oliver! offers a portrayal of poverty in 19th century London, England that evokes sympathy without being condescending. Oliver Reed was a great actor and he proves it in Oliver! The other actors and actresses, especially Ron Moody and Shani Wallis, are equally wonderful and offer powerful portrayals of characters who evoke sympathy and warmth without being caricatures.

Wonderful film that mixes documentary and fiction in a way that makes the spectator question: what is the extent of truth in documentary films or is there such a thing as an objective documentary.

Gee, what a crappy movie this was! I cannot understand what people find so scary about "The Grudge". The director plays one trick (I'd have to admit a very good one, that is brought to life very stylized) and then he repeats it for the rest of the movie over and over again. As a consequence I startled a few times in the first quarter of the movie, but once I knew the drill I practically fell asleep as The Grudge grew more and more predictable by the minute. To conclude, I can say that there are a lot better movies in the genre to begin with, that the so-called predecessor "The Ring" was way scarier and that buying a ticket for "The Grudge" is a waste of money.

The next time you are at a party and someone asks, "The other day I heard the expression 'Author's will'. Does anyone know what it means?" Tell them to sit through 'Head Above Water'. The only way Diaz could possibly have survived this movie was by means of this literary device commonly used by bad writers. There are some comic scenes and you will have a few laughs. However the film does not stand up to the most minor logical analysis. Why does Keitel tie Diaz's hand in front of her instead of behind? Why so she can do the chainsaw gag of course. For me the best part of this movie was that I saw it on a cable channel instead of spending four bucks at the video shop.

The movie is a real show of how unemotional and selfish the upper society has become. It has plenty of characters and each and every character is representing a different category of person. No character is 100% good and moral unlike the heroes of all the typical Indian movies and no character is 100% bad rather all are just different. The movie is a very perfect mixture of emotions, drama and entertainment. For the very first time i liked a movie that has raised some social questions. I would recommend all to see the movie. Madhavi Sharma is a journalist who covers those hip-shaking parties of Bollywood for the Page 3 of the newspaper but this is the story of how she becomes a crime reporter for the newspaper. But this is not all, then it shows how she couldn't survive there and when she helped rescue some innocent children, how brutally her voice is suppressed. Even she is fired from the job. Then she couldn't find a job of crime reporter and has to do Page 3 again. Not only her but a very very large number of characters are interwoven in the movie and all gives different feeling while watching the movie. I would really congratulate the director for making such a great movie. Please do not afford to miss it.

I guess every time I see one of these old movies from the 80's it puts me back at a simpler time, no matter how corny they may seem today. This movie is a good one. I remember seeing it as a small kid and thinking it was the greatest movie ever. It has all the heroistic characters that a young cowboy wants to be. Now as an adult, I can look back and laugh and still feel sad, but this time I actually know what's going on. I did find one thing weird. How many people can move to Houston and hook up with Sissy,get married,move into a trailer,have a falling out,cheat, have an uncle die,then get back together, all in the course of a month? Only in America.

Don't bother. A little prosciutto could go a long way, but all we get is pure ham, particularly from Dunaway. The plot is one of those bumper car episodes... the vehicle bounces into another and everything changes direction again, until we are merely scratching our heads wondering if there were ever a plot. Gina Phillips is actually good, but it's hard playing across from a mystified Dunaway playing Lady Macbeth lost in the Marx's Brother's Duck Soup. Ah, the Raven...now there's an actor. And there is the relative who just lies and bed and looks ghostly. Or Dr. Dread who's filled with lots of gloom and no working remedies. I'm one of those suckers who just has to see a movie to the end. Quoth the Raven, "Nevermore."

Watching this Movie? l thought to myself, what a lot of garbage. These girls must have rocks for brains for even agreeing to be part of it. Waste of time watching it, faint heavens l only hired it. The acting was below standard and story was unbearable. Anyone contemplating watching this film, please save your money. The film has no credit at all. l am a real film buff and this is worse than "Attack of the Green Tomatoes".<br /><br />l only hope that this piece of trash didn't cost too much to make. Money would have been better spent on the homeless people of the world. l only hope there isn't a sequel in the pipeline.

Kind of hard to believe that the movie from this book could succeed in topping its awfulness! The plot is so contrived and unbelievable. . . starting with laying a ton of guilt on a small child to spare her pain! Then we have the collusive behavior of at least six and maybe more people(including clergy) involved in what is a crime everywhere. Next we have a wife who seemingly in the length of a ferry ride goes from being comparatively happy to very shortly kicking over the traces. A very unpleasant and coo coo mother, aided, abetted and supported by a politically correct group of friends! Moving the setting from an island off the coast of South Carolina, did not help the story although it may have helped the film makers budget. The very beautiful buildings supposedly housing the monastery did not seem to logically suit an island small enough to need golf carts and such a small ferry service. Kim Basinger whom I do really like is painfully thin in this movie and her hairdo certainly belongs in another decade. Also there is simply no chemistry at all between her and either of the male leads. I thoroughly disliked the book from which this was taken but did read it all. The movie I kept surfing back and forth to, had to leave whenever that saccharine music got too much. Unless you like an unbelievable story, wooden acting, a contorted mixture of religious/mythological/allegory my advice is to skip this one. Oh and maybe a small carping criticism, but wouldn't a caring father have a life jacket on a small child on a small boat? The best part of this movie is the scenery

The idea of In the Name of the People is good, a murderer doesn't want his only daughter to end up in an institution and asks the parents of the girl he killed to take care of his daughter. And you could expect of the actors, especially Scott Bakula to do some good acting, unfortunately they don't! In the Name of The People turns out to be the regular Friday night tearjerker. The flashbacks with the girl that was killed are pretty pathetic and at a certain stage you can just predict what the actors will say... If you want to watch a good film about this subject then watch Dean Man Walking!

The production quality, cast, premise, authentic New England (Waterbury, CT?) locale and lush John Williams score should have resulted in a 3-4 star collectors item. Unfortunately, all we got was a passable 2 star "decent" flick, mostly memorable for what it tried to do.........bring an art house style film mainstream. The small town locale and story of ordinary people is a genre to itself, and if well done, will satisfy most grownups. Jane Fonda was unable to hide her braininess enough to make her character believable. I wondered why she wasn't doing a post doctorate at Yale instead of working in a dead end factory job in Waterbury. Robert DiNiro's character was just a bit too contrived. An illiterate, nice guy loser who turns out to actually be, with a little help from Jane's character, a 1990 version of Henry Ford or Thomas Edison.<br /><br />This genre has been more successfully handled by "Nobody's Fool" in the mid 90s and this year's (2003) "About Schmidt." I wish that the main stream studios would try more stuff for post adolescents and reserve a couple of screens at the multi cinema complexes for those efforts.<br /><br />I'll give it an "A" for effort.

Fidois a very odd film. And in many ways, a very good one.<br /><br />My first thought after viewing, was how the hell are they going to market this thing? If Shaun of the Dead is a romantic comedy with zombies, Fido is a boy and his dog story blended with fifties nostalgia comedy with zombies. Doesn't exactly trip off the tongue.<br /><br />Fido has little of Shaun's carnage, gore & belly laughs. It is a different beast altogether (forgive the pun).<br /><br />Fido kicks off with a black & white information film that explains the back story - humans have won a war against zombies by developing a control collar that subdues the flesh-eaters into dumb servants.<br /><br />At first I thought we we were in for a fifties cold war paranoia parody a la Matinée, but we are soon hurled into a world of bright primary colours and fifties middle-class nostalgia.<br /><br />Young Timmy Robinon is a lonely kid who doesn't fit in at school. His mom is would-be social climber,and his dad is nervy and detached.<br /><br />Seeking to keep up with the Joneses, mom (Carry-Anne Moss) has acquired a zombie. Jimmy is disinterested at first, but 'Fido' (Billy Conelley) soon proves a great buddy for Jimmy. Until his collar goes on the blink...<br /><br />Fido is NOT a horror film, but my problem with the movie is figuring out exactly what it IS.<br /><br />Much of the humour is of the light family variety, and sometimes the plot line is too heavily reliant on the boy and his dog/family moments.<br /><br />Yet the film is shot through with wonderfully dark, truly funny moments, which while welcome, will ensure an R rating for what is, for extended periods, a family comedy.<br /><br />The film looks gorgeous, and is wonderfully performed by all involved.<br /><br />Despite its difficult tonal problems, I hope this movie finds a niche, as it's quite a little gem in this year's deluge of cinematic crap.

Things get dull early an often in this in this mawkish jazz bio fiction written and directed by Spike Lee.<br /><br />Bleek Gilliam (Denzell Washington) is a happenin' jazz trumpeter that fronts a quintet packing them in at Below the Underdog. His problems include an incompetent manager, a stage hogging sax player and two girlfriends that he's playing musical mattress with. The real love of his life though is his trumpet and his music. The band's manager, Giant, has a dangerous gambling problem and proves to be an ineffective negotiator with greedy club owners and would be best jettisoned but Bleek remains loyal for as long as possible. It will prove to his undoing as an artist but ironically contribute to his growth as a man.<br /><br />As Bleek, Denzell Washington is all wrong as the ambitious trumpeter with a babe on each arm. He's too sweet a guy to be so self centered about his art, dispensing patience and love to those close to him with a low key remoteness. He simply lacks the fire. Wesley Snipes who plays Henderson the sax player would have been far more suited for the role but even he would have to mouth the flaccid throw away scribblings of Lee's torpid dialogue. As Giant, Lee hits the trifecta with an abysmal performance to match his writing and direction. Loosely attempting to mirror the grubby but sympathetic Ratso Rizzo to Bleek's Joe Buck he adopts a limp and even the "I'm walkin' here" moment from Midnight Cowboy. In this case you wish the taxi would run him over and be done with it.<br /><br />Lee's script is all tepid argument, heavy handed ribbing and veiled insult with some requisite clumsy editorializing that Lee has to inject to remain down. The scenes between the band members backstage and in rehearsal lack spark and are only surpassed in dreariness by the Bleek, Giant conversations that have an ad lib look and go in circles. Completing this travesty is Lee's pretentious visual style. Tracking shots, zooms and pans are wasted and without significance to scenes. They just wander.<br /><br />Blues is Lee's love letter to jazz (made implicit by the mountains of memorabilia plastered all over the sets) and it's all sentimental clap trap that lacks passion and verve. Jazz on film is better served by Tavernier's "Round Midnight" and Eastwood's "Bird" which get below the surface, reveal more sides of the form, the pain behind it in addition to offering infinitely superior lead performances by Forrest Whitaker and the real deal Dexter Gordon. This Spike Lee Joint doesn't even offer a mild buzz. It's some pretty bad homegrown.

This might be the WWE's 2nd best PPV of the year after Wrestlemania it was a good suprise! John Cena had an excellent match in which he upset Chris Jericho. Jeff Hardy retained his IC title in a short sloppy match with Willam Regal. Bubba & Spike Dudley won a fairly violent tables match over Benoit & Guerrero. Jamie Noble had a really good match with Kidman which was suprising to me. Booker T defeated The Big Show in a no dq match, at one point Booker T gave the scissors kick to Big Show and sent him right through the table. In a stupid decision by the WWE Christian and Lance Storm, the jealous anti-americans defeated Hogan and Edge with a lot of help from Test and Jericho. RVD and Brock had the match of the night it was filled with great high spots and RVD got to retain his ic title through a DQ so I was happy he kept the title. Triple H also signed with Eric Bischoff and Raw which means little to nothing. And in the main event the Rock became the first ever 7-time WWE world champion defeating both Kurt Angle & Undertaker in a triple threat match. Overall this is probably the WWE's 2nd best PPV of 2002! 7/10

A young boy comes into a lot of money and promptly begins to live it up. Unfortunately, the man whose money it really is happens to be very bad. He wants his loot back. When he discovers who has the bucks, he begins trying to get it back. He keeps getting foiled by this little kid who is just lucky enough to keep from falling into the evil man's hands. Sounds familiar, I'll bet. Very predictable, not interesting at all. Come up with something a bit different, ok guys?

When you put this DVD into your player and hit "play," you will experience a brief moment of silence and see a black screen as the laser is guided to the correct starting point in the center of the disc. CHERISH THIS MOMENT. Make sure you have some Tylenol or something (preferably PM's so you can fall asleep), because you're going to have a massive headache once this movie starts.<br /><br />Starring a bunch of big-breasted girls and with an opening that actually made me chuckle a bit, I thought I'd be in for a good time. Sure, the opening sequence was a WEE bit awkward and most of the jokes fell flat and it seemed like this was going to be a Scream ripoff (by the way, my sole chuckle was from Julie Strain's final comment in this scene). But then I knew there was trouble... the opening sequence had a terrible rock song. During this terrible rock song, I looked over the DVD Chapter titles and saw things that said "TOPLESS IN THE BACKYARD!" and "BETTER THAN SEX!". I knew what the selling point of this movie was going to be.<br /><br />And that's the sad truth: The ONLY good thing about this movie is the attractive cast. Other than that, it's a sadly routine slasher film that throws in an "innovative" concept about murder clubs, which ends up being fake anyway. So, the whole movie then points in another direction to try to be confusing and this huge mystery, but it all just adds up to not being interesting at all and leaves you feeling like you don't care for any of the characters. I mean, when the main character of the movie is revealed to have murdered an innocent woman, can you really feel ANY sympathy towards her when she's in fear for her life? The Scream influence is prevalent throughout, with a ghost face killer and some really terrible jokes. We're also treated to scenes of the main character talking to her mom and dad (Lloyd Kaufman! The only other cool part of the movie!) about an abortion or something. Uh. Yeah... This isn't a "so-bad-it's-good" movie, it's just BAD.<br /><br />Someone compared this to a Troma film, but... you know, most any film that comes from Full Moon (or its offshoot, as this film proves) is horrible. NOT horrible in a Troma sense -- I've seen many Troma films, and I can honestly say they all offer something, ANYTHING that you can walk away with and tell your friends about later. However, this film has pretty much nothing at all enjoyable about it. Beware.

I love B movies..but come on....this wasn't even worth a grade...The ending was dumb...b/c THERE WAS NO REAL ENDING!!!..not to mention that it comes to life on its own...I mean no lighting storm or crazy demonic powers?? Slow as hell and then they just start killing off the characters one by one in like a 15 min time period...and i won't even start on the part of the thing killing the one guy without its head....and then you don't even get to see what Jigsaw even does with his so called "new jigsaw puzzle"....Unless you have nothing better to do...Id watch paint dry before Id recommend this God-forsaken movie to anyone else...oh and to make it even better the other movie totem you can see the guy throwing the one creature in the basement scene from the window..that was funny as hell and probably the only good part of watching that waste of film

This was one of the best war movies I've seen because it focuses on the characters more then the actual war. All of the cast do an excellent job and because most of them are relative unknowns it makes everything seem more believable. The camera footage is great is so was the pacing and editing. This movie will actually get to you and causes the audience to care for the charcters.