Datasets:

paduraru2009

/

imdb-sample2

like 0

This movie is my all time favorite!!! You really have to see Michael Jackson in this wonderful film!! I'm always over the moon, watching it!! This is a film, that you really have to see, also if you aren't a MJ Fan, cause this film writes, like Captain EO, E.T. and Ghosts, a bit of Film and music History!! This wonderful film, out of Michael's feather, is a must have!! And: Smooth Criminal, is really the most wonderful, exciting and amazing song I've ever heard in my life!! Thank you Michael for this film and I love you!!! MJ's the best musician to hit this planet, he's a fine man and he always brings sparkles in your eyes, when you listen to his music!! Please, if you don't know this film, watch it and don't miss it, because would be too bad for yourself if you'd miss it!! -Highly Recommanded film, for every movie lover-

I watched this over the Christmas period, I don't know why but it reminds me of Christmas so I watched it, so there we are. <br /><br />Arthur is a film I watch all the way through with a big dumb smile on my face and its a mixture of special performances, great jolly music and a script crackling with wit and charm that causes it. <br /><br />Dudley Moore makes a character that could well be hated very easily (spoiled, rich, lazy drunk who feels sorry for himself) but turns him into someone you love. Liza Minelli is great as Linda Morolla a queens waitress who manages to pull off the tough/soft on the inside lady Arthur nearly gives up his world for. John Gielgud gets all the juicy lines and polishes them off with relish. <br /><br />I can watch Arthur again and again and it always makes me feel good, check it out if you need a lift its a lovely film.

Cornel Wilde and three dumbbells search for sunken treasure in the south Atlantic.<br /><br />The treasure-hunters led by Wilde fight a group of territorial sharks with cute little sneers on their hungry faces. Wilde and his merry men must find a way to take themselves off the menu so they can begin excavating an old Spanish galleon filled with gold bullion.<br /><br />After the crew engages in a small eternity of pushing, shoving, arguing, and listening to Wilde's annoying health tips, 5 crazy convicts board the boat and complicate things. Now it is a battle of wits as to who gets the treasure and who gets to see what the inside of a shark's stomach looks like.<br /><br />At least Wilde is in shape wearing exactly the same thing he wore in 'The Naked Prey' 10 years earlier and he has remained in excellent condition.<br /><br />Made on a budget of 75 cents.

Like most comments I saw this film under the name of The Witching which is the reissue title. Apparently Necromancy which is the original is better but I doubt it.<br /><br />Most scenes of the witching still include most necromancy scenes and these are still bad. In many ways I think the added nudity of the witching at least added some entertainment value! But don't be fooled -there's only 3 scenes with nudity and it's of the people standing around variety. No diabolique rumpy pumpy involved!<br /><br />This movie is so inherently awful it's difficult to know what to criticise first. The dialogue is awful and straight out of the Troma locker. At least Troma is tongue in cheek though. This is straight-faced boredom personified. The acting is variable with Pamela Franklin (Flora the possessed kid in The Innocents would you believe!) the worst with her high-pitched screechy voice. Welles seems merely waiting for his pay cheque. The other female lead has a creepy face so I don't know why Pamela thought she could trust her in the film! And the doctor is pretty bad too. He also looks worringly like Gene Wilder.<br /><br />It is ineptly filmed with scenes changing for no reason and editing is choppy. This is because the witching is a copy and paste job and not a subtle one at that. Only the lighting is OK. The sound is also dreadful and it's difficult to hear with the appalling new soundtrack which never shuts up. The 'ghost' mother is also equally rubbish but the actress is so hilariously bad at acting that at least it provides some unintentional laughs.<br /><br />Really this film (the witching at least) is only for the unwary. It can't have many sane fans as it's pretty unwatchable and I actually found it mind-numbingly dull! <br /><br />The best bit was when the credits rolled - enough said so simply better to this poor excuse for a movie LIKE THE PLAGUE!

Titanic has to be one of my all-time favorite movies. It has its problems (what movies don't) but still, it's enjoyable.<br /><br />When I stumble across someone who asks me why I like Titanic, I suppose my first reaction is "wait a minute, you don't?" I know so many people who don't like this movie, and I'm not saying I don't see why. "The love story is too cheesy" well, yes but isn't it enjoyable and moving? All right, the love story between Jack and Rose is very unrealistic, everyone knows that love like this doesn't actually exist. But this is a movie, doesn't everyone enjoy watching a beautiful story that lets us slip slightly into fantasy for a while? The next complaint, DiCaprio and Winslet are terrible actors. Well, OK, in this movie, I agree that they do not perform to their full potentials. However I think it's unfair to say that they are terrible actors. I personally think they are both very talented actors who unfortunately are very famous for a movie that they are not amazing in. But the roles they are given are simple, and the characters seem real enough that you can care about them quite a bit, but I agree with many people that they did not do as well as could have been expected.<br /><br />And finally, if one is going to complain that they don't like this movie because they hate romance, or because they hate history, or tragic movies, then I'm sorry but why on earth did they go and see a movie that is so clearly all of these things. It's like people who complain The Dark Knight is a bad movie because they hate action movies. Simply for being a movie, not because you dislike the genre, this IS a good movie.<br /><br />Well deserving of its Oscars, in particular, Best Cinematography, which I find to be the best I've ever seen in a movie save maybe the Lord of the Rings trilogy.<br /><br />I know some of the writing fails, such as the constant screaming of each other's names throughout the movie. The flashback portion of the story can be quite weak at times, but overall it's an amazing achievement in making the Titanic look so real, and the sinking feel so epic.<br /><br />I understand why a lot of people dislike this movie, but for the most part it boils down to them disliking the fundamental idea, such as it being a love story, rather than them thinking the movie in and of itself is poorly constructed.<br /><br />I can tell you that I have read more than five books about the Titanic, including memoirs form the day it happened, and this movie is extremely historically accurate save just a few faults. The only main ones I can find is that the piping should be threaded copper, not steel, and the iceberg looks fairly unrealistic as is the scene where they hit it.<br /><br />I give this movie 10/10, not because I like romance movies, but simply because it's an outstanding cinematic achievement, that leaves one feeling horrified by the realistic adaptation of events.

This is a true "80's movie": Back then they made maybe 100 times more movies than nowadays, and that makes many of them quite interesting... It was a cultural phenomenon, that don't exist anymore. Nowadays maybe the same kind of people that would have made cheap "straight-to-video"-movies in the eighties, are doing cheap porn. Porn seems to sell. Anyway, this is above the medium trash-movie level: It has good&fascinating story, and it's quite well made I think. In one scene you can even see the microphone swinging on the upper edge of the picture. Of course there are also little cameos by Ozzy and Gene Simmons, but they don't very much contribute to the film "success", although they are good in their small roles. The monster,heavy-singer "Sammi Curr", looks really terrible, especially when he's singing. One of the scariest monsters I've seen in horror flicks. I may have nightmares of him next night. Not recommended for intellectual movie lovers.

This is an early film "Pilot" for the hit Canadian tv show Trailer Park Boys. It was played to executives at a few networks before Showcase decided to sign them up for a tv series. Great acting and a very funny cast make this one of the best cult comedy films. The movie plot is that these two small time criminals go around "exterminating" peoples pets for money. If you have a dog next door whos barking all night these are the guys you go to! But they get into trouble when they come across a job too big for them to deal with and end up in a shootout. Watch this movie if you want to understand the beginning of the tv series. I highly recommend it!<br /><br />Rated R for swearing, violence, and drug use.<br /><br />Its not too offensive either (they dont actually show killing animals)

<br /><br />I have seen this movie many times. At least a Dozen. But unfortunatly not recently. However, Etched in my memory never to leave me is a scene in which Mickey Rooney, -"Killer Mears" knows that he is to be executed and it's getting close to the moment of truth, He dances, and cries, and laughs, he vacillates from hesteria to euphoria and runs the gambit of ever emotion. Never have I seen such a brilliant performance by any actor living or dead, past or present. It was then I know for sure that Mickey Rooney, yes, "Andy Hardy" was and is a actor of great genius. However I kept it, my opinion to myself for years thinking, surely I must be alone in this viewpoint. About 15 years or so after I saw this film for the last time on television, I chanced to read the old Q & A section of the Los Angeles Times. The question was posed to Lawrence Olivier, and the question was: "Mr. Olivier You are considered one of the greatest actors of all time, whom then do YOU consider to be among the greatest actors?" His answer was, "Peter Finch and Mickey Rooney" I was stunned, but not surprised. I immediatly flashed back to his "Killer Mears" And I felt very good for having seen this great ability in him, and now having my view supported by another whos work I admired.. Later of course there was "Bill" and many other great moments with Mikey Rooney. This film, "The Last Mile" should be seen by all acting students. I Frankly cannot remember a great deal about the film after all these years but Mr. Rooney in it, will never leave me. If anyone out there remembers this film the same as I do? I would be interested in hearing from you. For this picture etched in my heart alone I gave it a 10 just on the face of his performance.

Young, handsome, muscular Joe Buck (Jon Voight) moves from Texas to New York thinking he'll make a living by being a stud. He gets there and finds out quickly that it isn't going to be easy--he goes through one degrading experience after another. At the end of his rope he hooks up with crippled, sleazy Ratso Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman). Together they try to survive and get out of the city and move to Florida. But will they make it?<br /><br />Very dark, disturbing yet fascinating movie. Director John Schelsinger paints a very grimy portrait of NYC and its inhabitants. In that way it's dated--the city may have been this bad in 1969 but it's cleaned up considerably by now. He also uses every camera trick in the book--color turning to black & white; trippy dream sequences; flash forwards; flash backs (especially involving a rape); shock cuts; weird sound effects...you name it. It keeps you disoriented and off center--but I couldn't stop watching.<br /><br />There isn't much of a story--it basically centers on the friendship between Rizzo and Buck. There is an implication that they may have been lovers (the final shot sort of shows that). It's just a portrait of two damaged characters trying to survive in a cold, cruel, urban jungle.<br /><br />This was originally rated X in 1969--the only reason being that the MPAA didn't think that parents would want their children to see this. Nevertheless, it was a big hit with high schoolers (back then X meant no one under 17). It also has been the only X rated film ever to win an Academy Award as Best Picture. Hoffman and Voight were up for acting awards as was (mysteriously) Sylvia Miles who was in the picture for a total of (maybe) 5 minutes! It was eventually lowered to an R (with no cuts) when it was reissued in 1980.<br /><br />Also the excellent song "Everybody's Talkin'" was introduced in this film--and became a big hit.<br /><br />A great film---but very dark. I'm giving it a 10. DON'T see it on commercial TV--it's cut to ribbons and incomprehensible.

One of Boris Karloff's real clinkers. Essentially the dying Karloff (looking about 120 years older than he was)is a scientist in need of cash to finish his experiments before he dies. Moving from Morocco where his funding is taken over by someone else he goes to the South of France where he works a s physician while trying to scrap enough money to prove his theories. Desperate for money he makes a deal with the young rich wife of a cotton baron who is dying. She will fund him if he helps her poison the husband so she can take his money and carry on with a gigolo (who I think is married). If you think I got that from watching the movie you're wrong, I had to read what other people posted to figure out happened. Why? because this movie had me lost from two minutes in.I had no idea what was going on with its numerous characters and multiple converging plot lines. Little is spelled out and much isn't said until towards the end by which time I really didn't care. Its a dull mess of interest purely for Karloff's performance which is rather odd at times. To be honest this is the only time I've ever seen him venture into Bela Lugosi bizarre territory. Its not every scene but a few and makes me wonder how much they hung out.

This one is a real bomb. We are supposed to believe that Merle Oberon is the sequestered daughter of an ambitious politician who must prove to the Tom DeLay of the 1930s that he is worth supporting as a presidential candidate. Poor Merle can't go anywhere, but is surrounded by politicians and their quacking, quaking wives and supported only by kindly uncle Harry Davenport. She joins her two maids on a blind date and Gary Cooper happens to show up. Some shots of rodeo might have enlivened things, a la "Misfits," but no such luck with this one. Gary later breaks in to a formal dinner, at which Merle is presiding, and, though invited to sit down and join the group, reads them a lecture on their snobbery. Where did this diffident cowboy's sudden eloquence come from? The most excruciating scene in the film is a phantom party that Gary holds in his unfinished house for his absent wife, Merle. Will it never end? One to avoid.

Eddie Murphy Delirious is undoubtedly the funniest thing I have ever seen in my life. When I saw it for the first time about 2 years ago I was in stitches for weeks after it. To date I have seen it a further 17 times and i still laugh my ass off each time. For those who dont know Eddie Murphy was a brilliant stand up comedian before he was a Hollywood superstar. There is not one dull spot in this piece of genius unlike Eddie Murphy Raw which was released in 1987 which goes flat during the middle. If you are not the sort of person who can't stand swearing then I wouldn't advise you to see it as you will probably hear swearing of some form every 5-10 seconds. I gave this a 10 out of 10 because it displays the greatest comic genius of them all at his best.

Lubitsch's last production but not his least interesting film. Somehow largely ignored by critics as he couldn't finish it himself and as the movie wasn't co-signed by Preminger who he did most of the staging... A very strange mix of musical (a remembrance of The Merry Widow ?)and classic Lubitsch touch sentimentalism (an impossible love-story like Cluny Brown)yet a very clever and intelligent one yet not to be understood as some nostalgia of some lost world but rather a testament on eternal feelings prevailing on the foolishness of mankind and especially men in times of war with a "moral" lesson still true today as it was in 1948. Billy wilder as an answer to Preminger who grieved at Lubitsch's funerals about having lost a great man replied that we still had his films and that sums it all up about that Lady in Ermine...

This is a great movie for all Generation X'ers. What a different world the America of 1972 was compared to our psychotic 21st Century. You can get a sense of what an 1972 America gone by was like by watching this movie. I found that the clothing and the car styles brought back to me fond memories of a much better country than we have now. Just think...back then there were only 4 or 5 TV stations to choose from. There was no AIDS, Muslim terrorists, Road Rage, 911, Bird Flu, Freeway Snipers, etc, etc. The Vietnam war was just over. There will still be 7 years before Star Wars comes out. The personal computer and internet would still be 29 years away.<br /><br />When this movie first came out the producers had to market the film themselves as no other film company wanted it. So it began touring small Protestant churches around the country being shown on movie projectors(This was the days before VCRS of course). The pastor of a church who would would be interested in showing A Thief in the NIght to his congregation would obtain a copy of the film. Then he would set up a evening to show it in the church meeting area or lunch room. Members of the congregation would invite "unsaved" friends and family members and it would be a social event of the week. <br /><br />If you can get past the limited production values of the film and just watch it for its nostalgic value, then I think you will enjoy the film more. Of course I am speaking as a gen xer. <br /><br />If I had a time machine I would go back to 1972 and say goodbye to the 21st century cesspool we have now.

As someone else commented, this is a feel-good movie. It's got glorious scenery and the wonder-filled voice of Luciano! I've seen this movie many times and just saw it again this afternoon. I'd forgotten how much I miss Pavarotti's singing of Nessun Dorma and I need to get out the CD! It's a great movie to just while away the afternoon engrossed in fun and reverie. Eddie Albert is grand as the agent and a bit over the top, but all agents are just that anyway. The Italian countryside is gorgeous but nothing tops the balloon ride for the perfect view. If you need acting of Olivier proportion, this movie isn't for you. If you just want a flight of fancy and some wonderful music, watch this film. Just enjoy!

A spaceship returns from Mars; about a couple of months earlier, a 4-person expedition had been sent to the red planet. Most of the picture is a flashback to what transpired over there. The picture is saddled by inane, melodramatic dialog, typical of many sci-fi efforts of the fifties & sixties. Note, for example, how the ship's commander (Mohr) tells another crew member to 'stay there' for no reason; as if moving to another spot inside the ship will cause a problem. Later, the commander orders two of the crew to remain in the ship while he and another go outside. The two he ordered to stay say 'no way' and follow out; I didn't have high hopes for the expedition's success by this point. There's much talk of 'ears twitching' and hugging a freeze-ray gun named 'Cleo' (short for Cleopatra, of course). It would at least be pretty funny, unintentionally, if the story didn't drag.<br /><br />There's a very slow pace to the whole thing; the astronauts spend as much time looking out the ship's window portals (which change color from red to blue), commenting on what they see, as they do outside actually exploring. The martian landscape, advertised as filmed in 'Cinemagic,' usually resembles animation cut-outs, or drawings, shot through an orange-red filter to give the illusion of interacting with the actors, who do take on an odd surrealistic appearance due to the process. But I don't think it fools anyone over 10 years old. The one clever mention I did notice was that the memories of the surviving astronaut would be tinged with unreality, so that would explain the unreal nature of the martian vista. Oh, okay...<br /><br />I was amused by some of the astronauts' actions as they begin to explore; right off the bat, they test their freeze gun on a plant, killing it, just for the hell of it. Then the female member hacks with a machete at what she thinks is a tree but turns out to be the leg of the spider-rat monster. Nice going, lady. Look up next time. No wonder the 'intelligence' on Mars gets upset and doesn't mind that one of the lower lifeforms, a giant amoeba, attacks the explorers. The acting isn't too impressive. Mohr especially, had a very annoying technique, saying a line and then abruptly erupting into a huge grin which always creeped me out - reminded me of It! the Terror From Beyond Space. The ending is fairly anti-climactic; don't expect any huge revelations beyond the 'no more expeditions' with freeze guns named Cleo.

"Insignificance" is a far from great film, from a stage play, directed by Nic Roeg. In the scheme of Roeg's films, this is above the level of most of his post-"Don't Look Now" work, which is characterised by judicious use of Theresa Russell as lead actress. She's actually very good here, and far from the problem in other Roeg films like "Bad Timing" and "Cold Heaven". As the "Actress", who is Marilyn Monroe, Russell is very effective, portraying her as a thoroughly depressive, but likeable siren. She plays well alongside Michael Emil as Einstein, who is excellent to say the least. He looks the part admirably, and while Theresa Russell doesn't look exactly like Monroe, she certainly is attractive enough to make the part ring true. Other players are adequate if not quite as arresting as Emil and Russell are. A pretty workable, intelligent script is directed well by Roeg, but certainly not brilliantly, like "Walkabout" or "Performance". As in other later Roeg films, he tends to rely too much on vague, insubstantial flashbacks, that add very little to the film. In many ways the film would have worked better as a shorter (say, 60 minutes), more modest piece. Still, a quite acceptable, passable film. At times quite excellent, but somewhat lacking overall. Rating:- *** 1/2/*****

The movie "Frailty" is actually more of a psychological thriller than it is a horror film. It has all the trappings of a horror film but this it is not. "Frailty" is a film about perceptions of religion and realizing the differences between right and wrong.<br /><br />In "Frailty", a middle-aged father (Bill Paxton) and his two sons claim to be doing the work of God. It turns out that they are a trio of notorious serial killers called "God's Hands". We watch the father kill the "demons" in some rather brutal ways while convincing his sons and himself that they are doing the work God and that what they are doing is right. He claims that he received a message from an angel who gave him specific instructions to eliminate the demons living here on earth. God has given him a list of names and in return for his "services"; he and his sons will be given protection, which basically means the police will never be able to capture them. We see all of this unfold in front of us in a very disturbing manner. But what is really disturbing about it all is the effect that it has on the two sons, particularly the oldest son, Adam. Adam himself seriously doubts the existence of a supreme being, that is until his father and a week in the cellar changes all of that. He knows that his father has obviously lost his mind and is pretty sure the same is happening to his younger brother, Fenton. Fenton, the other half of this puzzle, takes everything in as if it were his own religion. He seems trapped in his father's world of God and demons. I suppose this is because he's so young and easily impressionable. But everything that happens to these three is rather convincing, in fact, TOO convincing. <br /><br />The events that occur in the film can be looked upon as a vivid hallucination that is being experienced by the three main characters. I say this because they each react to the situation in different ways and at one point in the film they each claim to see God. Dad first sees the murders as his mission. His "mission" eventually consumes him and quickly turns into an obsession with eradicating demons. In fact, his hallucination is the primary one. His "orders" and the list of names he receives are all a part of this hallucination. Watch the scene where Dad finds the ax in a barn to figure out where I am coming from. Fenton, the younger son, is easily impressed by all of this talk of demons and destruction. Since he is so young, it's easy for him to fall into his father's trap. Adam, on the other is very skeptical towards his father's actions. <br /><br />***SPOILERS*** <br /><br />In a way, the hallucination ends when Dad is killed towards the end of the movie. (I will not say how or under what circumstances). But I will say that it is not pleasant. After his death, it fast-forwards to the present day. (The story is being told through flashbacks, as seen through the eyes of the oldest son Adam). In actuality, it is Fenton that is telling the story, not Adam as originally believed. The story is being told the way he perceived it, through his actions and his brother's actions. Fenton has gone insane and is continuing what his father started by luring the FBI agent into his trap.<br /><br />Since religion is a major theme in this movie, the film also plays on how easy it is for religion to be misinterpreted by those that do not have a full understanding of it. Before Dad discovered his newfound mission, he himself did not have a clear understanding of religion nor did he fully believe in a supreme being. His sons Fenton and Adam often sang innocent little children's church hymns but yet probably did not have a clear understanding of what the lyrics meant. After the revelation of Dad's newfound mission, they both took off in separate directions - Adam remained in doubt of there being a supreme being while Fenton was gradually sucked into his father's madness. <br /><br />A very good thriller that will creep the heck out of you, do not watch it alone.

In 1967 I visited the Lake Elsinore glider-port and flew a yellow Pratt Read sailplane. Returning to Germany the above serious ran on TV and one segment was about the high altitude sailplane flights in California in the early 50ies. (The real life pilot was Bill Ivans, I don't know who played him in the series) It turned out that the sailplane in the film was the same (same N-number) as the one I had flown at Lake Elsinore. Ever since I saw that segment I have been searching for it and have been wondering if it is somewhere available. (other segments in that serious were about the Baker Ejection Seat; an instrument to find avalanche victims etc.

The mystery here is why this delightful, small comedy has been ignored by most critics and has failed to find the audience it deserves. Simply showcasing the budding talent of Audrey Tautou should be enough to generate greater recognition from the cognoscenti. <br /><br />Lacking in pretension and relying on quirky characterizations, itÕs rumination on the interconnection of human behavior manages to be both amusing and life affirming and, unlike some of itsÕ more critically acclaimed competition in the genre, such as The Taste of Others, it actually entertains.

If you were born around the time this movie was finished, and had a liberal/open minded household that I had, I'm sure during the early 80's you'd be first introduced to walking in on your parents watching dirty movies or extreme dirty movies. You know, not 100% pornographic but rather an alchemical mixture of actual drama and pornography, or that you'd sneak into their collection and pop in the plastic rectangle representation of such a film in a big dookie machine called a VHS. You had to be very quiet and ninja like but still having minor heart failure when huge pop noises were made when pressing the tablet-like buttons out of fear of being discovered. Whatever the case, such films were sent into the back of your mind, waiting and waiting to be reunited with such visual "art". Needless to say, this movie fits into the aforementioned description to a "T". Many people will comment on the extreme sexual nature of the film but perhaps due to me being desensitized, I am more disturbed by the subtleties. Was the creator speaking to us on deeper levels of human carnality and or what could be considered a true abomination, interracial relations, bed frame masturbation, voyeurism, or could it be desperation for social status to the point of murder, pedophilia/homosexuality, or the repressed sexual nature of social elitist females in 18th century France? Who can say, but despite Mr. Borowcyzk's taste for vivid, raw sexuality being the "norm" for his works, I'd say that indeed this movie does speak to the viewer on a deeper level concerning bestial carnality. Once I have learned this, the story became much more interesting beyond the giddiness of shock value and there fore, it is well worth checking out.

To borrow from Dorothy Parker: This is not a film to be tossed aside<br /><br />lightly. It should be thrown with great force.<br /><br />This is an excruciating mess. And I'm a Greenaway fan.<br /><br />MIND-NUMBINGLY AWFUL<br /><br />"The Mummy Returns" has much more artistic merit

I was expecting a movie similar to Deuce Bigalow, which I enjoyed. However, this dud seemed to last forever. It's one of those flicks which enjoys the sad placement of PG-13 while not being kid appropriate. The jokes aren't just low-brow or f**t jokes, they're crude, lewd, and many acts cross the boundaries to not only bad taste but beyond legal and moral decency. Many scenes appear to have been chopped to get the PG-13 rating...too bad...it might have made a bigger splash as an R-rated film if the funny was left in. (Overstatement? Probably.) I do not recommend this movie. It is a full-on waste of time...and I'm a movie lover and ready to give just about anything a shot. At 45 minutes in, the movie felt like it should be winding down...and boy were we ready for it to. The ending is quaint but doesn't salvage the rest of this quagmire/tourist trap of a rental. 1/2 star (glad I saw it as a freebie...would have been sickened to pay hard-earned greenbacks for this tripe)

I found The FBI Story considerably entertaining and suitably upbeat for my New Years Day holiday viewing. Its drama and action-packed episodes were thrilling. The Hardesty character was well drawn and admirable. Overall the photography, script and direction was perfectly creditable. Rather than taking the film to be a repugnant piece of propaganda, as some might, I enjoyed it as a well mounted portrayal of the necessity of ingenious minds and brave bodies in the fight against crime. Again, the depiction of a family holding together even under the strain of the husband's commitment to his (arguably) important work, I did not find to be a twee representation but an ideal and exemplary one.

Another Downey must-see! If you are an obsessed fan like me, you have got to see this movie! He plays Alex Finch, a 22 year old Yale grad who realizes that the life he just came into is the life he left 26 years earlier. Alex is the re-incarnation of Louie Jeffries, a no-nonsense lawyer happily married to Corrine (Cybil Sheppard). Louie is killed on their one-year anniversary when he is hit by a car. He demands to go back, only this time in the body of Alex Finch. Enter Robert Downey Jr., a lot of confusion, and a lot of laughs.<br /><br />Although this movie is 15-years old, it still makes you wonder if there really is such a thing as re-incarnation. And if so, how often to you meet the same souls life after life. I don't know the answer. But I do know that you need to see this movie. It is a riot, and Downey looks SO GOOD in a tuxedo. This film makes you believe in love, and true love never dies. It just gets recycled.

Modern, original, romantic story.<br /><br />Very good acting of both Nicole Kidman and Ben Chaplin.<br /><br />Miss Kidman does a nice job in imitating a Russian accent. Ben Chaplin is also good as the shy, dull clerk. For the men (and some women) : miss Kidman looks fantastic and is very sympathetic. I forgot what a gorgeous woman she is. It's not hard to imagine that John falls in love with her. Some unexpected turns in the story are good for the suspense. Although I hoped for a happy ending, the last part of the movie was quite a surprise for me. <br /><br />Conclusion : good movie. <br /><br />Les Pays-Bas : huit points.

It all starts with a suicide. Or is it a car crash? I guess it all depends on whether you choose to start at the beginning or the end. Director Gabriele Muccino gives you the ability to enter his new film Seven Pounds whichever way you prefer as he starts at the end and works his way back to the beginning, showing us the course of events that led us to that heartbreaking 911 call. This is one powerful movie; maybe that is because I'm a softy when it comes to dramas of this ilk, dripping with weighty moments and chock full of devastating performances, but either way, a film works best when it truly touches me, when it lingers in the back of my head hours after leaving the theatre. And this is from the team that brought us the overrated, sappy, and not all that redeeming Pursuit of Happiness, so I'll just say my anticipation was closely guarded for a big letdown. With all that, though, I was with Seven Pounds from the opening frame all the way until the credits rolled. Even though you figure out what Will Smith's character is doing, that secret mission he is trying to complete, it is the way in which he fulfills his penance that shines bright and leaves you with a tear-filled smile at the end.<br /><br />Our entry point is a bit jarring, leaving us off-kilter trying to comprehend what is going on. Smith's Thomas has lists of names, one of people we don't know and one of people it appears he is attempting to follow and audit. Working with the IRS allows him access to these strangers for a glimpse into their lives in order to see whether they are worthy of a gift he has the power to give them—a gift that could completely alter their circumstances. He calls an old childhood friend (Barry Pepper) and reminds him to do what it is he promised, to not second guess his decision because there is no changing his mind. Even in a role as small as Pepper's, you can't help but feel the utter grief held aloft in the background, hanging above everyone's head. It is his character, seen maybe three times, that really encompasses the primal level of emotion being dealt with. His breakdowns, whether tear-streaked and composed or head in hands convulsions, show the bond these two men have is one that stands the test of time and any circumstance to come its way.<br /><br />After that phone call, begins the journey to meet new people. Thomas is on some sort of mission to help alleviate the monetary troubles of mortally ill folk, trying to stay afloat despite the heavy burden of medical bills and survival. This progression takes many turns, from a "blind, vegan, meat salesman" that he berates to see whether he can get him to explode; to a phase two donor-necessity heart patient, unable to print her line of stationary, or even run with her Great Dane Duke; to an abused and scared Latino mother of two, too afraid to leave her boyfriend; to a dying hockey coach that instills faith in a downtrodden youth community; to a little boy in need of a bone marrow transplant. There are people who live with the pain and inevitable future with a disposition of hope and wanting to cherish each day, and there are those attempting to beat it by cutting corners and spending all their money at the expense of those who need it to go out in style. Why it is up to Thomas to weed through the mix and find those that deserve his "gift" is unknown at first, as is why this man, seen in flashbacks as an aeronautical engineer with a beautiful wife and huge beachfront home, is now living in a motel, driving a beat-up car, going door to door in order to audit for the IRS. As he says, though, "he kind of stumbled into the job".<br /><br />Smith's quest as Thomas is a long and painful one, tempered with moments of clarity and honest compassion. As a man with the means to help, he takes his job seriously, crossing off people undeserving and testing those he believes are worthy to the nth degree. If that means he must yell and make fun of them, he must do it. At every step, though, you see the suffering in his eyes, the pain eating away at his soul, taking each step towards his fate, one as a saint of redemption, not only for those he wants to help, but for himself as well. It is an award-worthy performance and I only wish Smith would do more dramas like this instead of his blockbuster action summer tentpoles, because, while they are fun, this guy is too good for them. The man better win an Oscar before he is done or it will be a travesty—at least in my mind.<br /><br />The rest of the cast is stellar across the board. Woody Harrelson as the blind salesman is pitch-perfect handicap with a joy of life. His shy smile and belief in humanity comes across throughout, whether on the phone being yelled at, sitting in a diner eating his pie, or at the piano in the park, playing for all who will listen. Elpidia Carrillo, as the abused mother, is fantastic, showing the hard evolution from prideful to scared to completely overwhelmed by the kindness of a stranger, allowing her family to finally be safe. And Rosario Dawson shines as the "once hot" young woman, beaten and broken by lengthy hospital stays, all but given up on living life to find love and happiness. It is the introduction of Smith's Thomas that opens her eyes again to be a woman, a free-spirited sexual creature that can just live without fear of wondering what day will be her last.

Unless somebody enlightens me, I really have no idea what this movie is about. It looks like a picture with a message but it´s far from it. This movie tells pointless story of a New York press agent and about his problems. And, that´s basically all. When that agent is played by Pacino, one must think that it must be something important. But it takes no hard thinking to figure out how meaningless and dull this movie is. To one of the best actors in the world, Al Pacino, this is the second movie of the year (the other is "Simone") that deserves the title "the most boring and the most pointless motion picture of the year". So, what´s going on, Al?

I've seen a lot of movies and rarely would I ever rate a movie "1" but this movie was beyond terrible.<br /><br />The acting was terrible, the plot was ridiculous, the effects were unrealistic and the characters were annoying. Usually when I watch scary movies I think it's DUMB when the characters hears a noise in house/forest/school/etc and then yells out "hello is anyone there?" - but at least they're believable when they do it.. This movie couldn't even get that right.<br /><br />This is a movie that'll make other B-horror movies like Venom and The Fog look like academy award winning masterpieces.<br /><br />I always have an open mind while watching movies and I can only say that this movie was a complete waste of time and I write this comment so that anyone else who's thinking of watching this movie will think again. IT'S AWFUL!

Well, I can once and for all put an end to the question: 'What is the worst movie ever made...ever?' It is Flight of Fury, starring and co-written by Steven Seagal. Sure there are lots of famously bad movies, but this one takes the cake in that it takes itself so seriously.<br /><br />It is a Romanian-made film that speaks to just how far Romania has to go to catch up with Bollywood. It also speaks to just how utterly devoid of intellect and talent Steven Seagal has become. This movie is so bad that you literally feel violated after watching it and need to crouch in the corner of the shower and cry, knowing that nothing will make you feel clean again.<br /><br />It was released only on video (I can't imagine why) and I suspect the workers that had to make the DVD's had to wear protective gear and receive regular counseling.

Cowboys James Stewart and Walter Brennan take their herd from Seattle to Alaska and on into Canada to stake a claim. Once there, they have to contend with seductive, shifty businesswoman Ruth Roman and ice-cold, happy-go-lucky villain James McIntire.<br /><br />John Wayne may get talked about more, but his good pal Stewart made some excellent, hard-edged westerns too, some with the great director Anthony Mann. Frankly, I'd take this, with it's sturdy action sequences and fine melodrama, over North To Alaska any day!<br /><br />The Far Country features some breathtaking scenery and cinematography that should definitely have been shot in widescreen.<br /><br />Also, there's some strong support by the always reliable Brennan, Roman (who's great), the incredibly cute Corrine Calvet, and James McIntire, who plays one of my favorite types of bad guy, the kind that doesn't take himself too seriously.<br /><br />This would make a great double-bill with another highly recommended Mann/Stewart northwest-set western, Bend Of The River.

BASEketball is indeed a really funny movie. David Zucker manages to make us all laugh our heads off again, in a really silly, but many times smart, comedy.<br /><br />The 2 creators of South Park, the main actors in this film, play very good, surprisingly good actually, but this is the first time i see them as actors. The movie oftenly reminded me of South Park - one of my fav shows.<br /><br />It's a really good and funny film, so don't miss it.<br /><br />Vote: 7.5 out of 10.

I would like to know why John Amos left the show, and how did he die off the show again? I couldn't relate to everything, but sometimes they hit home with the problems they were facing. By the way, did they ever make it out of the ghetto? I think the episode with the black Jesus was my favorite. We got to see them experience a few good times. something they didn't have very often. I wish they would bring the show back. During the daytime so people can actually stay up to watch. I don't think a movie or a new show would work. Especially without the original cast. They are really what made Good Times GoodTimes. These are my questions and comments. Thank You!!

Spoilers ahead, but does it really matter? Have you ever read a movie review composed entirely of questions? Could this be it? Why did an ancient civilization bury artifacts all over the world? Why is this question never answered? Why was the opening text crawl incoherent? Why would a nun (she sure seemed nice!) hand over 20 orphans to a madman? Has there always been a gold mine in downtown Vancouver? Why does one of the gold mine's shafts exit in the front yard of an orphanage? Why does Tara Reid's character suddenly show up at Christian Slater's apartment for sex? (Or did I just answer my own question?) Why would even a non-archaeologist bang open an obviously valuable solid gold chest with a sledgehammer? Why would modern computers still display green pre-Tron-era grid outlines of objects, complete with little "bleeps"? And must all movie explosive timers have digital displays? Why doesn't ANYTHING in this movie make any sense?

George Raft as Steve Brodie, the carefree, dancing gambler who can never refuse a dare, is pitted against the lumbering, sentimental, Chuck Connors (Wallace Beery).A soft touch for every panhandler, Connors impulsively adopts waifs and strays, notably runaway orphan "Swipes" (Jackie Cooper, complete with kittens!) and the homeless Lucy Calhoun, an out-of-town innocent with ambitions to become a writer. <br /><br />In this male-dominated culture, communication takes place mostly in the form of violence (one sees why THE BOWERY is a Martin Scorsese favorite). Exploding cigars provide a running gag. "Swipes" enjoys throwing rocks through windows in Chinatown, on one occasion setting a laundry alight. (The simultaneous arrival of both Brodie's and Beery's volunteer fire companies leads to a brawl, during which the building burns to the ground.) Beery casually saps a troublesome girl, and thumps anyone who disagrees with him, including Brodie, whom he defeats, in a night-time fist fight on a moored barge, to regain control of his saloon, lost on a bet that Brodie wouldn't have the courage to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge. (Brodie does make the leap, but only because a subterfuge with a dummy fails at the last moment.)<br /><br />As usual, Walsh fills the frame with detail, illustrating with relish the daily life of the tenderloin; singing waiters, bullying barmen, whores from Suicide Hall being hustled into the Black Maria, tailors collaring hapless hicks off the street and forcing them to buy suits they don't want. A minor but admirable little film.

He pulled the guys guts out his butt! That's a spoof right?! No one really writes that it just happens like improv gone horribly wrong. I think any way. This movie must be a spoof because who would say they wrote that script otherwise. Can anyone imagine the entire cast sitting around as the director and writers go over the storyboard.<br /><br />Director says, "next our inbreed villain uses his 24 inch machete to disembowel our token creepy neighbor. Get this, he is going to pull the guts out his bunghole"<br /><br />"Brilliant!" the entire cast proclaims.<br /><br />No way can that happen, nobody writes that stupid! Gotta be a spoof.<br /><br />I loved the part where the skinny introspective gal beats the inbreed freak to death with the cast iron skillet she finds on the floor of the cave. I wasn't sure the inbreed cannibal types bothered to cook much. Maybe that explains why the skillet was lying on the floor in the dark at just the right time to kill the malformed hulk. Seems ironic that after the freaky guy had bested martial arts expert porn queens and a couple out doors type jocks he falls so easily to the frying pan of a skinny defenseless girl next door. <br /><br />What the heck is that Richard Greco guy doing in this? Did he fire his agent or something? <br /><br />Can anyone explain the ending to me please because I didn't get it either? I can't quite figure why the nice hero girl wanted to kill the funny lady who was making her some tea. Never mind I don't want to know.

Now here is a film that if made in Australia would have easily been a comedy. Sadly and annoyingly, here it is, flaccid and cheesy and overbaked from Lala land. How did the di-erector get it so wrong? Well, mainly by being serious about a job so hilariously startling that nobody in their right mind could take seriously. Unless of course they were a nerdy lonely gay cliché (but somehow cute)...or is that cliché piled upon cliché. No value in the story that almost seems like a prequel to Gus Van Sant's GERRY..... and with a title like THE FLUFFER how is it all such a lead weight? Well this auteur must have soooooo mad that he didn't get to Burt and BOOGIE first that he had to make his own. Convoluted and undeveloped apart from the 'unrequited love's a bore' theme left over from a faded Streisand lyric, we have only moody beefcake and TV serial level storyline left. The un necessary fourth act of this overlong turgid drama is truly terrible as the film wanders off like the Gerries into to desert and gets stuck there. In Oz in the late 90s some 20 somethings made a similar but actually hilarious film called MONEYSHOT. Originally filmed as THE VENUS FACTORY it too suffered from an auteur more awful than Orson so they re-filmed half of it, got a ruthless TV editor to chop it up and down down to 72 minutes and hey-presto..comedy, tonight! A lesson there in when bad films turn good by lightening up. I guess THE FLUFFER stiffed on release and after seeing it not perform, I can understand why.

i searched video store everywhere to find this movie, being the huge elvis fan that i am, and i found it to be a huge disappointment. kurt russel had most of the "elvis moves" down and the voice imitation was great, but the dubbed in singing voice of elvis just didnt work for me. the voice didnt always match up with russels mouth, and it was hard for me to get lost in the plot because it bothered me that it was noticeable. also, there were so many freaking discrepancies in the film, people who dont know much about elvis would probably think them to be facts. songs are sung by him earlier than he recorded them in real life, the time when he got his first guitar is wrong, im pretty sure his brother jesse garron was buried in an unmarked grave, not one with a huge headstone reading JESSE GARRON. i know it was just a tv movie, but they skipped over important events, like the come-back-special, and dragged some scenes out for way too long. if you want to see a good movie that shows elvis in his prime rent THATS THE WAY IT IS, or another elvis concert. hearing and seeing the real elvis preform is the only way to truly see his talent. (brilliant statement i know, but still...go out and rent a good elvis flic.)

Avoid this crap at all costs. Bad script, bad directing, bad acting, bad editing, bad sound, and bad music. Get the idea? This movie tries to be western flavored, it's not. It tries to be hard core violent, it's not. It tries to present a fresh look at an old genre, it doesn't. The actors try there best, and my heart goes out to them. But with such inane material to work with it's hard to make something shine. To me this has all of the looks of a "fresh outta film school gonna set the world on fire" first attempt. Freshmen film makers often bite off more that they, or their budget, can chew. The best thing they can do is to take a few steps back, reassess what is possible, and work within their limited budget the next time out.

Nothing could have saved this movie, not even Superman.<br /><br />Ten years ago the special effects would have been amazing. Better directing might have gotten some more feeling and better performances out of the actors. But nothing but feeding the script to a dragon could have fixed it. Plot holes, bad lines, terrible pacing, endless replaying of the same shots of a CGI dragon stomping through hallways... ugh.<br /><br />Avoid this one at all costs.<br /><br />

Hobgoblins....Hobgoblins....where do I begin?!?<br /><br />This film gives Manos - The Hands of Fate and Future War a run for their money as the worst film ever made. This one is fun to laugh at, where as Manos was just painful to watch. Hobgoblins will end up in a time capsule somewhere as the perfect movie to describe the term: "80's cheeze". The acting (and I am using this term loosely) is atrocious, the Hobgoblins are some of the worst puppets you will ever see, and the garden tool fight has to be seen to be believed. The movie was the perfect vehicle for MST3K, and that version is the only way to watch this mess. This movie gives Mike and the bots lots of ammunition to pull some of the funniest one-liners they have ever done. If you try to watch this without the help of Mike and the bots.....God help you!!

I bought the DVD of Before Sunset and saw it for the first time a week ago. Having saw it twice, I couldn't help but missing Before Sunrise, not because the sequel was not as great, but I felt that these two movies completed each other like no other sequels ever did, every time I finished watching one of them, I feel the need and yearning to see the other. So, I ended up spending the weeks watching both of them repeatedly, I will be quite embarrassed to mention how many times exactly. The most remarkable thing about Before Sunrise is how you feel the development of the feelings of their characters towards each other. It sounds so simple, the growing of the chemistry, I think other romantic films might think that they succeed to track the development, but to me - who doesn't believe in Nora Ephron - Before Sunrise is the first film to really gives the viewers chance to feel it. When I saw it for the first time, about 8 year ago when I was 20, I already liked it. But, I didn't rate it as a "great film", it still seemed to me like another thinking persons' feel good movie, Linklater was too smart to make it more realistic, it was 10 minutes too long, the characters was too well fabricated, I thought I liked it because it was like a dream and because I enjoyed their conversations, etc. etc.. But now, thanks to Before Sunset, I feel that's more to Before Sunrise than what I felt for it before. I saw the elements more clearly: Jesse, Celine, Vienna, their conversations, everything. How each of them are separated element by itself, and they have a chance to mix, the story is just a frame of time, I am no longer feel manipulated. And the freedom that every scene has, as well as its refusal to be overly efficient, how blind I was that those qualities didn't strike me as exceptional when I first saw it! Now, 8 year have passed, the more movies I've seen, the more I realize that many movies are just collections of ordered scenes that only exist for the sake of its ending, even movies like Pulp Fiction or Linklaters's own Slackers included. The Jesse and Celine tale avoid that, maybe Before Sunset is a better example in this case, but Before Sunrise is also one of few films that its ending is just a consequence of time, not a destination, every single scene has its own life. I don't know whether Linklater or anyone else had a sequel in mind when they made Before Sunrise, but to me, one of the most amazing things about these sequels are how these two films visually contrast each other. Before Sunrise which I think employs more static angels and brighter color schemes, seems to try to capture the smallest atoms of liveliness surrounding Jesse and Celine, the world is always full of hope whether or not the characters feel it. Meanwhile, I enter the vision of boredom as Jesse stuck talking to the journalists in Before Sunset, and Celine's first smile from behind the shelves are the most heartbreaking smile I've seen in a beginning of a film, and the many moving shots after that takes me to a place I don't know with a sadness in me, no matter how beautiful Paris is, and no matter how happy I am that they meet again. I'm sorry that I go on this long with my limited English, Before Sunrise is already an extraordinary film without me pouring my scattered thoughts, and it gets even better with an equally great sequel following it.

Deanna Durbin, Nan Grey and Barbara Read are "Three Smart Girls" in this Universal film from 1936, which introduces Deanna Durbin to film audiences. It also stars Ray Milland, Mischa Auer, Charles Winninger, John King, Binnie Barnes and Alice Brady. It's a sweet story about three young women, now living in Switzerland with their divorced mother, who hear their father (Winninger) is marrying again. Not having seen him in 10 years and knowing their mother still loves him, they board a ship to America, with the help of the housekeeper/nanny, determined to stop the wedding. Realizing that the intended, called "Precious" (Barnes) is nothing but a gold-digger aided and abetted by her mother (Brady), they arrange for her to be introduced to a wealthy Count. This is arranged by their father's accountant (King). The man he chooses is a full-time drunk (Auer), but the girls mistake him for an actual wealthy count (Milland). What a mess.<br /><br />This is a delightful film, not cloying or overly sugary at all, with some nice performances, particularly by Auer, Milland, Barnes and Brady. The young women are pretty and all do good work. The emphasis, of course, is on young Durbin, who is a natural actress and a beautifully-trained singer. In fact, her voice as a youngster is much more even than it would be as an adult - she has no trouble with the high notes, as she did later on because she put too much weight in the middle voice. She sings a delightful "Il Bacio" in a police station.<br /><br />One of the nicest things about the film is to see the father, played by Charles Winninger, not want his children around - until he sees them and gets to know them. Barnes as the gold-digger isn't all that young, but the girls' mother looks way up there, so the inference probably was the older man seeking his youth with a younger, more glamorous woman. In fact, he finds the youth he was seeking in his daughters.<br /><br />Universal gives Durbin the big star buildup here - she has the final shot in the movie. Ray Milland at this point was still paying his dues, and it will probably be a surprise even to film fans how young and attractive he is.<br /><br />Very entertaining and of course, this led to a sequel and big stardom for Deanna.

Damn, was that a lot to take in. I was pretty much mesmerised throughout. It was pretty perfect, though I would say the editing had a lot to do with that. I can't believe this guy stayed on good terms with the lot of them (Anton especially) to get all of this footage without any serious... beef. The Dandy's did come off well-together, middle-class kids who took advantage of their situation (and rightly so!). I felt bad for Jonestown and especially for Anton, which maybe wasn't what a lot of other people felt. Great piece of film-making and great choice of subject(s). I recommend this to any music/film fan. You'll probably learn something about film-making.

Story says that on that on December 28, 1895, a small group of thirty-three people was gathered at Paris's Salon Indien Du Grand Café to witness the Cinématographe, a supposedly new invention that resulted from the work done by a couple of photographers named August and Louis Lumière. The small audience reunited that day (some by invitation, most due to curiosity) didn't really know what to expect from the show, and when a stationary photograph appeared projected on a screen, most thought that the Cinématographe was just another fancy devise to present slide-show projections. Until the photograph started to move. What those thirty-three people experienced in awe that cold day of December was the very first public screening of a moving picture being projected on a screen; history was being written and cinema as we know it was born that day.<br /><br />Of the 10 short movies that were shown during that historic day, "La Sortie Des Usines Lumière" (literally "Exiting the Lumière Factory") was the very first to be screened. The film shows the many workers of the Lumière factory as they walk through the gates of the factory, leaving the building at the end of a hard day of work. While a very basic "actuality film" (movie depicting a real event), the movie took everyone in the audience by surprise, as their concept of moving pictures was limited to Edison's "Peep Show" machines (the Kinetoscope), the brothers' invention was like nothing they had seen before and so the audience stood in awe, as the people and the horses moved across the screen. The idea wasn't entirely new (Le Prince shot the first movie as early as 1888), but the way of showing the movie was simply revolutionary.<br /><br />"La Sortie Des Usines Lumière" would become the first in the long series of "actuality films" that the Lumière would produce over the years. This primitive form of documentary was the brothers' favorite kind of film because they were more interested in the technological aspects of their invention than in the uses the Cinématographe could have. Despite the initial lack of enthusiasm, after the first showing the Cinématographe became a great success and "La Sortie Des Usines Lumière" quickly became an iconic image of that first screening. It definitely wasn't the first movie the brothers shot that year, and it probably wasn't the best of the 10 movies shown that day (personally I think that "L' Arroseur Arrosé" was the best of the 10); however, it is really meaningful that the very first movie was the opening of a pair of gates, as literally, this movie opened the gates to cinema as we know it. 8/10

Hands down the worst movie I have ever seen. I thought nothing would ever dethrone Last Action Hero, but this does easily. The movie is about 3 single guys who meet on Sundays to discuss their sexual escapades from the weekend. A fourth guy - who is married and - that used to be a part of the group shows up and talks about what he and his wife do. Nothing works in this movie. The jokes are not funny but they are repeated throughout the movie. The big kicker at the end of the movie is laughable. Avoid at all costs.

I was excited when I heard they were finally making this horrific event into a movie. The whole era (1980's Southern California) and subject matter (drug and porn industry) is intriguing to me. I thought this would be a sure fire hit. I was not thrilled with the choice of Kilmer as Holmes, they do not resemble each other in physical appearance or mannerisms. I guess he sells tickets? However, I was willing to overlook this and give it a fair shot. I was a bit shocked that there were only like four other people in the entire theater with me on that first day of showing. Now the whole crime and story in the film is hard to do, I will admit that. There were no witnesses to this very violent and brutal act. John Holmes was there, but he was also a pathological liar and worried about what would happen to his family (and self) if he talked to police about it. In fact, Holmes never really testified about what happened and the crime did go unsolved. So this was still really one big mystery, a mystery that this movie does nothing to cast light on. The person writing the screenplay had a whole lot of discretion and most of the principal characters are dead. However, there is no real storyline, it is fragmented claptrap. The script is light and the actors try to hard to beef up paper thin lines by overacting. The film gives no insight into Holmes or the other people involved. Kilmer's character disappears for long stretches, his girlfriend is dull, the police are jokes. Even Kudrow tries hard to make a flimsy role look substantial. It is a very shallow piece and dare I say, boring. The director even tries to turn it into a love story. Which is nice, unless you know anything about what a piece of trash John Holmes really was. Perhaps a couple of viewings of Anderson's "Boogie Nights" might have helped here. "Boogie Nights" was innovative and exciting in all regards. This film on the other hand was flat and without any real charm or style. Even the music is out of place, with Duran Duran being played in a scene that was supposed to have taken place in 1980. Then we have Gordon Lightfoot? Gordon Lightfoot? There could have been a great film based on this gruesome event, but I have not seen it yet. I have not seen even a decent one yet (unless you consider the Rahad Jackson scene from Boogie Nights).

This movie is definitely on the list of my top 10 favorites. The voices for the animals are wonderful. Sally Field and Michael J. Fox are both brilliant as the sassy feline and the young inexperienced pooch, but the real standout is Don Ameche as the old, faithful golden retriever. This movie is a great family movie because it can be appreciated and loved by children as well as adults. Humorous and suspenseful, and guaranteed to make every animal lover cry! (happy tears!)

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

You got to go and dig those holes. Holes only leaves troble, which makes a movie so good. Disney has done it again.Shia LaBeouf should be nominated for Best Actor for his performance as Stanley Yelnats. He has alredy won the Daytime Emmy for Best Actor in a Comedy Series (Even Stevens). Holes is one of the best movies in 2003.

William Russ is the main character throughout this made for TV movie. He left his family behind to only reappear and begin paying off his debts. But he tries to keep away from his family. Thats where Peter Falk (Colombo) comes in, playing several different roles, to convince him to come home.<br /><br />The story is average and they actually managed to get a former star (Peter Falk) and use him to a fairly nice degree. But William Russ wasn't truly a star. However, it appears his acting is still OK.<br /><br />I found the delivery and story very cheesy in how everything was predictable. In fact, the last 20 minutes I could almost dictate word for word before it happened. A good movie should never be like that.<br /><br />Overall, it was a sub-par movie. In a letter grading system, it would receive a "D".

In order to stop her homosexual friend Albert (Perry King) from being deported back to Belgium, Stella (Meg Foster) decides to marry him. The only other problem with that is that Stella herself is a lesbian. The two have their separate lives when one night after Albert's birthday party, they fall into bed and then into love. Later in the film after falling in love, Stella suspects Albert of cheating and shows up at his job one night late after closing. What she finds will leave the viewer stunned. This is a great film, very original. Perry King and Meg Foster are so good in their roles that it is amazing that they were not better recognized for their work here. Very controversial upon its release in 1978, the "R" rated film is now "PG" in this much more liberal time.<br /><br />Recently released on DVD, the disc contains a "Making Of" segment on the special features and in it it's stated that the film was based on an actual story so the viewers who say the film is not "real" are mistaken. Everyone is an individual and different people fall in love for different reasons-these are the issues explored in this wonderful film for everyone who has ever loved!

A weird, witty and wonderful depiction of family life! Writer Andrew Marshall has written something that is funny, foreboding and occasionally frightening! Yes, don't be fooled by 2point4 children's cheerful tune and bubbly characters; the show has a dark side, and at times can be quite chilling. And that's what's so good about the show, it's not just a simplistic sitcom where every character is a 2D comic device (the case with My Family). Instead the characters are fully rounded individuals that show the full roller-coaster of human emotions. The occasionally dark moments such as Bill being supposedly haunted by a curse and Ben waking up in a bizarre village are two examples of the show taking a surreal, dark turn, that help add a little depth. Of course the show is also incredibly funny, and is a guaranteed to make you smile. It's a real shame Eureka Video have stopped releasing this comical gold on DVD. Veoh.com is your last hope to get hold of episodes unavliable in the shops.

I am a huge horror/splatter fan, I even enjoy horror films some people consider as stupid. I also like gore. The more the merrier as long as it has a point.<br /><br />After reading the other people's reviews on the site I was sure this film was going to be a little gem. But much to my disappointment it proved to be one of the most pointless films I've ever watched.<br /><br />The acting was terrible, the dialogs were stupid, the plot was pointless, the special effects were useless and the editing was probably done by someone who has been dead for the past 2 years. Usually i find that all these characteristics make a great b horror movie . But not in this case.<br /><br />I waisted 11 EUR to get this DVD. <br /><br />Unless you actually enjoy pointless gore ( for example the "violent sh*t" films) avoid at any cost!

I have to admit that I went into Fever Pitch with low expectations. It's no huge revelation for me to say that Jimmy Fallon's last movie (Taxi) was Catwomanly bad, and the trailers for Fever Pitch were all right but didn't mesmerize me. I was already preparing some cheesy baseball puns for my review...<br /><br />"I like Jimmy Fallon, but Taxi was strike one in his movie career. Well, now we've got steeeeee-riiiiiike twoooooooo! One more strike, and it's back to SNL!" or "Buy yourself some peanuts and cracker jacks, but don't buy tickets to Fever Pitch. You'll walk out of the theater and never go back!" Then the movie had to go and be way more entertaining than I was expecting. But hey, I couldn't let my puns go to waste, right? Another reason I thought I wouldn't care for the movie is that I hate the Boston Red Sox. My whole family hates 'em. The mere mention of Pedro Martinez' name sends me running to the bathroom. Oh man, hold on...<br /><br />...All right, I'm back. Anyway, my mom, who is a St. Louis Cardinals fan, still believes the World Series was rigged last year. She refuses to believe the Sox won it legitimately. But I'm man enough to admit that Fever Pitch caused me to sympathize, albeit only slightly, with the plight of Red Sox fans.<br /><br />Anybody who has a passion for sports will be able to relate to this movie on some level. Unless you have a favorite sports team you can't fully understand the extreme highs and lows that a fan such as Fallon's Ben can go through. There's nothing quite so fresh as the smell of a new season and nothing quite so smooth as a clean slate. Well, figuratively speaking. It's the joy of being a sports fan. "Wait 'til next year," becomes your mantra, your motto, your prayer - and Fever Pitch effectively captures that essence.<br /><br />I love the fact that the movie takes a fictional story and throws it against the real-life backdrop of the Red Sox' improbable World Series run last year. I don't love it so much that I want to marry it, but you know what I mean. I expected this to be handled in a fairly cheesy manner, and while some of the humor is a little silly, it's actually pretty realistic.<br /><br />You see, Ben's uncle took him to his first Red Sox game when he was 7 years old, and when he died he left Ben his two season tickets. Ben hasn't missed a game in 23 years. At the beginning of each season he has a draft day where he and his friends get together to figure out who gets to go to which games with him. He makes everybody dance for the Yankees games and whenever somebody complains he threatens them with tickets for the games with the Royals (sorry Mr. Shade) and the Devil Rays. It's a very good scene, and it works so well because I actually know of people who do the "ticket draft day." I also must admit that I can relate to when Ben goes to dinner with Lindsey and her parents. The Red Sox are playing a road game, but instead of watching it live on TV Ben decides to tape it. One of the most dangerous things in life is taping a game and then being in public and trying to avoid hearing the result. Been there. It's a very tense and scary situation. Weeeeeell, Ben enters the danger zone when a guy shows up at the restaurant and mentions watching the game. Ben immediately covers his ears and starts shrieking like a banshee so as not to hear the outcome. Lindsey is embarrassed, and her parents don't know what to think. Yeah, sports fans can be weird, I don't deny it. But it's real.<br /><br />Now if you're expecting the crude, edgy stuff that the Farrelly brothers are known for then you could be disappointed. They do have their moments though, like when Ben says he likes how Lindsey sometimes talks out of the side of her mouth "like an adorable stroke victim," but overall this is definitely a softer, more romantic side that the bros are putting on display.<br /><br />That's not to say that the movie ever gets way too sappy. Thankfully, when the sap starts to ooze a bit, the Farrellys know when to pull away. A romantic moment with Lindsey jumping on the field and running over to Ben to declare her undying love for him turns into Ben sincerely replying, "You've gotta tell me about the outfield. Is it spongy?" Jimmy Fallon proves that with the right material he can handle himself well on the big screen, and Drew Barrymore remains a constant source of romantic comedy charm. Fever Pitch is just good, solid entertainment that takes a somewhat fresh look at the romantic comedy genre. It's a movie that guys and gals can both relate to. Particularly the guys who practice sports fanaticism at some point during the year and the ladies who must deal with 'em.<br /><br />Now if the Red Sox fans could please shut up about the "Curse of the Bambino" I would appreciate it. My Memphis Tigers have NEVER won the NCAA basketball championship, so I officially declare my plight greater than yours.<br /><br />THE GIST Fans of Jimmy Fallon, Drew Barrymore, romantic comedy, the Red Sox, baseball, or sports fanaticism in general should consider giving Fever Pitch a look. I wouldn't go out of my way to rush and see it at the first available time, but it'll make a great matinée.<br /><br />Rating: 3.25 (out of 5)

The movie starts with a pair of campers, a man and a woman presumably together, hiking alone in the vast wilderness. Sure enough the man hears something and it pangs him so much he goes to investigate it. Our killer greets him with a stab to the stomach. He then chases the girl and slashes her throat. The camera during the opening scene is from the point of view as the killer.<br /><br />We next meet our four main characters, two couples, one in which is on the rocks. The men joke about how the woman would never be able to handle camping alone at a double date, sparking the token blonde's ambition to leave a week early. Unexpectedly, the men leave the same day and their car breaks down.. They end up arriving in the evening. When the men arrive, they are warned about people disappearing in the forest by a crazy Ralph doppleganger. They ignore the warning and venture into the blackening night and an eighties song plays in the background with lyrics about being murdered in the dark forest. The men get lost.<br /><br />In the next scene we realize that this isn't just another The Burning clone, but a ghost story! The women, scared and lonely are huddling together by the fire. Two children appear in the shadows and decide to play peeping Tom. Well they are obviously ghosts by the way their voices echo! Their mother appears with blood dripping from a hole in her forehead and asks the two ladies if they've seen her children, before disappearing of course. <br /><br />The children run home to papa and tell him about the two beautiful ladies by the river. This causes quite a stir and he gets up, grabbing his knife from atop the fireplace. "Daddy's going hunting," The little girl, exclaims with bad acting. It is apparent here, that the dad isn't a ghost like his children.<br /><br />Freaked out by something in the woods, the token blonde splits, running blindly into the night, carrying a knife. She encounters the father who explains he's starving and it will be quick. This doesn't make sense because of the panther growls we heard earlier (Maybe he's allergic! Are panthers honestly even in California?) She ends up wounding him slightly before getting stabbed in the head. A thunderstorm erupts and the men seek shelter, which turns out to be where papa resides. Clearly someone lives here because there's a fire and something weird is roasting over it. The children appear and warn them of papa, who shows up moments later. They disappear as soon as he arrives.<br /><br />For whatever reason, our killer only goes after females. He invites the men to have something to eat and tells us the story about his ex wife. We are given a flashback of his wife getting caught cheating. The old man doesn't tell them however that he kills her and her lover afterwards, but daydreams about it. We aren't given the reason for the children's demise. The men go to sleep and are left unharmed. The next morning the men discover the empty campground of their wives. After a brief discussion they split up. One is to stay at the campsite, while the other goes and gets help. The one that is going back to his car breaks his leg. We are then reunited with the children as they explain to the surviving woman that they are ghosts who killed themselves from being sad about their mother. They agree to help the woman reunite with her friends<br /><br />The following scene defies the logic of the movie when papa kills the guy waiting at the campsite. He was also dating or married to the blonde. Somehow the children realize he is murdered and tell the woman about it. She decides to see it for herself and obviously runs into the killer. Luckily the children make him stop by threatening to leave him forever. You know where this is going.<br /><br />Overall the movie deserves four stars out of ten, and that's being generous. For all its misgivings, the musical score is well done. It's still watchable too. There are some camera angles that look professional, and some of the sets are done well. The plot is unbelievable. There is such a thing as willing suspension of disbelief, but with the toad 6 miles away; I can't imagine the token blonde would take off like that in the middle of the night. I mean, come on!<br /><br />- Alan "Skip" Bannacheck

My friends and I rented this from Blockbuster because we saw Nana Visitor's name on the box. This movie is a travesty I hope she negates from her CV.<br /><br />The "plot" was lose and flaccid, the acting was mostly dry and unbearable in some parts. The movie made no sense whatsoever. The rough plot of an alien parasite species that infects humans has been done many times by films with much better scripts than this, for example, invasion of the body-snatchers and The faculty.<br /><br />If you ever have the misfortune to come across this movie, I suggest you burn it.<br /><br />How it classes itself as a horror movie when there was no use of fear, suspense, gore, terror or any of the usual horror film techniques I don't know, however if you still find yourself wanting to watch this film I suggest you have a lot of sugar before hand, so you can find parts of it funny.

This picture started out with good intentions, Bacon the scientist out to test the theory of invisibility, and Shue is cute as usual in her role. It all falls apart after that, it's your typical Hollywood thriller now, filmed on a soundstage with special effects galore, minus any kind of humour, wit or soul. In other words, don't waste your time watching this. Get the audiocassette tape with John DeLancie as the Invisible Man instead, also starring Leonard Nimoy. Now that was good, and HG Wells is well served, unlike with this mess.

Holes is a fable about the past and the way it affects the present lives of at least three people. One of them I will name, the other two are mysteries and will remain so. Holes is a story about Stanley Yelnats IV. He is unlucky in life. Unlucky in fact characterizes the fates of most of the Yelnats men and has been since exploits of Stanley IV's `no good-dirty-rotten-pig-stealing-great-great-grandfather.' Those particular exploits cursed the family's men to many an ill-fated turn. It is during just such a turn that we meet Stanley IV. He has been accused, falsely, of stealing a pair of baseball shoes, freshly donated to a homeless shelter auction, by a famous baseball player. He is given the option of jail, or he can go to a character building camp. `I've never been to camp before,' says Stanley. With that the Judge enthusiastically sends him off to Camp Green Lake.<br /><br />Camp Green Lake is an odd place, with an odd philosophy, `If you take a bad boy, make him dig a hole every day in the hot sun, it will turn him into a good boy.' We learn this little pearl of wisdom from Mr. Sir (John Voight) one of the camp's `counselors.' We get the impression right away that he is a dangerous man. He at least wears his attitude honestly; he doesn't think he is nice. The camp's guidance councilor, Mr. Pendanski (Tim Blake Nelson) is a different matter entirely. He acts the part of the caring sensitive counselor, but he quick, quicker than anyone else in authority to unleash the most cruel verbal barbs at his charges. The Warden has a decided capacity for meanness, but other than that she is a mystery. These three rule Camp Green Lake, a place that has no lake. It is just a dry dusty desert filled with holes, five feet deep and five feet wide. Its local fauna, seem only to be the vultures, and dangerous poisonous yellow-spotted lizards. Green Lake seems is, in many ways, a haunted place.<br /><br />Holes works in spite of the strange setting, and the strange story, because it understands people. Specifically because it is honest in the way it deals with the inmates of Camp Green Lake. The movie captures the way boys interact with one another perfectly. It captures the way boys can bully each other, they way they can win admiration, the way they fight with one another, and the way boys ally themselves along the age line. It is this well nuanced core that makes everything else in the film believable. What is also refreshing about this film the good nature of its main character. He does not believe in a family curse, he is not bitter about the infamous exploits of his `no good-dirty-rotten-pig-stealing-great-great-grandfather.' In fact he loves hearing the story. Stanley IV is not bitter about the past, and determined not let it affect him in the way it has affected his father and grandfather. There is at times a lot of sadness in the film, but not a lot wallowing angsty silliness. And that is refreshing.<br /><br />Holes is an intelligent, insightful and witty family movie. It entertains, and not in any cheap way. It is not a comedy, though it has its laughs. It dares to be compelling, where many family movies tend to play it safe and conventional. As such it transcends the family movie genera and simply becomes a good film that everyone can enjoy. I give it a 10.

There were a lot of things going against this movie for me before I watched it.<br /><br />First, I was a typical high school senior, in a Shakespeare class I didn't really even like, much less understood half of! Shakespeare would be no more than UNINTELLIGIBLE without me pouring ALL my concentration into his almost encrypted plays... encrypted with his extremely difficult to understand language.... and then I still wouldn't get most of it.<br /><br />Second, it was 4 hours long! I never thought that could be a good thing.<br /><br />Well let me tell you something. This movie was so masterful, so beautiful, I actually understood all the language as it was being performed. Now, the script was followed to the letter in this movie, the same script that was incomprehensible to me in Shakespeare class. And here I was my mind opening and me understanding it. I was doubting myself while watching the movie almost! But lo and behold... when performed, and only then, Shakespeare comes to life. So this version of Hamlet showed me that Shakespeare is indeed a master, who wrote great stories. When I saw it on the big screen, especially in the high budget major motion picture style (with beautiful cinematography and photography), and acted amazingly by Brannagh and cast, somehow.... I understood what was going on. What was being said. The language is awesome and passionate. It allows for more raw emotion... when words can't describe something, maybe Shakespeare's words can.<br /><br />I still hold to this day that Fist of The North Star (animated, english dub) is the greatest movie ever made. No movie provides more sheer entertainment. But for a movie to come close to dethroning Fist from that position (which Hamlet did -- it came close) is truly amazing.... awe inspiring. It wasn't a movie. It was an event.<br /><br />Even more amazing, it made me appreciate shakespeare. Wow. Powerful. Powerful is the word. One of the rare, TRULY powerful movies out there.<br /><br />This gets 2 hundred trillion stars out of infinity stars. Yes yes.<br /><br />By the way, all you kids out there in a Shakespeare class... forget it. You're wasting you're time. You have to see the plays performed. Only then will justice be done to them.

This film is definitely a product of its times and seen in any other context, it is an incredibly stupid movie. Heck, even seen in its proper context, it's pretty bad!! Mostly, this is due to a silly plot and very self-indulgent direction by the famed Italian director, Michelangelo Antonioni. In this case, he tried to meld a very artsy style film with an anti-establishment hippie film and only succeeded in producing a bomb of gargantuan proportions.<br /><br />The film begins with a rap session where a lot of "with it" students sit around saying such platitudes as "power to the people" and complaining about "the man". Considering most of these hippies have parents sending them to college, it seemed a bit silly for these privileged kids to be complaining so loudly and shouting revolutionary jargon. A bit later, violence between the students and the "establishment pigs" breaks out and a cop is killed. Our "hero", Mark, may or may not have done it, but he is forced to run to avoid prosecution. Instead of heading to Mexico or Canada, he does what only a total moron would do--steals an airplane and flies it to the Mojave Desert! There, he meets a happen' chick and they then sit around philosophizing for hours. Then, they have sex in one of the weirder sex scenes in cinema history. As they gyrate about in the dust, suddenly other couples appear from no where and there is a huge orgy scene. While you see a bit of skin (warranting an R-rating), it's not as explicit as it could have been. In fact, it lasts so long and seems so choreographed that it just boggles the mind. And of course, when they are finished, the many, many other couples vanish into thin air.<br /><br />Oddly, later the couple paint the plane with some help and it looks a lot like a Peter Max creation. Despite improving the look of the plane, the evil cops respond to his returning the plane by shooting the nice revolutionary. When the girl finds out, she goes into a semi-catatonic state and the movie ends with her seemingly imagining the destruction of her own fascist pig parents and all the evil that they stand for (such as hard work and responsibility). Instead of one simple explosion, you see the same enormous house explode about 8 times. Then, inexplicably, you see TVs, refrigerators and other things explode in slow motion. While dumb, it is rather cool to watch--sort of like when David Letterman blows things up or smashes things on his show.<br /><br />Aside from a dopey plot, the film suffers from a strong need for a single likable character as well as extensive editing. At least 15 minutes could easily be removed to speed things up a bit--especially since there really isn't all that much plot or dialog. The bottom line is that this is an incredibly dumb film and I was not surprised to see it listed in "The Fifty Worst Films" book by Harry Medved. It's a well deserved addition to this pantheon of crap. For such a famed director to spend so much money to produce such a craptastic film is a crime!<br /><br />Two final observations. If you like laughing at silly hippie movies, also try watching THE TRIAL OF BILLY JACK. Also, in a case of art imitating life, the lead, Mark Frechette, acted out his character in real life. He died at age 27 in prison a few years after participating in an act of "revolution" in which he and some friends robbed a bank and killed an innocent person. Dang hippies!!

I mean the word "pedestrian". Seems the producers of the film forgot to have anything interesting happen. Faith Domergue can do better than this. She is supposed to be the mysterious, vengeful Cobra goddess torn by love for Marshall Thompson (there's an idea, eh?). Instead she's a common would-be housewife of the fifties, and the single, flat expression she wears throughout the film makes me think they shot it all in the early morning before Faith had her coffee. As for the rest of the cast, they are all so earnestly "all-American" that the result is laughable. This is ground more productively covered in Val Lewton in "The Cat People". I think "Cult of the Cobra" should really be titled "Cult of the Contractual Obligation". Why else would so many otherwise talented people sleepwalk their way though a slow-moving, predictable, derivative failure like this?

I bought the DVD of Before Sunset and saw it for the first time a week ago. Having saw it twice, I couldn't help but missing Before Sunrise, not because the sequel was not as great, but I felt that these two movies completed each other like no other sequels ever did, every time I finished watching one of them, I feel the need and yearning to see the other. So, I ended up spending the weeks watching both of them repeatedly, I will be quite embarrassed to mention how many times exactly. The most remarkable thing about Before Sunrise is how you feel the development of the feelings of their characters towards each other. It sounds so simple, the growing of the chemistry, I think other romantic films might think that they succeed to track the development, but to me - who doesn't believe in Nora Ephron - Before Sunrise is the first film to really gives the viewers chance to feel it. When I saw it for the first time, about 8 year ago when I was 20, I already liked it. But, I didn't rate it as a "great film", it still seemed to me like another thinking persons' feel good movie, Linklater was too smart to make it more realistic, it was 10 minutes too long, the characters was too well fabricated, I thought I liked it because it was like a dream and because I enjoyed their conversations, etc. etc.. But now, thanks to Before Sunset, I feel that's more to Before Sunrise than what I felt for it before. I saw the elements more clearly: Jesse, Celine, Vienna, their conversations, everything. How each of them are separated element by itself, and they have a chance to mix, the story is just a frame of time, I am no longer feel manipulated. And the freedom that every scene has, as well as its refusal to be overly efficient, how blind I was that those qualities didn't strike me as exceptional when I first saw it! Now, 8 year have passed, the more movies I've seen, the more I realize that many movies are just collections of ordered scenes that only exist for the sake of its ending, even movies like Pulp Fiction or Linklaters's own Slackers included. The Jesse and Celine tale avoid that, maybe Before Sunset is a better example in this case, but Before Sunrise is also one of few films that its ending is just a consequence of time, not a destination, every single scene has its own life. I don't know whether Linklater or anyone else had a sequel in mind when they made Before Sunrise, but to me, one of the most amazing things about these sequels are how these two films visually contrast each other. Before Sunrise which I think employs more static angels and brighter color schemes, seems to try to capture the smallest atoms of liveliness surrounding Jesse and Celine, the world is always full of hope whether or not the characters feel it. Meanwhile, I enter the vision of boredom as Jesse stuck talking to the journalists in Before Sunset, and Celine's first smile from behind the shelves are the most heartbreaking smile I've seen in a beginning of a film, and the many moving shots after that takes me to a place I don't know with a sadness in me, no matter how beautiful Paris is, and no matter how happy I am that they meet again. I'm sorry that I go on this long with my limited English, Before Sunrise is already an extraordinary film without me pouring my scattered thoughts, and it gets even better with an equally great sequel following it.

Today, I wrote this review in anger at Uwe Boll and Hollywood.<br /><br />Hollywood has produced movies based on one of the darkest days of our nation. 911 changed everything. It changed our perception of security. It changed our understanding of the evil of man and humanity. Most importantly and devastatingly , it changed our world.<br /><br />However, I can't not stress how utterly repulsed, disillusioned, and angry I am at the careless, blatant ignorance of Hollywood seeking to make a lucrative profit out of death and destruction. This film and those like it are bound to cause controversy amid word-of-mouth among moviegoers and critics alike; most surely to be echoed by the mainstream press. Hollywood has sunk to a new low. Even lower than the low-down bastards who perpetrated the most barbaric acts of savagery and unrelenting cruelty. Behind it all is Uwe Boll. I am very angry at this movie. How dare they disrespect the memories of families of those lost? How dare they mock the lives of the brave men and women who risked their lives to save those trapped in the doomed towers on that fateful day of infamy?!?!? How dare they try to satirize and at the same time capitalize on a national tragedy in the mist of a mourning and weary post-911 world?!?!?! How...dare...they? <br /><br />To those who have the gall to even think of seeing this morally appalling travesty, I say this with a heavy heart with all my strength: Remember. Think back to that day and ask yourself whether or not you are a sane and moral person. Think back to that day, ask yourself whether or not this film is a disgrace and dishonor to the lives lost on that day. Think back to that day of the outcry of families of loved ones. Think back to that day of the lives lost on those two planes. Think back to the further carnage it caused following the attacks.<br /><br />Ask yourself if you have a soul.<br /><br />Think. Remember. Respect the memories of the lives lost on 911 by not seeing this film at all.

I've seen the Thin Man series -- Powell and Loy are definitely great, but there is something awfully sweet about Powell and Arthur's chemistry in this flick. Jean Arthur SHINES when she looks at Powell. There is an unmistakable undercurrent buzzing between them. This film may not have the wit of the Thin Man series, but undeniably makes up for it in charm. While I watched it, I thought for sure Powell was carrying on an off-screen affair with Arthur. My friends thought the same. This is one film where I wish I could step back in time (to schmooze and lock lips with Powell!) There seems to be no end to his lovable playful smirks! Powell's character, Lawrence Bradford, is probably the closest thing to the "perfect man." Okay, this is sounding way too gushy, but I can't help myself.

Absolutely one of the worst movies of the year. The plot is ridiculous, the characters poorly developed, and the premise irritatingly stupid. It all begins when Michael Keaton, fresh off of doing nothing noteworthy since Batman, loses his beautiful author wife, Anna, to a car accident, possibly caused by her driving one of those convertible VW bugs even though she's supposed to be rich. In his grief, Batman moves to a new apartment and takes up a hobby: recording nothing and then watching it. He learned this from a really fat pathetic guy who got murdered by three tall shadowy fellows who lived in his TV. Pretty soon, he starts to see dead people, thanks to EVP, or Electronic Voice Phenomenon, which is evidently this deal wherein dead people can send messages to living people through tape recorders, video cameras, dead cell phones ("Anna cell calling? But she's...DEAD!...Must be ghosts. Mhmmm. No other possible explanation. I'd better start messing around with this indiscriminately.") etc. Why they can't just write something down on a piece of paper or knock over some stuff to form creative pictograms is never explained. ANyway, eventually Batman discovers that he's actually seeing the future, and he decides to go help this woman he doesn't know. He gets out of his house just in the nick of time, because the tall dark guys enter just after he leaves ("D*mn it! Can travel between the living and dead using electronics, but I'll be d*mned if we can be on time! Am I right guys? (They nod in bemused agreement)."). He tracks this lady to a warehouse and finds out that this character from the first ten minutes of the movie (look hard, or you'll miss him!) is actually a serial killer working for three tall shadowy demons, who in Raiders of the Lost Ark style swoop down and kill him, looking like the cartoons that they are. Just then some detectives show up and save the lady. After Batman's funeral, he decides to send a message from beyond the grave apologizing to his son for being an idiot, evidently feeling that the best way to protect his kid from the horrors of EVP is to expose him to it. The little kid just smiles. Nothing phases that dude, not even when his dad, Batman of course, starts talking to TV's. The high-point of the movie was when someone's phone rang and some guy yelled out, "It's Anna!"

Unremittingly bleak and depressing, the film evokes as well as could be desired the legendary misery and emptiness that characterised Houellebecq's controversial novel of the same name. Like many French films, its manner is one of wistful profundity but it is painfully slow - or should that be, slowly painful? While this is an excellent and challenging film, it is not an enjoyable one and its difficult to think of any time when one might be in the 'right' mood to see it.

"The Bubble" is an effort to make a gay Romeo & Juliet type of story with an Israeli and a Palestinian, although it seems to come at it by way of "Friends" or "Beverly Hills 90210." The characters are shallow and trite as are the dialog and plot line. The movie seems torn between fluff and depth. On the one hand there is a pointed effort at being shallow as (in one example of many) some minor characters even ask questions that invite development of insight into the conflicts at hand, and get answers like, "Hey, we're here to make a poster for a rave against the occupation. Don't get political!" Beyond the obvious absurdity of such a line, it's just one of many ham-fisted signals that the movie is just as hollow and insubstantial as its title suggests. On the other hand, the movie's main pretension to depth follows the lovers to a presentation of "Bent" a play about gays in a Nazi labor camp. The scene on stage is awkwardly rushed, undermining its erotic power (understandable given the constraints of film-time, but still this could have been edited to much better effect.) and comes off as flimsily as the rest of the film. Too bad. This play deserves much better.<br /><br />The characters are so one-dimensionally cartoony some even have names that telegraph their entire (though the word seems inappropriate here) substance. The aggressive soldier from the crack Golani brigade is named "Golan." The militant Palestinian is named "Jihad." The striving-for-chic faghag roommate is "Lulu." Anyone familiar with the checkpoints and life in Palestine, whether from real life or documentaries will find the checkpoint scenes as absurdly unreal as… well, the rest of this fluffy fantasy. When a Palestinian woman goes into the fastest labor on record Israeli soldiers are solicitous and helpful, an ambulance shows up in minutes. (The outcome of the birth serves to show the Palestinians as unappreciative of Israeli beneficence and even downright paranoiac.) Altogether the checkpoint is shown as a mere nuisance, not the series of bone-numbing, soul-crushing, humiliating obstructions with no regard for medical care or necessity in cases of birth, death, or severe illness. Ashraf, the Palestinian lover, seems to get through from Nablus to Tel Aviv with no problems, no papers, no hassles. He just shows up whenever he likes. When the Israelis want to get through it is much more of a challenge involving a scheme worthy of Lucy Ricardo.<br /><br />Against the backdrop of nice, supportive Israelis and surly homophobic Palestinians we move to a resolution that is utterly lacking in motivation or purpose – except as a painfully obvious dramatic device to milk sympathy for the forbidden lovers.<br /><br />Gay Israeli-Palestinian romance has been handled on stage with much more skill and depth as in Saleem's "Salaam/Shalom" so this film is hardly even as groundbreaking as some people would like to think.<br /><br />Gloriously bad films – like the works of Ed Wood -- at least have some striking idiosyncrasy to distinguish them. This one doesn't even have that going for it. Most of the sound track sounds like Simon and Garfunkel on quaaludes, and even with the weird oedipal touches to the gay sex scenes, the general incompetence that pervades this movie plays out like a mediocre TV-movie-of-the-week.

A recent post here by a woman claiming a military background, contained the comment "A woman's life is no more valuable than a man's".<br /><br />This mantra of the politically correct is not true as history as well as biology show. Societies have managed to recover from heavy losses of their male population, sometimes with astonishing speed. Germany was ready to fight another war in 1939 despite the 1914- 1918 war in which over two million of her men were killed. In South America's War of the Triple Alliance (1865), Paraguay took on three neighboring countries until virtually her entire male population was wiped out but fought to a stalemate in the 1932 Chaco War against much larger Bolivia.<br /><br />No society, however has or ever could survive the loss of its female population. Only when the very life of the nation is at stake are women sent to fight. Israel faced that situation in 1948 but since then has never considered coed combat units for its Defense Forces despite the popular image of the Israeli girl soldier.<br /><br />"G.I. Jane" is Hollywood fluff.

Another comment about this film made it sound lousy. Given talking pictures were so new - I think the script and acting were good. Davis was so young and fresh. She had not yet found her own style that we had grown to expect. Yet it is great to see her this way - still learning the craft.<br /><br />So many clichés came from this film and it seems, this film blazed some trails for the next 70 years. My vote is see it and remember how young this type of film was. Keep and open mind and you maybe shocked at how troubled the characters were in this picture, for being 1934 and how we view the early part of last century as uptight.. I love it and hope you make up your own mind about it not influenced by others negative and one note comments.

This film quite literally has every single action movie cliche and all of them work to its advantage. Straight from Lethal Weapon Gary Busey wisecracks, shoots and chuckles through this film with such reckless abandonment it can't help but amuse and entertain. There are tanks, helicopters, machine gun battles, grenades and ice cream vans and if they aren't good enough reasons to watch this film then how about the best one...Danny Trejo. And if you don't know who Danny Trejo is then you probably won't like this film.

At the time I am writing this I see out of over 15,000 votes it has a 5.8 rating. Something is wrong with that picture. Personally I give it a 10. I can see a 7 at the lowest or a possible 8 if it was rated by people that see this movie for what it truly is. It is a movie based on a comic book hero. This movie won more than it's share of awards. Won 3 Oscars. Another 5 wins & 26 nominations .... right there tells me it's better than a 5.8. Some great acting from some very good actors, some great special effects and in my opinion will be if not already a classic for years to come. If you're looking for pure entertainment be sure to check out Dick Tracy. Definitely a movie you can watch more than a few times. Al Pacino is great as Big Boy Caprice.

OK, I am not a professional movie critic but come on...a true story!!!!<br /><br />They are tunneling under another store to get underneath the bank and stumble across a tomb. At tomb with a passageway which goes directly under the bank.<br /><br />OK, I'll play along.<br /><br />But then they get into the bank and decide to go to sleep. Yeah!!! I am sure with all the adrenaline pumping through them they are going to just fall asleep. <br /><br />This blows the whole picture!!!! How lame!!!!!<br /><br />Glad I didn't have to pay to watch this one.

When tradition dictates that an artist must pass his great skills and magic on to an heir, the aging and very proud street performer, known to all as "The King of Masks," becomes desperate for a young man apprentice to adopt and cultivate.<br /><br />His warmth and humanity, tho, find him paying a few dollars for a little person displaced by China's devastating natural disasters, in this case, massive flooding in the 1930's.<br /><br />He takes his new, 7 year old companion, onto his straw houseboat, to live with his prized and beautiful monkey, "General," only to discover that the he-child is a she-child.<br /><br />His life is instantly transformed, as the love he feels for this little slave girl becomes entwined in the stupifying tradition that requires him to pass his art on only to a young man.<br /><br />There are many stories inside this one...many people are touched, and the culture of China opens itself for our Western eye to observe. Thousands of years of heritage boil down into a teacup of drama, and few will leave this DVD behind with a dry eye.<br /><br />The technical transfer itself is not that great, as I found the sound levels all over the meter, and could actually see the video transfer lines in several parts of the movie. Highly recommended :-) 9/10 stars.

The kids, aged 7 to 14, got such a huge kick out of this film that we gave a copy to all of the other kids on our birthday list this year. They all loved it! Kids from 2 to 7 watch it repeatedly and frequently, and we get a kick out of watching it with them.<br /><br />It's rare that a film entertains the kids for so long, and offers laughs for the adults, too. Most enjoy it more than the first.<br /><br />Top-quality production and an excellent cast, led by Christopher Showerman as a superior George--athletic, energetic, and wholly credible, with a lovable innocence and a particular knack of taking a tree in the face--well supported by the inimitable Christina Pickles as the evil mother-in-law, Thomas Haden Church as the evil jerk rival, and everybody else. This is fun.

I think I found the most misogynistic film of all time: Darklight.<br /><br />The gist of the film- Lilith was Adam's first wife and she was considered imperfect and banished from the garden of Eden because she considered herself Adam's equal and refused to submit to him. See, I took those words straight from the script. Then the film keeps going on and though she is the heroine of the film, the only time that she becomes acceptable is when she does what the men tell her to do! She ends the film under the control of The Faith- an all male group!<br /><br />Other than that the script was predictable and the FX were awful. Apart from the obvious hatred of females that is usually a lot more subtle in modern film, there was nothing original about Darklight.

As usual, Hollywood stereotyped EVERYONE in the movie. But, this one is a classic - from the uptight white collar banker to the Russian woman!! Well done. Even facial expressions were great! Language was perfect (even in Russian language) and Nicole did a splendid job!! Hey guys - you get what you pay for:)

Of all the movies I've seen, this one rates almost at the bottom (Haunted Mansion, Nothing but Trouble and a few others keep it from reaching rock bottom.) It is hasty, the story is shaky and the events depicted are poorly acted. Of course we have to lay some of this at the book writer's door. The book the movie was filmed after is outrageously ponderous, and illogical. Oprah gives a palatable appearance as "Bigger's" mom, but is not nearly at her potential. Other famous performers also seem to be at their worst. The plot which centers around an African American who decided to take a job as a chauffeur. In driving the family daughter to a communist dinner he becomes acquainted. One thing leads to another and the girl gets drunk. Now the family he's working for are not against blacks, but he thinks they are. So when he comes home he puts her to bed, but she begins caterwauling. The blind mother (yes) hears this, so Bigger tries to silence her, but instead smothers her. Now fearing he's really in trouble for killing a white girl he does what any logical thinking man would do--he shoves her into the coal furnace. So investigators are carrying out a missing person case and lo they check the furnace (the idiot didn't have the foresight to get rid of the ashes. He is then arrested and the last hour or so are obnoxious segments from the courtroom. If your desperate for a bad movie, this one could do the job, but if you seriously want to learn about culture issues in th 40's and 50's or see a good drama, there are a lot better options. Avoid this.

If anybody really wants to understand Hitler, read WWI history not WWII history. Find out what happened during that war, how soldiers had to live around dead corpses all the time. How so many soldiers went insane, from what they saw during WWI, at the time they called it "shellshocked" now the call it post-traumatic stress disorder. If you learn the true horrors of WWI, you will begin to understand Hitler. You will understand how a human being can become desensitized to death, not because their evil but simply because it was the only way for them too cope with the horrors around them.<br /><br />This movie unfortunately misses that, as so many others do. Read some books on the subject and you should watch the movie "paths of glory", the only good WWI movie ever made. You will see the frustration of the soldiers in that movie, the sense of helplessness, and a utter devaluation of human life, as nothing more than bullet catchers.<br /><br />Thats what this movie misses, its really the key point to understanding Germany. A lost war, where millions and millions of Germans lost their lives, for no real reason. Then comes an utter economic collapse, following the war. Those are the factors that create extremism.<br /><br />The loss of family members and massive poverty will create always lead to extremism. Unfortunately this movie ignored these factors, and has just become another throw away piece of crap to throw on the pile. With really no real value, there are fictional movie's based upon fictional characters that could give you a better idea of Hitler than this does. They just threw Hitlers name on this so it would sell more.

this is what you would get if you allowed a 10 year old (manic American) to write a story of a moon trip. Absolute garbage with no redeeming qualities Maybe it held some fascination in the 3D dept. but as a narrative and entertaining animation it held nothing to make wasting an hour and a half worth while. Save your time and money and watch BOLT instead<br /><br />Damn. Not enough lines, yet I feel that sums it up... well, I agree with an above review - this is like a cold-war propaganda story. Maybe it would have been more interesting if they had made it about the flies uncovering the hoax of the moon landing, or if the flies had died in the first minute. BTW - why were all the main character flies deformed? - not one had the full compliment of limbs!

This movie got extremely silly when things started to happen. I couldn't care less about any of the characters; Susan Walters was so annoying, and the leading actor (forget his name) also got on my nerves. Can't quite remember how it ended and so forth but the whole idea of aliens possessing human bodies and all just seemed stupid in this film, things didn't quite carry off. My dad told me it's s stupid movie...I should've listened to him.

I went to a small advance screening of this movie on July 19th, knowing no more than the names of a few of the actors and that it was a fantasy/adventure quest of some sort.<br /><br />The plot line really is nothing like I have seen, and a unique story is certainly appreciated with everything else that is currently in or coming soon to theaters. In spite of what first impressions may give, it isn't cheesy, corny, tacky, or ridiculous, and is actually highly entertaining and funny. The flow is quite well done, nothing seems rushed or dragged out. The soundtrack, for lack of better words, is magical and adds much to the film, as opposed to simply filling the silence as often happens in movies or TV. And even though I might have known what was coming at points, I still couldn't bear to stop watching the screen; to my knowledge, not a single person left the theater during the entire movie.<br /><br />My one gripe is that there seems to be almost no marketing for this film, and as brilliant as it is I can't figure out why.

The movie is great and I like the story. I prefer this movie than other movie such The cell ( sick movie ) and Highlander ( silly movie ). I just tell the truth, I like a reality hehe and also a true story :)<br /><br />

I sort of accidentally ended up watching this movie. I'm still not sure if I regret it or not. I felt like I was watching the film made by that group of film school students that didn't quite make the cut. It plays up every Hollywood cliché imaginable, all the while flogging us with the 'corporations are the ultimate evil' message. Subtlety this movie does not know. As far as that goes, it even manages to provide it's own spoilers.<br /><br />The story appears to be a computer nerd's fantasy world come true. The lead character is an attractive teenage boy with a girlfriend, yet is a programming genius and apparent hacker (I think), among many other nerd-fantasy-come-true elements that you'll have to see for yourself.<br /><br />As well, I should've known it would be a z-movie when I saw Ned Bellamy... he tends to be a good tip-off.<br /><br />Can't recommend this one, I'm afraid.

It's not a big film. The acting is not amazing (some sub charterers are even played badly), The film is not beautiful in any sense. Nothing really inventive or new. If you like big films, this one is not for you. yet it has a big - REALLY BIG plus on the story. Larry's story works, because we know this story from our own lives. The girl we didn't ask to a date, the test we've failed, the friend we let down, are all in our history. This movie works, because it touch it, It's a great story because it's a small one. It's the life we all have, with regrets we all have, and yet the message hits: every life we could have lived would have had their downside. The first time I watched it, I was 15. It was shown in a party at my school. 16 years later, I keep reflecting on it every once in a while, and every time I see it, it puts a smile on my face. Watch it. It will do you good. You'll be happier with what you have.

I can't believe this movie was made as recently as 1984. It's got some laughable acting, not to mention one of the stupidest plots ever. Who would ever ask fat Texas sheriff Joe Don Baker to escort an Italian he illegally arrested in Mexico back to Italy? Not to mention that the title of the movie tells you pretty much nothing about it - in fact, it's about as generic a title for a wannabe action/cop film as I can think of.<br /><br />I'm glad I only saw this on MST3K with Mike and the bots as a shield. They remark on the female lead's resemblance to Elaine from Seinfeld ("None of them are spongeworthy") and riff non-stop on Baker's weight. This movie probably isn't worse than "Mitchell," but Baker's reputation definitely precedes him here: when his title comes up at the beginning of the film, Tom says, "I wish I was illiterate so I wouldn't have to read that."

I absolutely LOVED this movie! It was SO good! This movie is told by the parrot, Paulie's point of view. Paulie is given to the little girl Marie, as a present. Paulie helps Marie learn to talk and they become best friends. But when Paulie tells Marie to fly, she falls and the bird is sent away. That's when the adventure begins. Paulie goes through so much to find his way back to Marie. This movie is so sweet, funny, touching, sad, and more. When I first watched this movie, it made me cry. The birds courage and urge to go find his Marie for all that time, was so touching. I must say that the ending is so sweet and sad, but you'll have to watch it to find out how it goes. At the end, the janitor tries to help him, after hearing his story. Will he find his long lost Marie or not? Find out when you watch this sweet, heart warming movie. It'll touch your heart. Rating:10

Ben a out-of-town cop is convinced his sister was brutally killed and wants to bring her killer to justice, but he's approached by Stefan who believes his sister was a victim of a werewolf cult. So Ben, his sister's best friend and Stefan travel to Transylvania to put a end to this evil.<br /><br />This is incredibly awful B-grade stuff and I wondered how it even got released. It makes the original 'Howling' look like a masterpiece. What was Christopher Lee thinking, as this has to be his worst performance I've seen.<br /><br />There was a lot wrong with this real cheap-ass film, ranging from the really hammy and wooden performances from Annie McEnroe, Reb Brown, Marsha A. Hunt and Sybil Danning (not to forgot Lee), cheesy fashion (those sunnies), cheap and lame special effects, bad use of lighting, the humour... if there was any, trashy 80s music (with some of the film just focusing on some unknown band playing), werewolf's having orgies which is a sight to see and a tiresome story with flat and annoying dialogue. I thought if it was that bad it would be awfully funny, but I was wrong. <br /><br />The positives were the location and settings of the film looked great, but that's about it... actually I'll add Sybil Danning short stripping scene too.<br /><br />During the end credits the band plays their crap-house song during a weird montage of scenes from the film, which I beckon the question why?<br /><br />An awful piece of mess, however at least it isn't boring.<br /><br />1/5

I checked this movie out based on a favorable review on this page. It is slow moving and the payoff is a four star dud..The only mystery here is how Oscar® winner F. Murray Abraham got involved with such a lousy script!

A very well made film set in early '60s communist Yugoslavia. The five young actors who are the teenagers at the center of the story give strong, sincere and emotionally deep performances. A clear depiction of how the natural trust and naivete inherent in teens can be easily manipulated and how that impacted the rest of their lives. Highly recommended.

I saw this movie again as an assignment for my management class. Were to mainly comment on the different management styles and ideas on quality(of the product). I did rent this one back in the eighties and I remember it to be good(but not great)movie. I've always liked Michael Keaton's style and delivery. He was a perfect fit for the movie.<br /><br />I am surprised to see some of the low ratings for this movie. I grant you yes it's no Oscar winner but it does have decent comedic value. It's more of a subtle comedy rather than a all-out comedy farce. I also find some of those that felt this was an inaccurate film on cultural and business differences. I beg to differ. I grant you again that there are a lot of generalities and dramatizations but then again this is Hollywood film not a documentary. From what I've read about differences between Automakers on both sides of the Pacific at that time many of the principle ideas were accurate for the time.<br /><br />Some of the basic differences were that Japanese workers made to feel as part of the company as a whole. Teamwork was emphasized. They perhaps made the company above all else. Where American workers had more of a management verses labor type of relationship. The individual was more important than the company. I'll probably get some hate email over that comment I'm sure.<br /><br />Another difference was how quality was viewed and whose responsibility it was to fix. In many Japanese plants defects or problems are examined and fixed at the time it is discovered. Rather as one character in the movie put it "it was the dealers(meaning car dealer) problem".<br /><br />Many of these things are probably dated but I'm sure some are still around as many US car makers are still struggling to keep up with the Japanese. If one is more interested in the subject of American, European and Japanese automakers I can recommend a book that studies this subject in more detail and was done around the same time period. The book is called "The machine that changed the world" by James Womack, Daniel Jones and Daniel Roos. It's about a study of automakers during and before the time period that this movie covers. Parts are bit dry but I think you'll find that it backs up much the movie also.

With Iphigenia, Mikhali Cacoyannis is perhaps the first film director to have successfully brought the feel of ancient Greek theatre to the screen. His own screenplay, an adaptation of Euripides' tragedy, was far from easy, compared to that of the other two films of the trilogy he directed. The story has been very carefully deconstructed from Euripides' version and placed in a logical, strictly chronological framework, better conforming to the modern methods of cinematic story-telling. Cacoyannis also added some characters to his film that do not appear in Euripides' tragedy: Odysseus, Calchas, and the army. This was done in order to make some of Euripides' points regarding war, the Church, and Government clearer. Finally, Cacoyannis' Iphigenia ending is somewhat ambiguous when compared to Euripides'.<br /><br />The film was shot on location at Aulis. The director of photography, Giorgos Arvanitis, shows us a rugged but beautiful Greece, where since the Homeric days time seems to have stood still. He takes advantage of the bodies, the arid land, the ruins, the intense light and the darkness. The harshness of the landscape is particularly fitting to the souls of the characters. The camera uses the whole gamut of available shots, from the very long, reinforcing the vastness and desolation of the landscape, as well as the human scale involved, to the extreme close-ups, dissecting and probing deep into the soul of the tormented characters. In particular, the film's opening, with a bold, accelerating tracking shot along a line of beached boats, followed by an aerial view of the many thousands of soldiers lying listlessly on the beach, is a very effective means of communicating Agamemnon's awesome political and military responsibility.<br /><br />No word but "sublime" can describe the stunning performances of Costa Kazakos (Agamemnon), Irene Papas (Clytemnestra), and Tatiana Papamoschou (Iphigenia). Kazakos and Papas embody the sublimity of the classical Greece tragedy. Kazakos' character is extremely down-to-earth, and his powerful look into the camera, more than his words, reveals the unbelievable torment tearing his soul. Irene Papas is the modern quintessence of classic Greek plays. In Iphigenia, she is terrible in her anguish, and even more so for what we know will be her vengeance. Tatiana Papamoskou, in her first role on the screen, is outstanding in her portray of the innocent Iphigenia, which contrasts with Kazakos' austere depiction of her father, Agamemnon.<br /><br />Cacoyannis is faithful to Euripides in his representation of the other characters: Odysseus is a sly, scheming politician, Achilles, a vain, narcissistic warrior, Menalaus is self centered, obsessed with his honor, eager to be avenged, and to have his wife and property restored.<br /><br />The costumes and sets are realistic: no Hollywood there. Agamemnon's quarters resembles a barn, he dresses, as do the others, in utilitarian, hand-woven, simple garb. Clytemnestra's royal caravan is made up of rough-hewn wooden carts.<br /><br />The music is by the prolific contemporary music composer Mikis Theodorakis. Theodorakis' score intensifies the dramatic and cinematographic unfolding, reflects on the psychological aspect of the tragedy, and accentuates its dimensions and actuality.<br /><br />This film and the story it narrates offer considerable insight into the lost world of ancient Greek thought that was the crucible for so much of our modern civilization. It teaches us much about ourselves as individuals and as social and political creatures. Euripides questions the value of war and patriotism when measured against the simple virtues of family and love, and reflects on woman's vulnerable position in a world of manly violence. In his adaptation of Euripides' tragedy, Cacoyannis revisits all of these themes in a modern, clear, and dramatic fashion.<br /><br />The relationships governing the political machinations are clearly demonstrated: war corrupts and destroys the human soul to such an extent that neither the individual nor the group can function normally any longer. With the possible exception of Menelaus, whose honor has been tarnished by his own wife's elopement with her lover, everyone else has his own private motivation for going to war with Troy, which has nothing to do with Helen: the thirst for power (Agamemnon), greed (the army, Odysseus), or glory (Achilles). And so in a real sense, Helen became the WMD of the Trojan War. The war, stripped of all Homeric glamor and religious sanctioning, was just an imperialist venture, spurred primarily by the desire for material gain, all else being a convenient pretext.<br /><br />Another conflict raised in the film is that between the Church and the State. Calchas, who represents the Church, feeling the challenge to his priestly authority and wishing to destroy Agamemnon for the insult to the Goddess he serves, tells him to sacrifice his daughter. In consenting to the sacrifice, the King comes closer to his moral undoing, but in refusing, loses his power over the masses (his army), who are brainwashed by religion. Of course, for Agamemnon, it's a game. The King must go along with the charade whether he honestly believes in the Gods or not, until he realizes, too late, that he has ensnared himself into committing a despicable filicide.<br /><br />Is it a sacrifice or a murder, and how can we tell the difference between the two? By focusing on the violent and primitive horror of a human sacrifice--and, worst of all, the sacrifice of one's own child--Euripides/Cacoyannis creates a drama that is at once deeply political and agonizingly personal. It touches on a most complex and delicate ethical problem facing any society: the dire conflict between the needs of the individual versus those of the society. In the case of Iphigenia, however, as in the Biblical tale of Abraham and Isaac, the father is asked to kill his own child, by his own hand. What sort of God would insist on such payment? Can it be just or moral, even if divinely inspired? Finally, does the daughter's sacrificial death differ from the deaths of all the sons and daughters who are being sent to war? These are many deep questions raised by a two-hour film.

Wrapped in gorgeous English country backgrounds, Emma is a delicious confection to be relished for dreamy getaways.<br /><br />Emma (Gwyneth Paltrow) is a graceful, intelligent young woman who has just married off her governess--and confidant--to a marriage which Emma takes the credit in matchmaking. Eager to use her talent in arranging things for the people around her, she decides to match the vicar, Mr. Elton (Alan Cummings) with her pretty young friend, Harriet (Toni Collette).<br /><br />The result is a series of mixed signals and mistaken interpretations that end up sorting themselves out, with Emma learning that she did not have as much control over events as she thought.<br /><br />The film is full of Jane Austen's witty and wry characterizations. Gwyneth Paltrow is at her best, portraying this maiden of a restrained, polite society with wit and ease. Her growing romance with the unparalleled Mr. Knightley (Jeremy Northam) is the heart of this film. Mr. Knightley is one of the greatest romantic leading men in films. He is incredibly handsome, in a modest, relaxed way that is irresistible. He is certainly well-matched to Gwyneth Paltrow. Their charming friendship that began when he was 16 and she was an infant, has blossomed as he, a family friend, matches wits with her in an older brotherly fashion that grows into something more. With a wry look or understated jab at Emma, Northam's Knightley is a delight to watch.<br /><br />Other wonderful characterizations include the comic Juliet Stevenson, Greta Scacchi, Ewan McGregor, Polly Walker, and the talkative spinster, Miss Bates, who is very funny.<br /><br />Seeming shorter and more flowing than most Jane Austin adaptations, Emma has comic rhythm that promises true enjoyment.

"Kids Like These" could have been a decent film, given the subject matter. But instead it has become a below-average, run-of-the-mill TV-movie of the week, with not much going for it. The acting is stale, the plot predictable and the direction non-existent. For a better movie on the same subject, try the excellent "Le Huitième Jour", a film that really cares about the people with Down-syndrome. In "Kids Like These" they are merely used as an excuse for weepy sentimentality. Pretty appalling. 1/10

When you compare what Brian De Palma was doing in the 80's to what passes for entertainment today, his films keep looking better and better. "Dressed To Kill, "Blow Out", "Body Double", "Scarface" and "Carlito's Way" are all superb works of a cinematic craftsman at the peak of his powers. The guy had a long run of better than average films. This is pure Hitchcock with an 80's dash of lurid perversion, an affectionately told tale of lust and murder with plenty of twists, huge helpings of style, a stunning Pino Donaggio score, and a trashy, giallo-inspired plot. De Palma's love of complex camera-work and luscious, blood-smudged visuals helps overcome the logical holes while the terrific performances of Dennis Franz, Keith Gordon (a good director in his own right), Nancy Allen (De Palma's wife at the time) and Michael Caine make every scene special. Let the virtuoso take you on a surreal, scary, erotically charged odyssey and you'll enjoy every frame of "Dressed To Kill".

There are pretty landscape shots. Writers putting trite mouthings into actors mouths. With lesser actors this show would be silly. 'Art must uplift humanity or it's BS.' Not so because art of all those mentioned is also to stir humanity and express the dark side. The lead character even says those who don't drink hide the shadow side. Wrong , he lived in darkness and repressed his dark side by drinking and being one dimensional not expanding his horizons with something other than landscapes. There wasn't a breathing organism in his work nor expression of his pain. All the artist did was limit himself to dime a dozen landscapes. The discussions between the characters was grade school, trite stuff always giving the one character the upper hand the writer wanted. I tried to like it after reading all the first wow comments on here. I had to dig deep to see those i agreed with. I figure the great comments were from those connected to the movie. I was moved only once towards the end. The kid was way too passive. The scenery was nice and the music ridiculous. Just my opinion but nowhere show for me.

I saw his film at the Ann Arbor Film Festival. I am a film student at the Univeristy of Michigan so I know a thing or two about film. And Crispin Glover's film is outrageous. He basically exploits the mentally challenged. Not only is Shirly Temple the anti-Christ (which I admit is a little funny) telling the mentally challenged to kill each other, but there is an obsession with killing snails. Crispin also plays with the idea of being in love with one of his actors who is as they all are, mentally challenged. PETA and Human Rights should be all over this thing. It's not 'counter-culture' as Crispin stated at the Ann Arbor Film Festival, it's exploitation.

In one word: excruciating. I was advised to read some articles about this film's philosophical meanings afterward, but, having sat through the movie's interminable 115 minutes and being slowly crushed beneath its bloated symbolism and lava-flowing oppressiveness, it seemed better to just report my reactions to the movie. After all, who goes to see a movie with a syllabus in hand? And this flick was dismal. Lead actor Claude Laydu, from the film's opening to its end, wears the same wearying and annoying mask of agony as to be practically indistinguishable from the film's eternal, dreary voice-over. Filming one over the other might have worked better than subjecting an audience to both, as they basically say the same thing: The priest of Ambricourt is a wretched human being. The story, about a persecuted priest who tries to help out a troubled rich family, does nothing toward making its characters remotely interesting or sympathetic, as the family are a bunch of unpleasant weirdos, and the priest, himself, comes across as a nosy pest. The last 30 minutes suggests some breath-taking message about grace and one man's suffering equaling that of others, but due to all the indulgent close-ups of a suffering Laydu and the vague subtext in Robert Bresson's script, all I felt was, Finally, it's over, let's have some ice-cream. Interesting for fans of Bresson fanatic Paul Schrader, just to see how many elements of character and setting Schrader carried into in his own scripts and movies, especially "Taxidriver", "Raging Bull" and "Light Sleeper".

Burt Kennedy used to be a very good director, but you'd never know it by this lumbering mess. Not only does this film look cheap, it IS cheap--most of the battle scenes are lifted from the far superior "The Last Command" from 1955, and that footage, shot 32 years previously, looks more contemporary than anything in this picture. The few action scenes that were actually shot for this movie are disorganized, confused and incompetent, looking just as shoddy as the rest of the picture. This has the look and feel of a bad student film (and the budget didn't seem to be a whole lot more). It moves like molasses, the acting for the most part is either over-the-top ham or under-the-top comatose--although Raul Julia comes off better than most of the rest of the cast--and it's chock full of annoying historical inaccuracies. On top of that, it's WAY too long. If you're going to make a boring film, do it in an hour or so and get it over with--don't stretch it out over three hours, like this one does. If you want to see a good movie about the Alamo, check out John Wayne's 1960 version, or even the 1955 film from which this movie stole its action scenes. Hard to believe it took six producers to make a movie this lousy. Skip it.

Bizarre Tobe Hooper exercise regarding an unfortunate young man(Brad Dourif)with the ability to set people on fire. This ability stems from parents who partook in atomic experiments in the 50's. They die of Spontaneous Human Combustion and it seems that what Sam is beginning to suffer from derives by these pills his girlfriend, Lisa(Cynthia Bain)gives him to take for rough migraines. In actuality, Lisa was told to manipulate Sam into taking the pills by Lew Orlander(William Prince), pretty much the young man's father who raised him from a child. Lew has benevolent plans..he sees Sam as the first "Atomic Man", a pure killing machine in human form. Sam never wanted this and will do whatever it takes to silence those responsible for his condition. As the film goes, Sam's blood is slowly growing toxic, green in color instead of red. It seems that water and other substances which often put out fire react right the opposite when Sam's uncontrollable outbursts of flame ignite. Come to find out, Lisa has Sam's condition whose parents also dies from SHC. Dr. Marsh(Jon Cypher), someone who Sam has known for quite some time as his physician, is to insert toxic green fluid into their bodies, I'm guessing to increase their levels of flame. Nina(Melinda Dillon, sporting an accent that fades in and out)was Sam's parents' friend and associate on the experiments in the 50's who tries to talk things over with him regarding what is happening. And, Rachel(Dey Young)is Sam's ex-wife who may be working against her former husband with Lew and Marsh to harm him and Lisa.<br /><br />Quite a strange little horror flick, filled with some pretty awful flame-effects. Dourif tries to bring a tragic element and intensity to his character whose plight we continue to watch as his body slowly becomes toxic waste with fire often igniting from his orifices. There's this large hole in his arm that spits out flame like a volcano and a massive burn spot on his hand which increases in size over time. Best scene is probably when director John Landis, who portrays a rude electrical engineer trying to inform Sam to hang up because the radio program he's calling has sounded off for the night, becomes a victim of SHC. The flick never quite works because it's so wildly uneven with an abrupt, ridiculous finale where Sam offers to free Lisa of her fire by taking it from her.