Datasets:

paduraru2009

/

imdb-sample2

like 0

"La Furia del Hombre Lobo" forms a completely stand-alone storyline which doesn't seem to fit in at all with the previous Waldemar Daninsky movies. Some have commented that this movie is supposed to take place before the events of "Werewolf Shadow", although it was released afterwards ... they may be right, I'm not sure. Anyway, in this movie Waldemar Daninsky is bitten by a yeti-like creature in Tibet (great dialogue here -- "It was a yeti. But that's impossible. I'm a scientist and these things don't exist. It was a hallucination. That's all.") and although marked with the sign of the pentagram, he is able to prevent the change into a werewolf until he discovers that his wife has been cheating on him. Changing into the beast one night, he kills both her and her lover before running out into a storm and being electrocuted. It's not long before he's resurrected by a dominatrix university professor who is conducting some kind of unfathomable experiments with mind control. He is taken to the underground cellar of a castle where the subjects of these experiments live like chained animals.<br /><br />First of all -- Jacinto Molina, Paul Naschy, whatever you want to call him, he's a fine actor and cared passionately about his work. No matter how flawed these movies are, you can always rely on him for a decent performance. The rest of the cast seem good enough, but it's hard to tell when they have a half-assed voice-over dubbed over all their lines. And that was really the main problem for me ... many of the voice-over artists they used were just awful, awful, awful. Whenever I chuckled during the movie it was at the inept way that they delivered their lines (they seem to constantly refer to the hero as "Waldeman"). But unfortunately it's almost impossible to find subtitled copies of Naschy movies, although they're sometimes available in the original language without subtitles.<br /><br />The directing of Jose Maria Zabalza seems sort of hit-and-miss ... there are some great visual ideas in some scenes, while others are badly constructed and poorly edited, particularly in the final scenes when it really counts. The reason for this, was that Zabalza was apparently drunk most of the time while on set. He allowed his fourteen year old nephew to rewrite Molina's dialogue, used extras without his permission, and spliced several shots from Molina's earlier movies. All of this pretty much ruined any chance this movie had of being one of Molina's best works, and it's no surprise that the two of them never worked together again.<br /><br />But it's not all bad news, as there are some good ideas here. Some aspects of the storyline make an interesting psychological drama with the werewolf as a metaphor for jealousy and rage. The 'werewolf as a yeti' idea is one that returned in Molina's later work. Some pretty horrific and surreal stuff goes on down in the cellar, and there's also a very memorable sequence about half way through the film where Daninsky runs from house to house through a village, slaughtering or molesting innocents as he goes -- one scene is particularly intense, but it's actually lifted straight from Molina's first movie, "La Marca del Hombre-lobo" along with a few other shots. I actually found the movie on the whole to be very entertaining, although there are some problems with the Front Row Entertainment version, such as pretty obvious cuts (although some of it may simply be due to the director's lack of continuity). Gods knows what omissions there are -- I'll probably try to get my hands on the uncut version at some stage in the future.<br /><br />This is a overall a decent piece of vintage Naschy which experienced fans might enjoy, but it could have been much better and so probably wouldn't make a great introduction.

Jane Russell proved to be a delightful musical-comedy performer in the similarly titled "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes"… but, sadly, this film squanders those skills. There is a budget, and nice Paris photography, but the film just doesn't work. Ms. Russell seems to be playing Marilyn Monroe. That leaves nobody to adequately play Jane Russell. Some of the other players are WAY out of their element.<br /><br />There are several embarrassing scenes; most of all, be warned: there is a musical number where boneheaded African cannibals "cook" the brunettes in a pot, after Alan Young sings in a gorilla suit.<br /><br />This is an interesting, at times embarrassing, waste of resources. <br /><br />*** Gentlemen Marry Brunettes (10/29/55) Richard Sale ~ Jane Russell, Jeanne Crain, Alan Young, Scott Brady

I must say I was impressed the cinematography was amazing, the frames close to perfection and the way he built up the tension around a subject that sound more like a dreadful bore is beyond be.<br /><br />The film is about two narrators, one seen, one unseen. They are both trying to explain the significant of a series of painting that caused a scandal a long time back. The film is all about theories and explanations of views but the conclusion is quite shocking I must say. Definitely a film that deserves more than it's 171 votes.<br /><br />With only 66 minutes to play out it's plot the film still felt like a complete work. Fantastic direction! I must say far better than Blood of the Poet which it for some strange reason remind me a bit of. <br /><br />I suppose you can call it by the slang word "artsy". It's pretty much just a lot of professional talk about various theories and stunning visual effects but the crew and Ruiz did pull it off. At least for me. An amazing film.

Elizabeth Taylor never could act at all and she was just her usual annoying, untalented self in this film. This was before she got so fat but she still looked very short and dumpy. Rock Hudson was OK as Bick Benedict but clearly an actor with more range like William Holden would have been better. James Dean certainly proved he knew how to mumble his way through a movie. The whole film is incredibly slow and goes on for far too long. The actors were all too young and lightweight and none of them aged convincingly due to the poor make-up. Hudson looked ridiculous just being padded out and Dean and Carroll Baker were obviously the same age.<br /><br />0/10.

This is, ostensibly, a movie about multiple grief. As such, it ought to move viewers and make them empathetic with the plight of the main characters. However, its irritatingly postmodern style makes it almost incomprehensible. The camera continually switches from one scene to another, from one personal crisis to the next, creating a choppy, disjointed effect. Most characters appear to live aimless, unstructured lives, held together by their professional commitments. (It also stretches credibility that a man who has just been given what amounts to a likely death sentence, would cheerfully indulge in a sex romp with a woman he has just met). The storyline (if there is a storyline) is difficult to follow. In sum, the overall effect is rather disappointing. In spite of all that, the acting is generally good and some of the scenes are quite powerful.

This film deals with the Irish rebellion in the 1920s and more specifically one man's life after he informs on a friend for the bounty on his head and the subsequent consequences. Watching the film, I got the feeling that you could take the script and with just some minor updates, do it again and it, sadly, would still fit contemporary events. But te remake wouldn't be nearly as good. A magnificent performance by Victor McLaglen (for which he deservedly got an Oscar) and a fine ensemble cast that includes most, if not all the actors with brogues in Hollywood at the time, most of them recognizable character actors either established at the time or just starting out. A very good film well worth watching. Highly recommended.

Belushi at his most ingratiating and Courtney Cox before Friends has a small role. I often think Belushi is under-used in Hollywood and this film role is one of his best. For those of you who watch his TV show, this is a very different and likable character. The movie itself is not earth shattering, nor is the message new but rather it is sweet and endearing. The supporting cast of familiar faces and unfamiliar names is a perfect balance although Lovitz's whining can get tiresome, and Michael Caine's charming spiritual guide has a slightly sinister if not well-meaning edge. Hamilton, as Belushi's wife is unfortunately two-dimensional and one wonders why he married her. In addition, Renee Russo is wasted and not terribly convincing at the "prom queen" who got away. Nevertheless, a nice way to spend two hours.

The film maybe goes a little far, but if you love the show it's what you expect. It's not a bad movie; it's actually pretty good. If you don't like the show, don't see the movie. It starts off a little slow maybe, but then picks up and turns out to be pretty funny. There are even a few "heart-wrenching" scenes toward the end. After all the protagonists have gone through these scences do get to you. Also Jerry throws in his opinion why his show upsets people and justifies his show's existience. He's got a pretty good point. We care so much about the private details of celebrities lives, so why is it wrong that these people tell their private lives on national TV, too. If they were celebrities we wouldn't mind at all, we'd eat it up. Do we not like his guest doing this just because they're poor white trash and it reminds us that there really is poverty in this world and not just rich glamous movie stars living in a "Leave it to Beaver" world?

I watched the DVD (called BLACK WIDOW in the U.S.A.) and felt afterward that it was, indeed, a truly awful movie. But they must have cut quite a bit out of the original film, or I missed a lot. The sex scenes had very little vulgarity and no nudity (not even a breast), but I've read several other comments on IMDb.com mentioning the vulgarity and something about a tampon. I did not see anything like that, just a bad, boring film with unlikable characters and a trite, sophomoric plot. Giada Colagrande is either paralyzed from the mouth up or Botoxed to the gills, and nary an expression touches her face. And her name makes me think of super-sizing a beverage at Taco Bell: "I'll have the Cola Grande!" It was actually kind of fun it was so bad, I got to play like I was in my own Mystery Science Theater 3000, noting things like the fact that Dafoe's skin is too big for his face. It's really like silly putty!

SEX WISH was actually released (minus ten minutes of more, ahem, 'extreme' footage) here in the UK back in the early days of the video boom, and caused a tabloid storm in a teacup when it allegedly inspired a copycat murder case. Strangely enough, the papers brushed this ultra-disturbing flick under the carpet in their headlong rush to get the comparatively innocuous likes of FROZEN SCREAM and NIGHT OF THE DEMON canned, and the film has been all but forgotten as a result. I jumped at the chance to watch it on a DVD-RW and spent most of the film's duration with my jaw on the floor. It's not so much politically incorrect as utterly demented, a triple-X take on Michael Winner's DEATH WISH (did the title kind of give the game away as far as inspiration was concerned?) with hardcore sex and some truly nasty violence thrown into an already bubbling brew of seventies sleaze. If you don't consider yourself to be squeamish, this may force you to think again. By the time SEX WISH is over, you'll want to scrub your eyeballs clean with disinfectant and take a long hot shower to purge yourself. If any film truly deserves the "it's only a movie, only a movie, only a movie" tag-line, it's this one.<br /><br />Highlights (or lowlights) - a rapist using a vibrator on a victim as he masturbates over her, Harry Reems's scene-stealing moustache, the helpless young black couple who are forced to screw in front the sword cane killer (they'd have won Oscars for their entirely credible performances if the Academy had gone mad) before the man is castrated for his troubles, and some jarringly slick direction that threatens to lift the proceedings above their obvious grind-house origins. Don't say I didn't warn you. If you thought the world was a more innocent place thirty years ago, SEX WISH will prove you very, very wrong.

First of all, what is good in the movie ? Some pretty actress ? the exotic background ? the fact that the actors don't laugh while acting (I would have if I had been in their situation) ? I don't know. The storyline is simple : a catholic priest who does abstract painting tries to find out who (another abstract painter) killed his little brother, a male prostitute (raped by another priest when he was young...). I'm afraid there is nothing here to learn or to let think a little about serial killers, art or religion. Dennis Hopper is not very good here. This is the worst episode of the worst season of "profiler" (the serie) with replacement actors and unbelievable coincidences (the uncle is the policeman who, the girl who lives at another victim's house could have a baby with the priest, etc., etc).

Ernst Lubitsch's contribution to the American cinema is enormous. His legacy is an outstanding group of movies that will live forever, as is the case with "The Shop Around the Corner". This film has been remade into other less distinguished movies and a musical play, without the charm or elegance of Mr. Lubitsch's own, and definite version.<br /><br />Margaret Sullavan and James Stewart worked in several films together. Their characters in this movie stand out as an example of how to be in a movie without almost appearing to be acting at all. Both stars are delightful as the pen pals that don't know of one another, but who fate had them working together in the same shop in Budapest.<br /><br />The reason why these classic films worked so well is the amazing supporting casts the studios put together in picture after picture. In here, we have the wonderful Frank Morgan, playing the owner of the shop. Also, we see Joseph Schildkraut, Felix Bressart, William Tracy and Charles Smith, among others, doing impressive work in making us believe that yes, they are in Budapest.<br /><br />That is why these films will live forever!

Two warring shop workers in a leather-goods store turn out to be secret sweethearts as they correspond under box-number aliases. Within this simple idea and an everyday setting, Lubitsch produces a rich tapestry of wit, drama, poignancy and irony that never lets up. Stewart and Sullavan are perfect as the average couple with real emotions and tensions, and the rest of the well-developed characters have their own sub-plots and in-jokes. Although wrongly eclipsed by Stewart's big films of 39/40 (Destry, Philadelphia Story, Mr Smith) this is easily on a par and we enjoy a whole range of acting subtlties unseen in the other films.

The story of this film is truly remarkable. A virus cut loose and only 1% of the human race survived. The only thing we know now is that animals rule the land above and there are posters everywhere that say, "The Twelve Monkeys did it." Thats right, the human race had to hide underground from the sickness that had killed over 500 Billion people. Apparently animals do not contract this disease. Day by day the present scientist try to discover what type of sickness had caused this; how it was created; if nature did it or a mere human being had created it. All they know is that there is are a bunch of animals running around a city above them, the deaths began during 1996-1997, and twelve monkeys have something to do with it. (Or at least thats what the poster says.) So a current convict named James Cole (Bruce Willis) is sent as a "volunteer" to get some samples from above. After he does his "volunteer" work, he is asked to be sent back in time to the year 1996 to figure out what happened to the world. Cole accepts and the story of the Twelve Monkeys begin.<br /><br />Throughout the story the time machine gets the dates wrong quite a few times, from 1990, to some time during the 1950's. (In a middle of a war.) Throughout the time traveling back and forth, it starts to mess James up in the head and that twist the story up. The whole story is very well done and I would of gave it a higher grade if it wasn't for the ending. I personally didn't like the ending of the movie and I was very disappointed. I just was expecting a more explaining ending then what had happen, but it isn't everyone who thinks this way. So I gave it a 8, but if everyone had the same opinion as me I would give it a 6 or 7.<br /><br />For the whole acting of the film, I give it a A+. Bruce Willis is great for this role and he acts good, but Brad Pitt is completely 100% excellent. His acting is so great, he gets into the character so well. I never really cared for Brad Pitt in till I saw him in this and Fight Club. There characters or similar in this film, he is just a little more... insane in this film. So overall I think this film is completely worth checking out. For most people it's a great science fiction film, I just don't think it is a masterpiece.

I agree with most of the other guys. A waste of photons and valuable time.<br /><br />Nearly no joke is worth the paper is was written on. The only highlight from my pov is Olli Dittrich as Pinocchio. ("Egal, ich muss eh Waldsterben") This reminds of old times with RTL Samstag Nacht. It is hard to describe the performances of the actors, since most of them don't even seem to have a good time during production and just "do their thing". Camera is OK, plot is laughable, I think you would be ashamed even if you discuss this with lots of beers.<br /><br />Apart from this I yawned all the time, wondered about how a script like this could even be considered for production and waited for the end.<br /><br />My 9 year old son was pleased, but then he is pleased by so little at this age :-)<br /><br />Anyway, a 1 point rating here nearly is 1 point too much...

The sign of a classic movie is that it ages like a fine red wine. This movie is no Cabarnet and certainly no Casablanca. I agree with the other reviewers that the children in the movie are an unfortunate mutation that now plagues us nightly in sit-coms and the dialogue is stilted and preachy. But let's look at the obsolete theme of the movie.<br /><br />With the passage of sixty plus years of history comes wisdom. Since Watch on the Rhine, author Lillian Hellman has been exposed as a Bidenesque plagiarist with her so called real-life story "Julia" from her book "Pentimento". As one of the most odious of a plethora of Western-based USSR apologists, it is obvious her theme in the play and movie was to stir America to action to save the bloody Soviet dictator Stalin and international communism from the fascists, who had just proved their military superiority in Spain.<br /><br />As one reviewer correctly noted, this is not a pro-American play and movie, as Lillian went to her grave an American-loathing communist. This film chronicles that familiar smug stupidity of the intellectual elites that made up the American Left then, just as now the full mooner Left of The Daily Kos and Michael Moore has bought into the conspiracy theories and once again given aid and comfort to those who would destroy America.

Visually stunning? Most definitely. I have seen few films look this good in some time. Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow uses striking cinematography, computer graphics, and creative futuristic designs to create a world that is historically familiar yet something quite fresh. The time period seems to be the 1930s or early 40s. The movie tells of recent attacks on New York City by mechanized armies stealing generators and the like for some inexplicable reason. Also, mysterious disappearances of relevant scientific minds coincide. Who can stop them and save the world? Alright, it doesn't take a leap of faith to know it is the Sky Captain himself with his wisecracking reporter girlfriend always hot for a lead, and in the wings his trusty, thoroughly competent sidekick. What Sky Captain has in atmosphere and graphics it lacks in storytelling and characterization. The plot for this film is ridiculous. That being said, the film is going for a serial-like feeling of film serials of yesteryear. They had pretty far out stories and bad acting - but none of them, and I mean none of them, had the budget and big names this film had. Two academy award winning performers and Jude Law could keep a film afloat, one would think, but Sky Captain sinks miserably. Despite its fantastic dark look, I found myself wishing the film would just end and I could get on with my life. I had little interest in a story that generated little interest. I didn't care at all for any of the glib portrayals. Paltrow was just awful. Jolie was a joke with a role with virtually no substance. Law cannot carry the one-liner tradition all too squarely on his limited shoulders. I mean, let's face it, he's not Will Smith, Mel Gibson, or even Wesley Snipes. The sad thing about Sky Captain, at least for me, was that it held so much promise yet delivered so little. I was bored ten minutes into the film - waiting for something to hook my interest - and it never came.

At least something good came out of Damon Runyon's misguided attempt to sentimentalize the Mafia. "Guys and Dolls," the seemingly indestructible stage musical, was captured on film in 1955 by Joseph L. Mankiewicz ("All About Eve") in a colorful, enjoyable movie that featured an all-star cast including Vivian Blaine (from the original Broadway show), Jean Simmons (whose character bears an odd resemblance to Audrey Hepburn in "Roman Holiday") and two of the all-time great leading men, Frank Sinatra and Marlon Brando, both of whom had recently won Oscars for Best Supporting Actor ("From Here To Eternity") and Best Actor ("On the Waterfront") and were on the top of their game. One listen to Brando singing "Luck Be a Lady Tonight" speaks volumes about where the early Dylan got his voice. Stubby Kaye steals the show as Nicely Nicely Johnson, who brings down the house with "Sit Down You're Rocking The Boat." The ubiquitous Sheldon Leonard adds yet another page to his rogue's gallery of screen gangsters. The film has a bright, cartoonish look, anticipating the Pop Art of the early 1960s. The characters speak in a stylized patois, apparently based on Yiddish idioms. Although the film's social attitudes and gender roles are dated, it's all great fun, and even the gentle kidding of the Salvation Army is harmless and reflects no real animosity toward organized religion. Just seeing Sinatra and Brando in the same film is reason enough to watch this movie, but it has lots of other attractions to offer during its 149 minutes.

This is the greatest film I saw in 2002, whereas I'm used to mainstream movies. It is rich and makes a beautiful artistic act from these 11 short films. From the technical info (the chosen directors), I feared it would have an anti-American basis, but ... it's a kind of (11 times) personal tribute.<br /><br />The weakest point comes from Y. Chahine : he does not manage to "swallow his pride" and considers this event as a well-merited punishment ... It is really the weakest part of the movie, but this testifies of a real freedom of speech for the whole piece. The weirdest comes from the Mexican nearly conceptual-art film ... I am still not sure what A. Gonzalez Inarritu meant. The 9 others are perfect (K. Loach, S. Penn, S. Makhmalbaf, ...) or nearly perfect (C. Lelouch) and made me either smile, or cry or even left me stunned. I still don't know if S. Imamura's fable is really related or not to the September 11th catastrophe, but it is so pretty that its finale place deeply 'makes it'.

Casting Jack Cassidy as Ken Frankin was sheer brilliance. Cassidy personified arrogance, confidence, charm and wit - all with a condescending, evil little smirk on his face. In my opinion, Jack Cassidy is by far the best murderer (having appeared three times) in the Columbo series. This particular (and first) performance, is my favorite Columbo episode ever - hands down. A fresh faced Steven Spielberg did amazing camera work (yes, there were a couple of camera shadows on the actors at times)capturing the nuances and banter at different and intriguing angles between Columbo and Franklin. Also, the panoramic and tight in shots at Big Bear Lake, CA (Franklin's cabin home) were very impressive.<br /><br />If you have not yet seen this episode, then you owe it to yourself to do so - it's a true masterpiece.<br /><br />Jack Cassidy was a very talented actor and singer. His charismatic personality was highly infectious. His death in 1976, at age 49 was very sad and indeed very tragic - he surely had his best years ahead of him. Rest in Peace Jack, you will live on for eternity through your great work.

This movie was the best movie I have ever seen. Being LDS I highly recommend this movie because you are able to feel a more understanding about the life of Joseph Smith. Although the movie was not made with highly acclaimed actors it is a remarkable and life changing movie that can be enjoyed and appreciated by everyone. I saw this movie with my family and I can bear witness that we have all had a change of heart. This movie allows people to really understand how hard the life was for the prophet and how much tribulation he was faced with. After I saw this movie,there was not a single dry eye in the entire room. Everyone was touched by what they saw and I have not been the same since I have seen it. I highly recommend this movie for everyone.

One of those classics, held up next to "Deep Throat" and "Behind the Green Door."<br /><br />Sure, it was clever, but the female lead isn't that attractive and sex isn't that hot. But if not for this film, porn would not have blossomed into what it is today.<br /><br />Harry Reems was the Ron Jeremy of his day. Worth a look if you're a Fan.

are highlights of this 1917 feature. The Pride of the Clan tells the story of a young girl who becomes clan chieftain after her father dies. On an island off the coast of Scotland, the villagers live the simple lives of "fisher folk." My copy is very dark and sometimes hard to read, but the film boasts some stunning ocean scenery, and the camera work on boats is splendid. Maurice Tourneur directed Pickford in this pleasant film. Pickford was already a major star in 1917, and this film seems to have been written just for her: plucky young woman succeeds over misfortune. Pickford whip lashing lazy villagers toward church is very funny. And the final scenes on the sinking ship are very well done. Not a great Picford film, but still worth seeing. Matt Moore (Pickford was married to his brother, Owen Moore) is the love interest, and is good as the strapping island lad. Leatrice Joy is one of the villagers but I couldn't spot her either. My copy intersperses lots of bells and gongs and adds an eerie feeling when the village warning bells are rung. Very effective.

I saw "An American in Paris" on its first release when I was still at school and fell in love with it straightaway. I went back to see it again the next day and have lost count of the number of times I have seen it since, both in the cinema and on TV. It makes fantastic use of some of the best music and songs by the greatest popular composer of the twentieth century (George Gershwin) and features the greatest male (Gene Kelly) and female (Leslie Caron) dancers in Hollywood history. The supporting cast of Oscar Levant (as quirky as ever), Georges Guetary (why didn't he make more movies ?) and Nina Foch (brilliant in an unsympathetic role) are at the top of their form. The closing ballet, superbly choreographed to the title music, makes excellent use of the sights and sounds of Paris and of the images of impressionist and post-impressionist artists. All the Gershwin songs are beautifully staged, but the most memorable are "It's Very Clear" (Caron and Kelly on the banks of the Seine) and "I Got Rhythm" (the kids of Paris joining Gene Kelly in "Une Chanson Americaine"). If you love Paris, see this movie. If you've never been to Paris in your life, see it. But see it !

This is a quirky little movie, and I have to agree that there is some quirky acting in it as well.<br /><br />It follows the adventures of a young man who decides that he wants to become a famous Las Vegas illusionist, and is partly about following his dream, partly about the dreams of others, and all about the travails of showbiz. I thought the movie was charming, and it has a moment or two of real magic that make the whole thing worthwhile.<br /><br />Alan Arkin is terrific as the magician who never was, and his mentoring of Max makes for a funny and touching relationship.<br /><br />Not for everyone, probably, but if you like movies about the journey, then I think you'll like this one.

I saw the movie last night and I really wanted to like it. My expectations for the movie had been going up and down ever since I heard it was being made. Some days I'd see something spectacular and some days I'd be disappointed.<br /><br />Yet being the kind of fan I am, I had high hopes for this movie but in the end I was sorely disappointed.<br /><br />While I love the Richard Donner movies I didn't like their sometimes campy nature or the changes they made to Superman's character and his powers.<br /><br />Singer however chose to take the worst elements of the Donner movies and put them in his version.<br /><br />While his Lex Luthor is slightly darker he's still nothing more than a shyster, a conman and a common criminal. He's no more intelligent than when Gene Hackman played him. Kevin Spacey does his best to play Luthor well but ultimately he falls victim to shoddy writing and unremarkable dialog.<br /><br />His henchmen are more two dimensional than even comic book henchmen. Most of them literally have no dialog in the movie.<br /><br />****SPOILERS AHEAD**** Kitty Kowalski is almost exactly the same character as Ms. Tesmacher. She seems to be as evil and cold as Lex Luthor but she proves to be just an underling who melts after seeing Superman in trouble and quite predictably betrays Luthor.<br /><br />The biggest disappointment in the movie was Frank Langella as Perry White. I wasn't a huge fan of the over the top Perry White in the Donner movies but at least he had a soul. He was after all said and done, a veteran reporter who cared about the truth and a good story. Langella's Perry White is nothing but a corporate stooge. He wants everyone to concentrate on the Superman related stories because they sell papers even though every other paper is doing the same thing. He doesn't care about the real stories, the real mysteries like the black out and what Lex Luthor is up to now that he's out of prison.<br /><br />The worst thing about Langella is that he's DULL! Some actors can be quiet and sober and yet have an undercurrent that lets you know that still waters run deep. Frank Langella is puddle.<br /><br />Brandon Routh is not a bad actor. He's OK but again there is not a single memorable line in the whole movie. Not the actor's fault. His movements are clearly meant to look graceful, like even the slightest movement of his fingers effects the way he flies. But it still looks choreographed and artificial.<br /><br />Lois Lane while badly written was surprisingly well acted by Kate Bosworth. Unfortunately, again, for a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and writer, she is about as eloquent as any teenage on Dawson's Creek.<br /><br />James Marsden was my favorite actor in the whole movie, mostly because he looks more like Superman than even Routh. Without any superpowers he manages to figure out Lois Lane's message, flies a plane to the location, gets on board Luthor's yacht and rescues Lois and her son.<br /><br />The only moving moment in the movie is when they are all trapped pantry as it is flooding with water and the ship is sinking. You see them slowly going being immersed in the water. You know Superman's going to come by at the last moment to rescue them but still you can't help but feel sorry for them.<br /><br />As I said before the plot is very haphazard. Unlike Singer has said, this is not a movie about a superhero returning and trying to find his place in the world. As soon as he returns the world welcomes him back with open arms. Lois is the only one who's not happy to see him back. Even Luthor is happy to have Superman back because it gives him a chance to settle the score with the man of steel.<br /><br />Superman is shown to be probably one of the dumbest heroes in the universe. A big green piece of meteorite is stolen from a museum, Lex Luthor is out of prison, he now has knowledge about Superman's powers and weaknesses, and yet he's still not able to connect the dots enough to know Luthor would be using kryptonite against him.<br /><br />According to the movie the only thing Superman is good for is lifting really, really heavy things. The action sequences are all incredibly predictable.

What happened? 'Doubt' had so much potential to be a brilliant film - but instead it faltered with a dragging simplistic plot line which made me want to stop watching. The only thing the film had going for it was the brilliance of Meryl Streep, who no DOUBT deserved the Oscar-nomination. Though it was not one of her best performances, she still gave a solid and truthful character to us which blossomed through the screen.<br /><br />However, not even the brilliance of a screen legend could save this film from going down hill. From the boring start, which had no power or punch - to the less than convincing ending, the film was truly a disappointment - especially since it provided so much potential through its promotion and trailers. It was obvious the director had trouble with the simplicity of the plot and he ended up with a boring film, which dragged on for too long, with too much talk and not enough action.<br /><br />Furthermore, the other Oscar-nominations were less than convincing. Though Philip Seymour Hoffman gave a decent performance, it was by no means Oscar-worthy. (Especially since they completely left out performances such as Will Smith, in Seven Pounds). Amy Adams did not deserve the nomination. Watching Amy Adams was like watching a cardboard box - as it was one sided and plain. It would have made more sense to nominate her for a Razzie, as I am sure she would have walked away victorious. Viola Davis gave a short but truthful performance, but the length of her performance made me question whether the academy really should have given her the nomination.<br /><br />Overall, I consider Doubt to be one of the most disappointing films of 2008. It was a mess of a film with so much potential, and I do not recommend it. The only shining light in the film is Meryl Streep, who though gives a stunning, solid performance - doesn't even do enough to save this film. *** / 10.

Some people might call "Paulie" a kids' movie, but I wish to assert that it's more than that. Probably more than anything else, this movie successfully goes to great lengths to show the plight of immigrants in the United States - topical given the recent debates. Portraying a parrot telling a Russian immigrant janitor (Tony Shalhoub) of how he searched America for his original owners, the movie tells several stories. There's the elderly woman (Gena Rowlands) whom he befriends, then a Mexican immigrant (Cheech Marin), and others.<br /><br />All in all, it's a very well done movie. I usually don't expect much from these sorts of movies, but this one is a treat. I certainly recommend it. Also starring Jay Mohr, Buddy Hackett, Bruce Davison, Hallie Eisenberg and Trini Alvarado.

A surprising rent at a local video store, I was pleased to find a media satire worthy enough to challenge Oliver Stone's "Natural Born Killers." And almost as disturbing. I think it went well with my viewing to be in late 2004 watching the Republican Machine do it's magic on the majority of America's television viewing populous. It brings up the question "Are we really that manipulative?" <br /><br />It definitely skewed my view. There was also a larger theological question being provoked- the story of Christ. Could word of mouth and overwhelming dependence on something exploitive as television produce a messiah? Could the story of Christ been exaggerated? Could it have been completely fabricated? It's something the movie puts in a extremely perceptive light.

The only reason I saw this movie was for Jimmy Fallon, who I've had a crush on since 9th grade, which was his first year on SNL. I am a die-hard Yankees fan, and I didn't find the movie painful until the last 15 minutes, when they begin showing clips of the ALCS games. I had to cover my ears and make small noises so I wouldn't have to hear that which must not be heard, but otherwise it was completely bearable.<br /><br />I thought Jimmy played the role very well, because the character was supposed to be nervous and quirky, and he is a nervous and quirky guy. I know that it may not be a Academy Award-winning stretch, but the movie is just a light, fun, romantic comedy that is actually appropriate for both women and men to see.<br /><br />Jimmy and Drew worked well together, and they had much better chemistry on camera than other actors in the past. (Ed Burns and Angelina Jolie in that stupid movie? What?) I think Jimmy has a positive career ahead of him, and thank goodness, because Taxi could have killed it. I think Fever Pitch will help him out a lot. Everyone needs to stop being so critical of his acting ability because he is just starting out in movies. I imagine it must be difficult, and if you look at any of the other great actors of our time (Tom Hanks, Russell Crowe, etc) you'll see that they started off in some flops. Busom Buddies? Australian soap operas? Here's wishing Jimmy a successful career on screen. I never wanted him to leave SNL but what can you do?

This film was slow but tedious and the acting often drifted into the land of ham. Redgrave's character was unappealing as the 60 something woman trying to compete with Thurman's 20 something for the love of Fox's character (why is beyond me). The title of the movie should have been "Shallow people on the lake". The actors played like they were in a rehearsal. A dreadfully predictable ending to boot. I can't believe this is on this website as a comedy!

This horror movie is really weak...that is if this is the correct movie I am commenting on. Nothing really terrible goes on as a family adopts a cute little German Shepard pup. I had a German Shepard and it is a really good dog. I did not get the idea to get one from this movie though, but rather from the comedy "K-9". That is another story all together though. This movie really doesn't have much horror at all as the most horrific scene is at the end and it looks really cheesy. Also, we see a guy almost put his hand into a lawn mower. That is about it. The father suspects something though, as his family seems to be getting rather strange, somewhere he finds out if you hold a mirror to them while they are sleeping you can see if they are possessed. All in all a really weak horror movie even by television standards...television movies that do work are out there as "This House Possessed" is pretty good and there is another haunted house movie about a woman and these strange creatures that is also rather good. This one is really rather dull.

OK, I didn't have high expectations but this film descending into depths I could not imagine.<br /><br />The plot, as it were, involved a priest of an obscure 2 member order investigating the death of the founder of the order by a Sin Eater. The Sin Eater allows for Catholics to achive salvation outside the authority of the Church and is yet another immortal in film with loads of ennui. Nevermind that this makes no sense since then a Baptist could give you salvation....we'll move on.<br /><br />I'll layout the plot w/o giving much away: the priest goes to Rome with his buddy to investogate. He brings with him a mental patient (I'm not making this up) who shot him during an excorism and who loves him (not one lick of this BTW is explained), a drunk Irish priest and Peter Weller as a Cardinal. They get to Rome, find some creepy kids who do nothing in the film, meet with a bondage gear S&M anti-pope that the drunk Irish guy knows (not explained) and who gives information by killing people (oh, BTW, he's a bad guy so he has an industrial/techno soundtrack) and then...umm, seriously, I'm not sure. the plot meanders about. Heath chills with the Sin Eater, flies to New York with the Sin Eater for an overnighter and then some other stuff happens and then (all off camera) the anti-pope falls and the film ends.<br /><br />About 1 hour into the film one really wonder if anything has happened. By the end something has happened but you can't be at all certain that it matters and since most of the drama takes place either before the movei or off-scren you're really feeling cheated.

It is Queen Victoria's misfortune to be defined as an historical figure according to her relationships with men.Shortly after she succeeded to the throne she came under the influence of her Prime Minister Lord Melbourne to the extent that she became known as "Mrs Melbourne".After the death of her beloved husband,Albert,she was referred to as "The Widow at Windsor",and years later,a long friendship with her Scottish ghillie John Brown earned her the nickname "Mrs Brown".Such is the price women paid in a patriarchal society. The reality is somewhat different and "Young Victoria" goes some way towards putting the record straight,depicting the queen as an intelligent and independent young woman conscious of the inequities in her society and at her court. Courts have always been hotbeds of seething jealousy,plotting and counter-plotting,naked ambition and sometimes,outright murder. As an 18 year old innocent,Victoria ascended to her uncle's throne,thus initiating a positive orgy of intrigue and a power-struggle between Prime minister Lord Melbourne and his rival Sir Robert Peel. Lord Melbourne cuts a dash in the Old Public School Man kind of way with his finely-honed cynicism and his well-polished gems of advice. Hardly surprising then that the young queen finds herself in awe of him,and even perhaps a little in love,an awe that he ruthlessly exploits,drawing a fine line between attempted seduction and attempted sedition as he forces his policies through against Victoria's better judgement. Into the arena rides Prince Albert,on a mission from King Leopold of Belgium,keen on political rapprochement between Great Britain and the rest of Europe. At first a reluctant suitor,he soon falls in love with the English queen and palliates the influence of the politicians and courtiers. "The Young Victoria" is a beautifully photographed,brilliantly-scored and very sumptuous movie.I note that it has been criticised in some quarters for this sumptuousness as if a movie about 19th century English Royalty should somehow have shown the Empress of India and her family living in rags in a filthy workhouse........I don't think so. I must single out the remarkable Miss Emily Blunt whose beauty reminded me of the young Princess Margaret's.Hers is obviously the pivotal role, and she has absolutely no trouble in dominating the film despite strong performances from Mr Jim Broadbent,Miss Miranda Richardson and Miss Harriet Walter,all immeasurably more experienced. The music is suitably regal and forms a cohesive part of the whole movie without being in any way obtrusive. The fact that Britan flourished more under its two great queens,Elizabeth the First and Victoria,than at any other time is a matter Feminists might like to make more of,but,I suspect,like Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher really powerful women make them feel uncomfortable.If you can work out why there might be a Ph.D . in it.

I will begin by saying I am very pleased with this climax of the Bourne trilogy. Please, oh please don't ruin it by doing a sequel years from now or a prequel. Just leave it alone. Right..moving on.As talented and versatile as Matt Damon is...it seems as though he was just meant to play Jason Bourne.<br /><br />If you are a fan of the first two Bourne movies, you will not be disappointed by the third installment. It sticks to what works and adds a little more. I was very pleased to see how well all the information we obtain in 'Identity' and 'Supremacy' all mesh in 'Ultimatum' to finally paint the full picture of Jason Bourne's troubled past. The action sequences are fast paced and keeps you on the edge of your seat. The fights between Bourne and the assassins are always fun to watch. I have always been a fan of movies surrounding CIA agents and how the CIA gather their Intel and this movie is right up that street, making it even more exciting for me.<br /><br />If you choose to watch The Bourne Ultimatum without watching the previous 2 installments..you will still thoroughly enjoy the movie but I would still recommend you watch them first. This would allow you to fully understand the character Jason Bourne and become attached and be a part of his world. This allows you to appreciate and enjoy the movie even more. I'm not sure which is the better of the first 2 but I personally think 'Ultimatum' might, just MIGHT, have the edge when comparing the trilogy.

CAROL'S JOURNEY is a pleasure to watch for so many reasons. The acting of Clara Lago is simply amazing for someone so young, and she is one of those special actors who can say say much with facial expressions. Director Imanol Urbibe presents a tight and controlled film with no break in continuity, thereby propelling the plot at a steady pace with just enough suspense to keep one wondering what the nest scene will bring. The screenplay of Angel Garcia Roldan is story telling at its best, which, it seems, if the major purpose for films after all. The plot is unpredictable, yet the events as they unravel are completely logical. Perhaps the best feature of this film if to tell a story of the Spanish Civil War as it affected the people. It was a major event of the 20th century, yet hardly any Americans know of it. In fact, in 40 years of university teaching, I averaged about one student a semester who had even heard of it, much less any who could say anything comprehensive about it--and the overwhelming number of students were merit scholars, all of which speaks to the enormous amount of censorship in American education. So, in one way, this film is a good way to begin a study of that event, keeping in mind that when one thread is pulled a great deal of history is unraveled. The appreciation of this film is, therefore, in direct relation to the amount of one's knowledge. To view this film as another coming of age movie is the miss the movie completely. The Left Elbow Index considers seven aspects of film-- acting, production sets, character development, plot, dialogue, film continuity, and artistry--on a scale for 10 for very good, 5 for average, and 1 for needs help. CAROL'S JOURNEY is above average on all counts, excepting dialogue which is rated as average. The LEI average for this film is 9.3, raised to a 10 when equated to the IMDb scale. I highly recommend this film for all ages.

There are so many words I want to use to describe this movie, but can't really do that can I? This movie is a movie to watch if you just want to sit, laugh, cry and then pee. I'm serious. Don't watch this movie if you're easily offended by profanity, sex, nudity, homosexuality...and everything else associated with nature. Being a woman, and that might not even be a factor, I can watch this movie over and over again. Trey Parker and Matt Stone are absolutely brilliant. Along with all their other debuts, I think Baseketball is the prize winner. I'm laughing now just thinking about some of the stupid things they do in the movie. Watch the movie!! That's all I'm going to say. It's sort of hard for me to leave this comment because I'm one of those people, like Ozzy Osbourne, who has a curse word in almost every line that blurts out of their mouth when they speak. So I'm keeping it professional. Best movie. Heck yeah!!

A top contender for worst film ever made. Joanna Pakula's character seems to have an I.Q. of 3 which is only one less than the writer and director. The screenplay would not have passed in a high school writing class; the "jokes" are juvenile; the concept corny. These performers were obviously desperate for work. I stayed to the end only to see if it would get worse. It did. Life is too short to spend any part of it watching this film.

The novel is easily superior and the best parts of the film are direct translations from what Greene wrote; for instance the quiet but grim humour that breaks into the scenes with Boyer and Lorre, or the murdered-child obsession that takes over some of the plot. Where the film deviates from the novel, it tends to the ludicrous.<br /><br />However I don't want to suggest that the film is bad in any way. It always looks the part and the story stays in the mind like a good 'un. Some of the minor characters were stock actors who could turn their hand to anything.<br /><br />It's a dreadful shame that the film's not available on DVD.

The sitcom "The league of Gentlemen" follows the lives of several bizarre inhabitants of the fictional village "Royston Vasey". The different scenes are linked together by their common setting.<br /><br />In the first series, a sketch show, the main plot deals with a new road which is going to be built through Royston Vasey. Consequently, more foreigners visit the small town. But Edward and Tubbs, the owners of a "local" shop, which is actually far away from the town, do not like foreigners. Whenever a visitor enters their shop, they kill him. In my opinion some scenes are kind of tasteless and not funny at all, for example, when the couple absorb two engineers who want to build the new road. Edward drums, while Tubbs is dancing half naked around the victims. <br /><br />Moreover Pauline lives in Royston Vasey. She works at the local Job Centre. Although Pauline hates the people she has to work with, the woman does not want to loose her job. So when an unemployed man gets an interview as fireman, she does not allow him to go because he is not ready for the job yet.<br /><br />Then there is Barbara Dixton, a transsexual taxi driver who goes into great detail about "her" sexual conversion.<br /><br />Furthermore the vet, Mr. Chinnery, always kills animals instead of curing them. In one case, he comes to a farm and is leaded into the sitting room, where a dog lays in his basket. The farmer goes outside. On the assumption that the dog is the sick animal, Mr. Chinnery euthanizes him. A second later, the farmer opens the door, holding the "real" sick animal, a sheep, in his hand.<br /><br />Some more inhabitants are a husband and his wife who are visited by their nephew (his friend is killed by the shop owners, by the way). The couple is very tidy. They have, for example, towels in different colours. Each colour stands for one part of the body. Besides, they have thousands of keys, marked with different colours and precisely classified.<br /><br />In my opinion, the actors play very well. By playing women, the scenes become comical. The costumes are suited to the actors, too. Tubbs is wearing a scarf and some crazy characters, for example Edward, have unappetizing black teeth. The show has a great deal of dark humour, typical British. The set design reflects the mood of the series. The village and all the houses look grey and are decayed. Around the local shop there is often fog which strengthens the threatening effect. Even the village sign is ominous: "Welcome to Royston Vasey. You will never leave."<br /><br />Although I think that the actors do a great job, this type of series is not my taste.

Wow, this is very unusual in one regard: usually the first movie in a long string of sequels is the best of the bunch. People are surprised when a sequel is actually better. With Tarzan, I thought this movie was the worst of the bunch, or at least the first six which comprise my Tarzan Collection DVD package. I will gladly watch the sequels multiple times but I am through sitting through this turkey, thanks to several characters.<br /><br />Well, let's start with the good news first:<br /><br />THE GOOD - Plenty of action with a lot of wild animals on display, even if they are just stock footage. You see lion attacks, crocodiles, hippos, panthers, you name it, and you see several of the different tribes of all kinds, including pygmies (called "dwarfs" in the movie.) Since this movie was made almost 75 years ago, I can't knock any of the realism because they didn't have it in the movies that long ago. They do the best they can so you put up with actors talking in front of fake backgrounds. However, Weissmuller did a lot of action scenes and was in great shape. He and O'Sullivan make a well-built handsome couple, if there ever was one in those Golden Years of cinema.<br /><br />The film has historical value (with so many sequels) in that it shows how Tarzan acquired Jane and his beginnings of learning the English language.<br /><br />The BAD - From the moment "Jane Parker" is taken by Tarzan almost every scene with her is Maureen O'Sullivan in hysterics, shrieking and screaming scene after scene. It's enough to give you a headache and it ruins the film. Thankfully, she calmed down in the sequels, but not in this movie. The movie also does no favors for "The Great White Hunter" image as C. Aubrey Smith, playing Jane's father, and Neil Hamilton, as "Harry Holt," the safari guide, shoot at every animal within sight, whether the beasts is threatening or not. These people are kill- happy, particularly Smith. On another note, it's too bad there isn't anything in here explaining how Tarzan got to be in the jungle in the first place. There is no history of him in here or footage of his growing up. He's just there when Jane and the group get to a certain point in Africa.

Words fail me.<br /><br />And that isn't common.<br /><br />Done properly this could have been great, funny spoof B-movie sci-fi, but sadly, it was not to be. Rarely in the field of drama have so many competent actors struggled so vainly with such a dogs-breakfast of a script. I can only endorse the previous reviewer's comments - go clean the bathroom. In fact do ANYTHING except watch this film.<br /><br />Positives: Lucy Beeman's nose. Negatives: Everything else.<br /><br />Most apposite line: "This isn't going anywhere".<br /><br />If only every plastic surgeon could meet with such a fate.

As a "Jane Eyre" fan I was excited when this movie came out. "At last," I thought, "someone will make this book into a movie following the story actually written by the author." Wrong!!! If the casting director was intending to cast a "Jane" who was plain he certainly succeeded. However, surely he could have found one who could also act. Where was the tension between Jane and Rochester? Where was the spooky suspense of the novel when the laughter floated into the night seemingly from nowhere? Where was the sparkle of the child who flirted and danced like her mother? Finally, why was the plot changed at the end? One wonders whether the screenwriters had actually read the book. What a disappointment

In the history of movies based on comic books, "Mystery Men" is one of the most underrated ones. This is no regular comic superhero movie! It follows the exploits of a motley crew of well-meaning wannabes, which include Mr. Furious (played by Ben Stiller), the Bowler (Janeane Garofalo), the Shoveller (William H. Macy), the Blue Rajah (Hank Azariah) and the Spleen (Paul Reubens). "Mystery Men" spoofs several aspects of superhero movies like "Superman" or "Batman," such as the pithy sayings, and the questions about secret identities. Most of the superheroes aren't billionaires like Bruce Wayne, but blue-collar types with menial jobs and neurotic home lives. So it looks as if director Kinka Usher is making the heroes into something the average viewer can relate to. I found "Mystery Men" to be visually stimulating and very funny. Even if it doesn't turn into a franchise, it's still a joy to watch!

In director Sooraj Barjatya's Vivah,20-something Delhi boy Shahid Kapur finds himself smitten by the demure, small-town girl his father has selected for him to marry. Drawn to her innocence and simplicity, Shahid agrees to the marriage barely moments after he's met her at her home in Madhupur, and the young lady in question Amrita Rao seems equally floored by her charming suitor. The marriage is fixed for six months later, and the couple find themselves in the first throes of young, budding love, their geographical distance notwithstanding. But Amrita, who's been raised by her uncle and her aunt after her parents' death, is struck by a horrible calamity just hours before the marriage. And then, it's up to Shahid to play the honourable lover and to embrace her unconditionally.Much in the same vein as Hum Aapke Hain Koun and Hum Saath Saath Hain, Barjatya's new film Vivah too is on one level a family drama with an extremely idealistic premise. But sadly, the plot of this new film comes off looking way too outdated, even more far-fetched than those regressive Ekta Kapoor soaps. And the problem is clear – you just can't relate to such squeaky-clean characters who don't have one bad bone in their bodies. There are many things that work in favour of and against Hindi films, and timing is one such important factor. Twenty-five years ago, perhaps the plot of Vivah may not have felt like such a stretch, but today it just seems like the product of a mind stuck in a time warp. Perhaps the film's only saving grace is the fact that it oozes sincerity from start to finish, you can make out right away that the filmmaker's intention is not to deceive. Judging both by Barjatya's previous films and by closely examining this new one you can safely declare that Barjatya believes in a perfect world, he believes in his good-as-gold characters, he believes that large families can live together happily under the same roof without the slightest bumps.But alas, he's unable to translate his vision to the screen. It's difficult to overlook how one-dimensional his protagonists are – Shahid and Amrita, both virtuous and virginal – I mean, think about it, the first time they hold hands is an hour and twenty minutes into the film. Barjatya may think he's returning to his Maine Pyar Kiya roots with Vivah, but truth is that the reason we embraced Salman and Bhagyashree in that film, or even Salman and Madhuri in Hum Aapke Hain Koun is because they had such fantastic chemistry. Because although they were created out of the same mould as Shahid and Amrita in Vivah, those pairs had mischief and masti. Shahid and Amrita are just insipid and boring.For a film that relies so heavily on music to narrate its story, the filmmaker chooses a string of 70s-style tunes that only further slacken the film's deadening pace. But if I had to choose just one reason to explain why Vivah doesn't work for me, it's because I'm not sure I can relate to any of the characters who inhabit Barjatya's story. To some perhaps, Vivah will give hope, that a perfect world like this is actually out there somewhere. But I'm a little cynical I guess. So, give me the coquettish Madhuri of Hum Aapke Hain Kaun, give me the bratty Salman of Maine Pyar Kiya, I'll even take that mischievous Karisma Kapoor of Hum Saath Saath Hain. But save me from these dullards. You know, some marriages aren't made in heaven. This one's Vivah!

Sure, Titanic was a good movie, the first time you see it, but you really should see it a second time and your opinion of the film will definetly change. The first time you see the movie you see the underlying love-story and think: ooh, how romantic. The second time (and I am not the only one to think this) it is just annoying and you just sit there watching the movie thinking, When is this d**n ship going to sink??? And even this is not as impressive when you see it several times. The acting in this film is not bad, but definetly not great either. Was I glad DiCaprio did not win an oscar for that film, I mean who does he think he is, Anthony Hopkins or Denzel Washington? He does 1 half-good movie and won't do a film for less than $20 million. And then everyone is suprised that there are hardly any films with him in it. But enough about, in my eyes, the worst character of the film. Kate Winslet's performance on the other hand was wonderful. I also tink that the director is very talented to put a film of such a magnitude together. There is one lesson to be learned about this movie: there are too many love-stories as it is, filmmakers shouldn't try to add a crummy romance in to every single movie!!! Out of a possible 100% I give this film a mere 71%.

Five years on from the Tenko survivors returning home, and from Marion's double-edged "Well that's that".<br /><br />It's now 1950: reunion time. The gang's all here: Marion, Bea, Ulrica, Kate, Dorothy, Christina, Dominica, and latecomers Maggie and Alice. The story that unfolds is a beaut: as perfectly written and acted, and as thought-provoking and moving, as the original series.<br /><br />All the questions left hanging at the end of the series are neatly answered here. From Marion's family to Joss's health centre, everything has changed in five years, and not everything has changed for the best.<br /><br />A trip to Dominica's plantation brings plenty of shocks and some truly edge-of-the-seat tension. There's a real sense of tragedy and disaster as, once again, fate takes over and the women struggle for their lives. Dominica finally shows her true colours, and there are some shout-at-the-telly moments of drama.<br /><br />Lush location filming in Singapore, and an opportunity to catch up with a group of women who feel like they have become friends. It's such a shame that this really is the end. I could watch it all over again. Perfection.

I saw this at the premiere in Melbourne<br /><br />It is shallow, two-dimensional, unaffecting and, hard to believe given the subject matter, boring. The actors are passable, but they didn't have much to work with given the very plodding and unimpressive script. For those who might have worried that Ned Kelly would be over-intellectualised, you can take comfort in the fact that this telling of the story is utterly without any literary depth at all, told entirely on the surface and full of central casting standards. However, it doesn't work as a popcorn film either. Its pacing is too off-kilter and its craft is too lacking to satisfy even on the level of a mundane actioner.<br /><br />I very much doubt Gregor Jordan could sit back and say to himself "this is the best I could have done with the material".<br /><br />Ned Kelly is a fascinating figure, and equally so is the national response to him. Possibly folk genius, possibly class warrior, possibly psychopath and probably all these things, he has dominated Australian true mythology for over 120 years. Once again, his story has failed miserably on the big screen.<br /><br />Such is life.

This Academy Award winning short film can rank among the greatest of the genre. Told completely without dialogue, it is a visual treat about a young boy who buys a gold fish, lovingly places him in a bowl then goes off to school, leaving the gold fish unprotected and a window carelessly open. After a while, a neighboring orange tabby comes poking around, comes in through the window and heads slowly for the bowl. The fish apparently knows something is going on and becomes very excited. As the cat comes very near to the bowl, the fish jumps out. The cat catches the fish, drops him back in the bowl and exits through the window he came in just as the boy, not knowing what has happened, gets back. This was amazingly filmed with real animals; how Cousteau got these animals to behave in this manner is remarkable. I only wish this film were available now for people to see; I only saw it once, in 1959 when it was originally released, but it has remained unforgettable.

Vincent Cassel plays the part of Paul, an ex-con assigned to an office job where he meets Carla, a secretary who is ‘quite deaf', when she has her hearing aids in ‘very deaf‘ when not (played by Emmanuelle Devos). Together they help each other to develop as people.<br /><br />What was particularly interesting about this film was the complexity of the characters – not fitting into obvious stereotypes. Paul appears uneasy in the office environment, is it that he's just not cut out for work? This belief is dispelled when he gets a job in a bar and shines.<br /><br />The film has a certain amorality which I find refreshing and showed how easy is to act criminally, even if we think it is harmless or justified.<br /><br />Finally, it is a film full of great ‘moments' both touching and humorous. One is when Carla is babysitting and is trying to comfort a screaming baby. She continues to cuddle it – but takes her hearing aids out for her own comfort.

The first series of Lost kicked off with a bang... literally and slowly decreased in pace. This may have put some viewers off and people who started to watch halfway through would either be bored or just plain confused. <br /><br />I would advise people new to the world of Lost to simply watch from the beginning and don't get pt off by the slower episodes. The acting throughout is excellent but why have 5 series' planned... WHY??? All this means is that there will be no answers for at least 4 years, oh well, i'll keep watching if it keeps the tension up and dialogue flowing.

I get tired of my 4 and 5 year old daughters constantly being subjected to watch Nickelodeon, Disney and the like. It all seems to be the same old tired cartoons rehashed over and over again. When my daughters couldn't go to the fair this afternoon because one of them was sick, I wanted them to just relax and rest for a while. I flipped the TV on and in searching for something different, I flipped the channels. My finger stopped channel surfing the moment I heard Harvey's voice. I adore every single solitary thing this man has done and when I saw that he was doing voice-over work for a little duck ... well, I couldn't change the channel! My daughters were instantly mesmerized by the cartoon and the more we watched the show TOGETHER, the more I grew to love it along with the message that was being portrayed. It's not necessarily a proponent for "gay rights" but rather for anyone who has ever been ostracized as a child for ANYTHING. I had friends who were picked on for one thing or another .... too fat, too skinny, too feminine, being a bully, not being smart enough, only having one parent .... you name it! Kids, as a rule, can be very very cruel to one another so I was happy to see an entertaining cartoon that actually conveyed a LIFE MESSAGE to its audience. My girls already accept others as they are and don't pick on others for being different. My older daughter actually stands up for her friends if they're picked on (one happens to have a single Mom and that little girl is picked on quite often -- it warms my heart when Kassie stands up for her!).<br /><br />So, those of you who are condemning this show because you feel that it's an advocate for "gay rights" or are being forced to "accept certain views", you clearly and completely missed the point of this poignant little cartoon.<br /><br />And if you need it explained to you .... well, you need more help than any television show could ever offer.

"Why did they make them so big? Why didn't they just give the money to the poor?" The question about cathedrals was asked by a student to Mr. Harvey during a school field trip to Salisbury Cathedral. "That's a good question," he replied. "Partly to inspire them - to get them to look up with awe." I'm not sure that cathedrals have that impact on everyone, but this movie certainly had that impact on me. It was awesome! <br /><br />It didn't start out that way. For a while it seemed to be little more than a depiction of - well - a school field trip to Salisbury Cathedral. If you've ever been on a high school field trip to anywhere this is basically it. You have a group of largely disinterested kids just happy to be out of school for a day, the bus driver who's driven crazy by them and some teachers trying desperately to keep it all under control. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt was my initial reaction. I figured that in the end this was going to be a typical story of a teacher managing to inspire a group of disinterested students. YAWN! But it turns out to be so much more! Timothy Spall was brilliant as Mr. Harvey - a sombre, unsmiling teacher with a strange fascination for cathedrals. Over the course of the movie, his story slowly comes out and becomes the focal point of the story. We also get introduced to some of the troubled students - most notably Helen, also brilliantly played by Nathalie Press, who's into self-mutilation.<br /><br />This isn't a religious movie, but it includes some powerful reflections on religious themes. When Harvey's colleague Jonathon (played by Ben Miles) says "I don't care what anyone believes as long as they don't try to force it on anyone else" Harvey replies, "that isn't tolerance - it's indifference!" - which is, in fact (in my opinion) what often passes for religious tolerance in our society. There are scenes of reconciliation between various characters, and the final scene of the movie was brilliant. As Harvey climbs back on the bus, director Susanna White has the camera slowly pan upwards, so that the final shot is simply of the sky - hearkening back to Harvey's comment that the purpose of the cathedral is to get people to look up in awe. The cathedral accomplishes its goal. We look up into the universe in awe, seeking something greater than ourselves, however we choose to define it. This is a very powerful and very inspiring movie. 9/10

I have watched this movie three times. The last time, I kept skipping around confusing scenes to find resolution for the plot. Perhaps the plot is not intended to hang together logically. Or perhaps these rough spots are in the plot because Ann's recall of distant events is rather faulty.<br /><br />Take the young Ann Grant (Claire Danes). Here is a young woman who has attended an unnamed college with the scions of a rich family. She must have had help to afford this very expensive education, but never seems to have any family ties at all. She never seems to have any relatives she can turn to when the consequences of one of her disastrous decisions take effect.<br /><br />Ann shares an evening of passion with her great love Harris Arden (Patrick Wilson). Then, when Harris comforts Lila after the tragic death of her brother Buddy, Ann suddenly finds him repulsive and is disgusted with her own behavior. I must have missed something significant here. Ann's behavior seems totally inexplicable. Ann abandons her relationship with Harris and eventually marries one of the groomsmen at Lila's wedding. Despite Ann's rejection of Harris, she continues to hold deep feelings for him on her deathbed.<br /><br />It was obvious from his behavior that Harris was deeply smitten with Ann and would have gladly married her. A scene showing their chance meeting years after Lila's wedding showed that Harris still had deep feelings for Ann.<br /><br />The film showed a pattern for Ann's romantic relationships. She always had a falling out with her men and she rejected them. This pattern held with Harris and two husbands. In contrast, Lila married a man she did not love and she remained with her husband until he died. Perhaps Lila was able to build a relationship because she refused to let her marriage fail.<br /><br />Then came the too convenient reappearance of Lila Ross at Ann's bedside. Apparently Ann's nurse was able to extract enough information from Ann's last few lucid moments to identify and contact Lila. None of this communication appeared on the film.<br /><br />I kept wondering about the house Ann was living in during her final days. How did she afford to buy such a house on the meager earnings of her singing career? Ann always seemed one step ahead of financial disaster while raising her two daughters.<br /><br />On another level, I enjoyed the film's setting and music immensely. The seaside mansion was just so heartbreakingly beautiful. Claire Danes was luminous as the young Ann Grant. She is really quite a talented singer. I much prefer her natural brunette to the bottle blonde look she had in the film extras. If only those pesky CGI fireflies would go away, I could raise the movie a whole point in my vote!

They played this on the July 4th Twilight Zone marathon and this is, hands down, the worst Twilight Zone episode I've ever seen. It's completely out of sync with the rest of the series in its tone. Even though Twilight Zone is a pretty uneven series and many episodes end up being groaningly predictable, this one was completely out of place. Compare this to legendary episodes like "A Stop at Willoughby" or "Midnight Sun", and you realize there is no comparison.<br /><br />Buster Keaton did what he could with such terrible material, and frankly it surprises me that someone of his historic comedy stature would stoop to the level of this episode. Even though he seemed to be giving it some effort, he MUST have needed the money... there's no other explanation.

As has been stated countless times, "The Hills Have Eyes 2" is NOT a remake of the (generally disregarded) mid-'80s sequel to Wes Craven's 1977 original. But wishing to give this postmodern sequel-to-a-remake the official stamp of Diminishing Returns, Craven himself (a double threat alongside his son, Jonathan) has decided to pen a film that is of the same quality--in plain English, HORRIBLE. Former music-video director Martin Weisz takes the reins from Alexandre Aja, and is clearly in way over his head--yet one wonders how anyone could have created a watchable film from the Cravens' Screen writing 101 scrawl. Not only are the characters (in this case, a gang of goofball National Guards(wo)men sent to investigate the turbulent hills of the original remake) completely obnoxious and prone to really annoying genre pitfalls (played without a lick of irony, mind you), but they are constantly cracking jokes that aren't funny. After viewing their total ineptitude during a training exercise, their fate against the repulsive, roaming cannibals is painfully obvious. Only this time out--as in the original '80s sequel--the script is so simplistic (barely existent, actually) that any potential subtext is jettisoned in favor of upping the ante in repulsive shocks (we're treated to a combo childbirth-murder during the opening credits, plus a gratuitous rape for those who haven't ejected the DVD by the midpoint!). Even the mutants in this outing are personality-free freaks of no memorable stature--the tacky, rubbery-looking makeup FX seems, like the rest of the film, to be trying to hide its face from embarrassment. I really groaned at the lame 'surprise' at the end of Aja's otherwise excellent film, and the producers quite literally go for broke at the end of "Hills 2," setting the stage--VERY lamely setting the stage--for a third installment...yet the Cravens and Weisz have created a film that is such a cynical bastardization of what made the 1977/2006 versions work that they'd be hard-pressed to find an audience after this insulting slap in the face.

Not a movie for everyone, but this movie is in my top 10. I am a lover of black comedy. With a cast including Richard Dreyfus (Vic), Jeff Goldblum (Mick), Larry Bishop (Nick) and Gabriel Byrne (Ben 'Brass Balls' London) in the leads, the lines can't help but be dry. The supporting cast is nearly dead center. Counting the minor flaws in the movie: Ellen Barkin's make-up gave her face has a washed out look; there were a couple of gimme cameos by Joey Bishop and Richard Pryor that served no purpose, and Michael J. Pollard's screen time was too short. Over all, the cast was just incredible without egos to wreck a fine script. If you have seen Larry Bishop's (writer, director) film, Underworld (a dark crime flick), you will enjoy this one. His next outing (writer, director, actor) is Hell Ride with Michael Madsen and Quentin Tarantino.

I saw this movie in NEW York city. I was waiting for a bus the next morning, so it was 2 or 3 in the morning. It was raining, and did not want to wait at the PORT AUTHORTY. So I went across the street and saw the worst film of my life. It was so bad, that I chose to stay and see the whole movie,I have yet to see anything else that bad since. The year was 69,so call me crazy. I stayed only because I could not belive it.........

Since I watched it for the first time, "Piedras" is a personal favorite and one of the few pictures I actually could watch over and over again. The great screenplay depicts the lives of a bunch of women (all of them somehow interconnected) with deep understanding and sensibility. Ramón Salazar achieved a compelling film in his directorial debut, and proves himself as an efficient actors' director. <br /><br />Not that all performances are excellent, though. Of all leading ladies, they range from average (Najwa Nimri) to very good (Vicky Peña), but the standing ovation should be directed to newcomer Mónica Cervera, who convincingly plays Antonia San Juan's retarded daughter. Enrique Alcides is irresistibly charming as the girl's male nurse, and there are nice small turns from Andrés Gertrúdix, Geli Albaladejo and the director himself, Ramón Salazar.<br /><br />"Piedras" is beautifully written and filmed, when I watched it I got so moved that I couldn't stop thinking of it for days. I highly recommend it.

Not only does this movie have a poor plot, bad direction, and terrible acting, its opens up a whole new meaning to racism.<br /><br />In this film "White" chicks are the sluts, "White" boys are the wana-be gangsters, and successful (yes again) "White" businessmen are revolting toilet shitters.<br /><br />I just wonder what would happen if I made the exact same movie with the exact same story line and script, only I made it about Caucasians. "He dude, its good to finally see your've stopped dating those black chicks".<br /><br />Nobody seems to notice it, but watch this film again and you'll vomit at how they have portrayed the new Zealand "white boys". All of a sudden its white folks who are the main cause of gang aggression, and whores out for a quick bang. Only Samoans girls have a heart, there's no such thing as a non-slutty white girl.<br /><br />It disgusts me that they couldn't make this film without giving the Caucasian community in New Zealand a repulsive profile. If you think I'm overgeneralizing, go watch this film, and see what you make of the "white boys". Just because Samoans choose to call us "white boys" in actual life, doesn't mean its funny. If I said hey black boy I'll loose my teeth.<br /><br />Don't see this movie. Don't waste your money. Don't be racist.

Tight script, good direction, excellent performances, strong cast, effective use of locations....<br /><br />Paul McGann gives a detailed, subtle performance as the man in the centre of a new murder investigation who may just have committed a similar murder previously.<br /><br />There is an interesting moral & emotional journey happening with his character (Ben Turner) and it intersects with the journey undertaken by Amanda Burton. Inevitably they cross over... Who has done what?<br /><br />The examination of WHY, both in the past and in the present, rather than WHO might have yielded a more interesting, Dostoyevskian story, but hey, who's complaining?<br /><br />

In a way, Corridors of Time is a success story because the movie reaches its goal : being seen by thousands. But it fails at making them laugh...<br /><br />Les Visiteurs has had its success, because the subject was an original way of considering the time travel : forget about Zemeckis's Back to the future, here comes the old France, the middle-age knight and its nearly barbaric way of life. Full of pride, funny thanks to the ancient words he uses, Montmirail can sometimes be disgusting but he keeps his honor. Then comes the sequel.<br /><br />Nobody had foreseen the tremendous success of Les Visiteurs, the first. And it's no use being a movie expert to realize that the Corridors of Time has been made for money.<br /><br />The general story begins after the end of Les Visiteurs, and immediately tries to justify the sequel with a time paradox that would have needed some second tought. Explanation : it's no use trying to get back the jewelry Jacquouille has stolen ; don't you remember this nice red shiny and expensive car he bought at the end of the 1st episode ? Where do you think he found the money ? Selling the jewelry... And that's only one of many holes Poiré tries to avoid... and fails.<br /><br />Let's have a look at the characters : Montmirail doesn't change, he's just a little more boring. Regarding Frenegonde... that's another story : Valérie Lemercier decided not to compromise herself in this sequel to avoid getting stuck in the bourgeoise role. And Muriel Robin tries to imitate her in a way that I found so pitiful I nearly felt pain for her. And Poiré doesn't realize that a cast of humorists isn't enough to make a good comedy.<br /><br />Forget about the time travels, about the digital effects, concentrate on the story and you'll see that there's enough room on a mail stamp to write it 10 times.<br /><br />The main interest of this film is the landscapes. A movie for youngsters, let's say up to 13 years old.

This is one a most famous movies of the French sexual empowerment of the seventies, starring Gerard Depardieu and Patrick Dewaere in extremely sarcastic roles. It is also one of the many dark psychological dramas of the seventies/eighties, such as "Serie Noire", "Buffet Froid", "Beau Pere", all realized by Blier.<br /><br />However, I would like to correct the previous comment that was posted on the movie: the translated title in English is very far from the French version. It is true that both protagonists are "going places", but the title in French could be literally translated by "the waltz dancers", which is a metaphor for the movement of the testicles...

This movie was so bad it was laughable. I couldn't resist watching it though. The plot is standard, the acting quite horrible (supporting cast such as the nutty neighbor and the lawyer friend were better actors). Kind of amusing if you have some time to waste and like seeing the conclusion to a dramatic plot.<br /><br />The headliner who plays "Kathy" was just fascinating because I couldn't decide if her deadpan, flat affect was the result of bad surgery or simply bad acting (I decided it was both). This leaves the script to comment on, which was pretty awful. Pat remarks, idiotic decisions, and reckless stupidity on the part of every character in the movie. Maybe this is what was so riveting; I don't know. I just watched it to see how bad it could be. (Actually the dialog doesn't even qualify to be called "cliche'" - but it's almost completely inane.)<br /><br />All in all, very bad, cheaply made movie. The sets, the same scenes (a house, a building) were shown over and over with no artistry or actual tie-in to the action; more like props that were randomly dropped into the action in a bad play. A chase scene could have been shot by any juvenile in a warehouse or an old school: poorly shot, cheap props, minimal action.... and I still wanted to see the ending. Go figure.

I just saw the third week of Stephen Kings' Nightmares and Dreamscapes mini series; meaning, I saw 6 episodes so far. I have to say that the stories are really weak. I have read Stephen King's Skeleton Crew, a collection of his short stories that was published way back. I recall most of the stories were average to poor but there was one that was really excellent, if not outstanding.<br /><br />What I'm trying to say is that just because this mini series is from a collection of stories from Stephen King does not mean that it will be any good. In fact, if his previous collection of short stories are of any indication, then most of this mini series will be average to poor.<br /><br />In Stephen King's defense, I have not read these new short stories. Perhaps they are good as stories in a book and not readily adaptable to television, or perhaps it was the fault of the scriptwriters in trying to write an interesting script. Who knows. Also, these short stories may have been made exclusively for this mini series and not not for print purpose. Maybe that may have been the problem. If Stephen King had submitted these crap stories to an editor, I am sure the editor would have immediately told him to make it more interesting because as is, it is simply boring.<br /><br />What is clear from all of this is that the problem is with the stories/script and not the actors and actresses because this mini series has some excellent people acting on it.<br /><br />Seeing this mini series really makes me appreciate those old "Twilight Zone" series. Each series was only half an hour but it was compelling and riveting. I don't understand why this mini series could not accomplish similar feat. I am sure this mini series had a good deal of money to make a good mini series but unfortunately, something must not have clicked.<br /><br />For instance, this week there were two episodes shown. The first involved a horror story writer who buys a picture drawn by an artist who committed suicide. The writer begins to see changes in the picture as he is driving homeward. Feeling uncomfortable, he throws away the painting but it keeps appearing near him. Also, the portrait of an individual in that picture is killing people and is out to kill him. (I will not even mention the second episode for this week involving criminals and their loot because it was even more boring than this episode!)<br /><br />This premise is interesting and so the story should be good but after seeing it, I was frustrated because there were too many gaps in the story as well as extraneous materials that was shown that did nothing to help the story. After the last scene, I was left with more questions than answers.<br /><br />I tried for 3 weeks to get into this mini series but it was just too aggravating due to poor stories/script. If this was a movie, I would have recommended that people should wait for the movie to come out on cable or such. I would not even recommend that it be rented in your video store. However, given that this is on TNT, a cable channel, I would say if you have not seen it already, then try it for one week. If you do not like it that week, then you will not like the past series nor the future ones, since they all share the same boring trait.

From very long, we are seeing movies on Gandhi. And mostly, the light is always on portrayal of Gandhi as freedom fighter or man with principles. But when I heard that a movie is being made which will highlight Gandhi as Father and stress on his relationship with his Son, it instantly hit my attention as this is one territory which is least being explored as it has his own dark side and less people shown courage to dwell into it. Fortunetly, Anil Kapoor (Producer) and Feroz Abbad Khan (Director) did.<br /><br />The story start with Gandhi working in South Africa and his relationship with white people and his wife. Latter Akshay (Harilal) joined his father for becoming a barrister but his dream took overturn when his father (Gandhi) pushed (Or motivate) him to become freedom fighter. It showcase that Gandhi believes more on practical study rather then formal education. Harilal too try to walk on his father footstep but soon failed as its infatuation towards his wife, children and his own dream of becoming big success altered his path and then start the repulsion between son and father. He finally defeated his father in terms of pursuing his dream and to left him on his own terms. He written back to India but then start his unsuccessful stories which become bigger and bigger with time. I am leaving reader to see movie to catch further story...<br /><br />Performance. First Akshay. He has given best performance of his tenure so far and is absolutely convincing in his portrayal as Harilal Gandhi. The scene in which he reach the room where his wife dead body is placed is one where you can see a fine actor which is hidden/developing in Akshay. Darshan jariwala is also good as MK Gandhi and able to live up such a larger then life character. He performed well and with quite an ease. Shefali Chaya (Now Shah) as Kasturba is brilliant actress and already proved her metal in TV serials. Bhumika chawla too performed well but actress of her candidature is waste in these kinds of role. Other actor have also justifies their performances.<br /><br />Technique and Make up is also good and cinematography especially that Duo tone color picturisation was too good. Costume looks and match with context.<br /><br />Overall, a worth seeing movie which is defiantly slow in progress and impatient people may find it boring but give you an insight of area which is not brought to silver screen till date. Also, the way story progress and connection of scene may look worn to some people and to critics especially but for an average movie watcher like me, it still enough to make me occupied on my seat till end.

The film attempts to be a mockumentary--shot in the documentary form but with many obviously scripted parts--but fails in not providing the audience with any characters with which to create the illusion of the mockumentary. Also, the film purports to be about finding real love in Los Angeles, but is nothing more than an uninteresting look at an amateur filmmaker trying to make his first "big movie."

If you haven't seen Eva Longoria from the TV show "Desperate House Wives" then you are missing out. Eva is going to be one of the biggest Latina stars and you'll be seeing her in the theaters soon. This was Eva's first film and she does a fantastic job acting. She was 24 when she shot it, and looked hot then. As for this low budget film, it's pretty good for the first time director, who has another soon to be released movie "Juarez, Mexico" currently playing at many film festivals across the United States. In fact, it appears that it may have a limited theatrical release from some news. What would be nice to see is a "Snitch'2" with a higher budget.

For a while I was caught in the trap where I found myself watching independent and foreign films and lying to myself that I liked them. Fatty Drives the Bus is the exception. It is the truth. It is the best "bad" movie ever.<br /><br />The "badness" of this movie seems to come naturally. Halfway through Satan's opening monologue, the word "Hell" appears at the bottom of the screen. The glamorous Bridget is an unshaven man in a wig and a thrift store dress. It takes the eccentric couple that keeps trying to kill each other FOREVER to walk down the stairs. Jesus walks to a funk soundtrack.<br /><br />Anyways, Fatty gives the impression that someone lost their tenure for advising a senior's film project. But it's the sincerity of how bad it is that makes it so wonderful. You get the impression the makers knew it was going to be bad, but never forced it.<br /><br />Never to be duplicated in wonder, Fatty delivers. Highly highly recommended.

As I watch this film, it is interesting to see how much it marginalizes Black men. The film spends its time showing how powerless the most visible Black man in it is (save for an heroic moment). For much of the film, the other Black men (and dark-skinned Black women) in the film are way in the background, barely visible.<br /><br />Vanessa Williams' character was strong and sympathetic. The viewer can easily identify and sympathize with her. There are also some fairly visible and three-dimensional support characters who are light-skinned, and some White characters of some warmth and dignity. But 99% of the Black males in this film are nothing but invisible men. Voiceless shadows in the background, of no consequence. Such a horrible flaw, but anything but unusual in the mainstream media.

Please! Do not waste any money on this movie. It really is nothing more than a boring German Blair Witch ripoff made by some high school kids. I couldn't finish watching it, and usually I like watching all kinds of B-movies. How on earth could they find a distributor for it?!!! Funny however: Check out Wikipedia for "dark area". The guy who wrote the entry must be completely out of his mind. Maybe he got loads of money from the producers. Money that should have been spend on actors, camera and editing. Even that wouldn't have helped, since there is absolutely no interesting idea behind this film. Unfortunately "dark area" has already gotten too much attention. Please, director, producer and author of this movie, STOP making movies like that...you are not doing yourself a favor. The world would be a better place without this film.

There are some comments about this film that say that it is a bad and silly one and such an excellent actor as Pierre Fresnay should not have accepted to act in it.<br /><br />I think, just the opposite, that, even when the film is strange and has some weaknesses, the performance of Pierre Fresnay is so formidable that it converts the film in something excellent.<br /><br />His performance is probably the best in history.<br /><br />The film itself has a very polemic scene about the consecration of wine in the cabaret.<br /><br />For somebody who does not believe that a priest – even a defrocked one – can convert it in Christ's blood, the scene is perhaps bizarre. But for somebody who has been raised in a catholic framework, it is very emotive even if quite unpleasant.<br /><br />The scene of the death of the younger priest is tremendously shocking. But it is very well acted. Pierre Fresnay turns the crazy act of murder in something understandable within the temporal madness of his character, the tortured defrocked Morand who, in this terrible way, comes back to his duty.

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

When Sam Peckinpah's superlative THE WILD BUNCH (1969) opened the door to outrageous displays of graphic cinematic ultra-violence, it did so with a talented (if whisky-marinated) hand guiding the camera and had a compelling story with characters who had actual depth, but in no time flat there were scores of imitators that fell far from the benchmark set by Peckinpah's epic, and SOLDIER BLUE definitely falls into that category.<br /><br />SOLDIER BLEW, er, BLUE tells the story of foul-mouthed New Yorker Cresta Lee (Candice Bergen) a blonde proto-hippie chick who's been "rescued" from two years of "captivity" among the Cheyenne and is now being sent to a fort where she'll be reunited with the fiancée she only wants to marry for his money. Also on board the wagon she's traveling in is a shipment of government gold, cash the Cheyenne need to buy guns with, so in short order the soldiers are wiped out and Cresta flees to the hills, accompanied by Honus Gant (Peter Strauss), the lone surviving cavalryman. Calling Gant by the snarky nickname "Soldier Blue," Cresta demonstrates that her years among the "savages" was time well spent, outstripping Gant in survival skills, common sense, and sheer balls, and over their journey toward the fort they must persevere against the elements, a band of hostile Kiowa, an unscrupulous trader — played by Donald Pleasance, here giving one of his most ridiculous performances, and that's saying something — and, in the tradition of many previous western-set romantic comedies, each other.<br /><br />During the course of their misadventures the two opposites are inevitably — and predictably — attracted to each other and eventually end up getting it on — while Gant has a freshly- treated bullet wound that went clean through his leg, no less — in what was surely the only conveniently located cave for at least a twelve mile radius that wasn't filled with rattlesnakes, mountain lions, or who knows what, to say nothing of the Cheyenne, who could have done something really spiffy with such a primo apartment (there I go, thinking in NYC real estate terms again). <br /><br />Realizing that their love could never flourish outside of the cave, Cresta leaves Gant and makes it to the fort by herself only to discover that the moron in charge won't spare a couple of men so they can rescue Gant; the regiment needs all available personnel to launch an attack on the nearby Cheyenne village, and once Cresta gets wind of that she slips past her obnoxiously horny hubby-to-be and makes a beeline straight to the Cheyenne to warn them of what's coming. <br /><br />What happens next is what gained the film its infamy; it turns out that all the wacky misadventures and squabbling were all just a lead-in to a hideous reenactment of the 1864 Sand Creek Massacre, an orgy of rape, torture and general sadistic evil perpetrated in the name of "keeping the country clean," and almost forty years after its release this sequence still disturbs and nauseates for its sheer cruelty. Children are trampled beneath the hooves of charging horses or impaled on bayonets, unarmed people are beheaded — a nice effect, I have to admit — women are stripped and pawed by gangs of slavering brutes, then raped and mutilated — in one truly sickening instance a naked native woman puts up too much of a fight, so her rapist instead decides to cut off her breasts, which we thankfully only see the start of before the camera moves on to chronicle some other hideous act — and scores of innocent people are shot and dismembered, their compone nt parts impaled on pikes and waved about in victorious celebration or kept as the most ghoulish of souvenirs. No joke, this scene would instantly garner an NC-17 rating if released today, to say nothing of possibly spurring Native American interest groups to riot in the streets over the incredibly exploitative manner in which the atrocities are depicted.<br /><br />I'm all in favor of westerns that don't shy away from honest portrayals of how the west was won, or stolen if truth be told, but this film has no idea of what kind of movie it wants to be; one minute it's a heavy-handed pseudo-hippy lecture about how the treatment of the natives was totally effed up (well, DUH!), then it's a light-hearted battle of the sexes farce wherein Cresta proves herself five times the man Gant is and manages to look hot in her tasty red calico poncho (with no undies), but that all goes out the window when Donald Pleasance shows up with an unintentionally (?) hilarious pair of buck-toothed dentures and our heroes must figure out how to escape from his murderous clutches in a sub-plot that goes nowhere, all of which culminates in the aforementioned apocalyptic climax. Any one of those tacks would have been okay for a coherent film, but the end result is a slapdash mess that milked the horrors of its final ten minutes for all they were worth in the film's promotion and poster imagery. <br /><br />But by trying to be all things to all audiences, SOLDIER BLUE ends up as an incoherent, preachy Mulligan stew of presumably well-intentioned political correctness, but if they were going to tell the story of the Sand Creek Massacre, wouldn't it have been a good idea to have some Indian characters who were more than just walk-ons with Murphy Brown acting as their mouthpiece? We get to know absolutely nothing of the people who get wiped out solely for what appears to be a crass ploy to lure gorehound moviegoers into seeing "the most savage film in history." If you, like me, were intrigued by the provocative ads and reviews that shower almost endless praise upon it for its "daring to tell it like it was," take my word for it and let SOLDIER BLUE slowly fade into cinematic obscurity.

I watched SCARECROWS because of the buzz surrounding it. Well, I can't imagine anyone liking this movie because it's just bad, bad, bad.<br /><br />It's obvious that whoever made this movie doesn't know a single thing about horror. The whole story is an unsuccessful marriage of two genres: action movie (guns and criminals) and horror (living scarecrows). When the criminals are killed one by one by the poky looking scarecrows, the two genres automatically cancel each other out because, first, they're criminals and who cares about criminals, and second, because they're stupid criminals to boot! Having zombie scarecrows go after them just doesn't work here. Where's the horror in that? I wanted the criminals to die horrible, painful deaths.<br /><br />But the story is so badly constructed that this marriage of genres, which could have been original if handle well, NEVER gels. We're simply left with is a bunch of super dense criminals and a bunch of scarecrows, which are "alive" for whatever flimsy reason the filmmakers thought up. Making things even worse is the fact that the cinematography is terrible (TV like) and, worse offense of all, whole bunches of the dialogue are told on CBs, and we continuously hear inane dialogue spoken over disconnected images as if we're watching some sort of Radio show. This part was really BAD. The director should have been shot on the spot for coming up with such a stupid idea! I can't tell you how annoying that was.<br /><br />As I've already mentioned, the criminals in SCARECROWS are amazingly stupid. For instance, when someone suddenly shows up, gutted and filled with money and straw (yep, straw) in his huge open wound, the others ask "What drug is he on?" after they shoot tons of bullets in him, unable to kill him (he's been "zombiefied" by the scarecrows. Don't ask...). Get a freaking clue, morons. I've never seen such stupid people in a movie. And then there's the girl. I wished one of the scarecrows had killed her quickly because she was a pain in the butt. When she finds her father nailed to a scarecrow "cross", she actually blames the criminals in an embarrassing scene (bad acting), even though the criminals couldn't have done it. What a dimwit she was! But the scarecrows are the biggest weakness in this very weak flick. They're not scary. Nothing much is explained about them. They're just a plot device in this plot device filled movie.<br /><br />Mr Wesley, filming the face of a scarecrow for 30 seconds nonstop doesn't elicit anything but sheer boredom. And that scene with the talking head in the fridge. Thanks for the laughter.<br /><br />All in all, this had to be one of the worst movies I've seen recently (and I've seen a lot of movies these days!) Between the equally woeful SILO KILLER or SCARECROWS, I'd rather watcher SILO KILLER again. Yep, SCARECROWS is that bad.

I had a vague idea of who Bettie Page was, partly due to her appearance in the very wee days of Playboy (apparently, when she got her photo taken of her and her Santa hat, just that, she didn't know what the mag was). The movie, co-written and directed by American Psycho's Mary Harron, fleshes out the key parts of her life well enough. A southern belle of a church goer has some bad experiences and leaves them behind to seek better times in New York City, where she gets into modeling, and from there a lot more. Soon, she becomes the underground pin-up sensation, with bondage the obvious (and "notorious" of the title) trait attributed to her. The actress Gretchen Moll portrays her, and gets down the spirit of this woman about as well as she could, which is really a lot of the success of the film. She's not a simplistic character, even if at times her ideas of morality are questionable ("well, Adam and Eve were naked, weren't they?" she comments a couple of times). Apparently, the filmmakers leave out the later years of Page's life and leave off with her in a kind of redemptive period, leaving behind the photo shoots for Jesus.<br /><br />In all, the Notrious Bettie Page is not much more than a kind of usual bio-pic presented by HBO films, albeit this time with the stamina for a feature-film release. The best scenes that Harron captures are Page in her "questionable" positions, getting photos of her in over-the-top poses and starring in ridiculous films of whips and chains and leather uniforms. This adds a much needed comic relief to the film's otherwise usual nature. It's not that the story behind it is uninteresting, which involves the government's investigation into the 'smut' that came out of such photos and underground magazines. But there isn't much time given to explore more of what is merely hinted at, with Page and her complexities or her relationships or to sex and the fifties. It's all given a really neat black and white look and sometimes it seemed as if Harron was progressing some of the black and white photos to be tinted more as it went along. It's a watchable view if you're not too knowledgeable of Bette Page, and probably for fans too.

I can understand why some people like this movie, and why some people don't. For me, though, I really like it, even if I noticed some good bits, and not so impressive bits. The animation was actually excellent, like Charlie's dream. The characters were a mixed bag, the best being Anne-Marie, voiced by the late Judith Barsi.(I was physically ill when I read what happened to her) Also, Carface is a very convincing villain,especially voiced by the wonderful Vic Tayback(I particularly loved "Morons I'm surrounded by Morons") and along with Rasputin and Warren T.Rat is probably the most memorable of all the Don Bluth villains. Charlie and Itchy only just lacked the same sparkle, but I loved King Gator and his song. Some of the film is very haunting, like Annabelle's "You can never come come back", which kind of scares me still. Unfortunately, there were some bits I didn't like so much. The story had a tendency to become clumsy and unfocused, but Disney's Black Cauldron suffered from the same problem. Also there were some dark scenes, that young children would find upsetting, but the ending is very poignant. However the biggest flaw was the rather bland songs and the way they were sung. None of them in particular stick out, with exception of "Let's Make Music Together" and "Love Survives", and Burt Reynolds can't sing and Dom DeLuise has done much better singing. All in all, a watchable movie, that could have been more, but is definitely memorable, and I would definitely watch it again. 7/10. Bethany Cox

If only ALL animation was this great. This film is classic because it is strong is two simple aspects: Story and Character. The characters in this film are beautifully personified. I felt for all of the characters, and human-animal relationship in the movie works perfectly. The beautiful animation and 3-D computer animation hasn't worked better in any other film. This is a great movie for kids, and for adults who want a classic hero's journey. 8 of 10.

You have to figure that when the star's name is listed wrong in the opening credits, you are not in for a good time (the credit reads "Cuba Gooding, J.R."). Some nice car chase, shoot 'em up, blow 'em up action if ALL you want is action, because the relationship to what plot exists is tenuous at best, and completely unbelievable. The motivations of the characters, especially that of Gooding's at the end, are worse then unbelievable, they are irrational when they are not hopelessly muddled. All I can think is that Andy Cheng must be a really nice guy to get this many good actors into this foul a project (he can't have something on all of them, can he?).

Horror omnibus films were popular in the seventies. I'm not very fond of them myself, but this one is an undeniably excellent slice of British horror cinema. The House That Dripped Blood is a horror omnibus, featuring four stories that surround a creepy old house in the country and are being told to a Scotland Yard officer by an estate agent.<br /><br />This film is headlined by three well known stars of horror cinema; Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee and Ingrid Pitt, whom horror fans will recognise as one of Lee's co-stars in the greatest British horror film of all time; The Wicker Man.<br /><br />The first segment of the film, titled "Method For Murder" tells the story of a horror storywriter, whose creation; a strangler named "Dominic" is brought to life by his own imagination. This story builds suspense very well; through his girlfriend, he, and the audience is lead to believe that what he is seeing is a figment of his imagination. This story certainly isn't very original, but it makes up for its lack of originality through the atmosphere it creates and it's final twist; which works incredibly well and came as a genuine surprise.<br /><br />The second story, titled "Waxworks", stars Peter Cushing and is my least favourite of the four. This tale follows the story of Phillip Grayson (Cushing), a man that discovers a wax museum and decides to venture in. Inside, he discovers a woman that is familiar to him and who we later find out is a murderess. Quite what the woman's relationship with Phillip entailed is never really explained, but the tale relies more on the mystery to build the suspense rather than plot details. Cushing is later joined by his friend, Neville Rogers (played by Joss Ackland) and that's when the tale really starts to pick up. The setting of a waxwork museum full of murderers for a horror film isn't a new idea; the same setting was used to great effect in the excellent 1966 horror film, "Chamber of Horrors". Although the one here isn't as grand as the one in the aforementioned film, the power of the setting is used to no lesser a horrifying effect, much of which is achieved by a feeling of claustrophobia, brought about by the limited area of the museum. Peter Cushing is always interesting to watch, and seeing him avoid an axe-wielding madman is a treat for the horror fan. Despite being my least favourite, this story is still entertaining and interesting enough to not let this anthology down.<br /><br />The film continues with "Sweets for the Sweet", which is without doubt the best of the omnibus. This story stars the legendary Christopher Lee as a seemingly overprotective father. The beauty of this story comes from the way it is played out. It leaves the audience guessing; we know that there is something wrong with either the father or the daughter, but we don't know who, or what, it is. Christopher Lee, as usual, portrays his character with a great degree of sinisterness; the audience is left to simmer over his actions regarding giving his daughter a doll, and the fact that she isn't allowed to go to school or have any toys. The card of exactly why is held close to the chest until right near the end, epitomised by the truly chilling line in which Lee tells his babysitter that he is, in fact, afraid of his daughter. The ending to this section is superbly played out, in my opinion it's one of the finest endings to any horror story ever told, and will stay with you long after the end credits roll.<br /><br />The omnibus finishes with "The Cloak", which is definitely the most comedic of the four. This tale is about a hammy horror film star that, unimpressed by his latest film's technical side, goes out and buys himself a cloak. Naturally, this cloak turns out to be a real vampire cloak. Unlike the other three tales, this one seems to be played out mostly for laughs. That is no bad thing however as the majority of the humour is funny and it serves as a nice contrast to the rest of the film. The ending to this tale coincides nicely with the ending to the wraparound story of the film, which is a very sinister yet humorous ending to a very good film. Also, look out for the little jibe regarding Christopher Lee in Dracula. A nice touch, I think.<br /><br />Overall, if you want a horror omnibus, you really cant go wrong with The House that Dripped Blood. The third tale alone makes the film worthy of your time and this is a very solid horror film indeed.

This show is quick-witted, colorful, dark yet fun, hip and still somehow clean. The cast, including an awesome rotation of special guests (i.e. Molly Shannon, Paul Rubens, The-Stapler-Guy-From-Office-Space) is electric. It's got murder, romance, family, AND zombies without ever coming off as cartoony... Somehow. You really connect with these characters. The whole production is an unlikely magic act that left me, something of a skeptic if I do say so myself, totally engrossed and coming back for more every Wednesday night. I just re-read this and it sounds a little like somebody paid me to write it. It really is that good. I just heard a rumor that it was being canceled so I thought I'd send off a flare of good will. This is one of those shows that goes under the radar because the network suits can't figure out how to make it sexy and sell cars with it. Do yourself a huge favor, if you haven't already, and enjoy this gem while it lasts. OK so one more thing. This show is clever. What that means is that every armchair critic/"writer" in Hollywood is gonna insert a stick up their youknowwhat before they sit down to watch it, defending themselves with an "I could've written that" type speech to absolutely nobody in their lonely renovated Hollywood hotel room. In other words: the internet. This is a general interest/anonymous website. Before you give your Wednesday TV hour to Dirty Sexy Money or Next Hot Model reruns or whatever other out and out tripe these internet "critics" aren't commenting on, give my fave' show a spin. It's fun. Good, unpretentious fun.

I thought this had the right blend of character, plot, futuristic stuff and special effects without going over board. It will take a while to get going, but the acting was good and I was intrigued by the angel who is not to hard to look at. I like the attitude too! Certainly not like other attempts at futuristic stories.

I first flicked onto the LoG accidentally one night while waching television: since then, I have never missed an episode.<br /><br />It's humour is very weird, like a cross between Brass Eye's social commentary, the Fast Show's excellent one-liners, and an amazing plot that seems to develop each week without ever going anywhere. The best example of this was Hillary Briss's special stuff - what was that all about?<br /><br />The humour will not appeal to all. Some will say it's just too sick, and it's easy to see where they're coming from. Nonetheless, give it a try. If you don't like it, don't watch it, but if you do like it you'll be very glad you took my advice.

There is a reason why Jay Leno himself will not acknowledge this film. It consistently ranks as one of the worst films of all time. The acting is horrible, the script lacks direction and the director himself doesn't seem sure on which way to take this film. "A buddy film," "an action/comedy," "mystery." Seems half way through, he gives up, and is just along for the ride. Jay Leno and Pat Morita are talented and dedicated performers. It is a shame that they wasted their time and gifts making this mess of a movie. Jay Leno and Pat Morita prior to involving themselves with this, had spent years pounding out their crafts on the Hollywood circuit. Mr. Morita had already been a star in his own right, acting steadily since the mid 1960s as the star of such cult TV and movie classics as "Happy Days," and the dismal but affable "Mr. T and Tina." And won the hearts of America with his roles in the powerful film, "Midway," "The Karate Kid," and a host of others. Mr. Leno can been seen on TV shows dating back to the mid 70s. And was a top performer in the comedy clubs of America. He can be seen in countless TV spots and in major films. It is a shame, that they agreed to be seen with this nonsense.

This is a truly abysmal `LOCK STOCK' clone with a stellar cast and a terrible script. I have no idea why so many top British actors signed up to this junk, they must have been bribed. A miss match of a storyline goes on forever and ever and ever and if I hadn't have paid good money for it I'd have turned it off after 10 minutes. Not the worst film ive ever seen, that honour goes to the truly pathetic used bogroll of a ‘movie' (I use the term loosely) `GUMMO' (I feel like suing that so called `director' for the lost hour and a half of my life) but this trash is nearly right down there with it. Definitely one of the worst 5 films I have ever seen. Stuff like this reminds Hollywood that they don't have a monopoly on truly awful films.

I saw this recently and I must say, I was moved by the factual basis of the story. However, "Holly" as a movie did not quite work. I am however, looking forward to watching the documentary which the producers who organised this project had made because I think that would be a much more compelling work than this film.<br /><br />The international cast was composed of B-class actors but their acting was appropriate, and I must give a special mention for the young actress who played Holly. This was her first movie role and she did a very nice job, considering hers is the most challenging part. <br /><br />Ron Livingston was adequate but bland as Patrick, the American whose quest is to "save" Holly, but Chris Penn was good in this, his final role. Unfortunately, despite my mostly favourable opinion of Virginie Ledoyen and Udo Kier, both of these actors were very much forgettable and did not do their best work in this film.<br /><br />I believe in the film's message and intention, but I have to be fair, so I rate "Holly" 3 stars based on its shortcomings as a movie. But I think the subject matter deserves serious consideration and I am pleased that the people behind this movie have made a documentary as well which I hope will have its debut on BBC and other TV networks.

Predictable, hackneyed & poorly written. Foolishly I reasoned such a prominent cast would not be involved unless it had merit. I guess competition amongst actors is so intense these days (and will only get worse) that one cannot pick and choose much any more. Early on we were given an inkling who was was instrumental in the assassination and we had it rammed down our throats ever since. The movie lacked intrigue, giving us little insight into the victim and only one possible motive for the murder. Some of the discourse was, frankly, embarrassing! It's hard to believe anyone would even consider, let alone commit to, the spending of tens of millions of dollars to make this tripe.

This is one of the best ensemble comedy/musical "B" film's that I have seen (and since I'm in my 40's now and only seeing this now, I am not an expert but I have seen all the well known films out there). When there are a ton of actors getting their lead for minutes at a time, usually the comedy interferes with the musical bits, and very often the musical pieces interrupt the comedic flow. Call me in a crazy kind of mood but when I saw this on TCM Europe, I was laughing out loud with pleasure! So who delivered the laughs for me? Without a doubt Mischa Auer delivered me some terrific gut busting laughs, he even steals the ending, it was great! Speaking of which, I think why this movie works is because although L & H are a selling point (and why I got hooked to watch this one (them and Hal Roach), I love them in their early Hal Roach stuff), this keeps them at a minimum and stays squarely on ADULT fare (by 1930's standards, and not that far from today's standards if you read between the lines). Jack Haley is also great to watch, I admit that I only know him from W O OZ and I loved him there, and I also laughed out loud here at his waiter bit in the show. Patsy Kelly is the only "ugly" femme in the 30's movies that actually turns me on (something tells me she was a spitfire in real life); and the musical numbers have a real professional production (Busby Berkley'ish) quality, that blew me away from what I am used to in this genre. I could go on and on, but rest assured I really enjoyed this movie. 8 of 10 I saw it on TCM Europe and will record it to watch again with my wife on TCM USA. Good Stuff!

"Lost", "24", "Carnivale", "Desperate Housewifes"...the list goes on and on. These, and a bunch of other high-quality, shows proves that we're in the middle of a golden age in television history. "Lost" is pure genius. Incredible layers of personal, and psychologically viable, stories, underscored by sublime cinematography (incredible to use this word, when describing a TV-show), a killer score, great performances and editing. Anyone who isn't hooked on this, are missing one of the most important creative expressions in television ever. It may have its problems, when watching only one episode a week, but the DVD format is actually an incredible way to watch this. Hope they keep it up (as I'm sure they do).

This grainy film has a cult following and one of those word-of-mouth features you just had to see. Maybe hard to believe, but there is a rural community in southwest Arkansas, Fouke, that knows the legend is true. This tale is told in documentary-style narrated by Vern Stierman and filmed in actual locations talking to actual folks involved. The legend changes with the telling, but during the late 60s and most of the 70s the surrounding area of Fouke was visited by a Bigfoot-like creature that traveled along Boggy Creek. Long limbed with three toes and standing over 7 foot tall, this hirsute creature periodically caused damage and frightened the 'bejeebers' out of most of the community. I personally crossed over the small Boggy Creek bridge in 1974, and yes the hair on the back of my neck did rise. Of course it was about 1 a.m. in the rain. By the time I arrived in Shreveport, I was laughing.

Hayao Miyazaki has no equal when it comes to using hand-drawn animation as a form of storytelling, yet often he is being compared to Walt Disney. That is just so unfair, because it becomes apparent by watching Miyazaki's films that he is the superior artist. He really has a gift of thrilling both grownups and children, and Laputa is indeed one awesome ride.<br /><br />But where can I begin to describe a movie so magical and breathtaking! Miyazaki's works have never cease to amaze me. Laputa is an adventure of a grand scale and I wonder how a film can be so packed with details and imagination. Ask yourself this question: if you are a kid dreaming of an adventure so grand in scope and so magical, what would it be like? The answer would be to strap yourself in some seat and watch Laputa, because it's truly a childhood fantasy come true. Every minute of the movie is rich and engrossing ... from the train chase to the amazing air-flying sequences... and to the wonderous sight of the floating castle itself. Not to mention the excellent score by Joe Hisaishi! Everything you ever possibly want from an adventure movie is here.

Went to watch this movie expecting a 'nothing really much' action flick, still got very disappointed. The opening scene promised a little action with a tinge of comedy. It keeps you hooked for the first half coz till then you are expecting that now its time for the action to kick in. Well, nothing of that sort happens. The movie drags and the ending just thumps you down to a point that you get annoyed.Wonder what was the director thinking. Made no sense watsoever. The movie lacked in all aspects, had no real storyline and it seemed very hollow, even if "Rambo" was in it, I don't think he could have helped the rating at all. There is simply no logic to the movie. A perfect way to waste your time and money. By far the most irritating movie i have ever seen and i am sure there will b others who'll have the same viewpoint after enduring it. Definitely not for people who have a little movie sense left in them.

This is a hard-boiled Warner Brothers film starring a very young Barbara Stanwyck. A consummate master at portraying Machiavellian cool, a technique she perfected eleven years later in Billy Wilder's "Double Indemnity", Stanwyck plays Lily Powers, the well-worn daughter of a violent speakeasy owner in a suffocating steel-town. She has been rendered cynical and numb by years of being offered up as a sexual favor to her father's customers. Once her father dies in a distillery explosion, she hops a freight train to New York and literally sleeps her way up the corporate ladder of a bank.<br /><br />This would come across as preposterous were it not for Stanwyck's blazing work here. With her dead-eyed stare and amoral seduction methods, it is easy to see why men become addicted to her aggressive carnality. One of the young men she seduces along the way is a fresh-faced John Wayne as of all things, an accountant named Jimmy McCoy. The melodrama gets heavy-handed toward the last third of the film with a murder-suicide, a hush-hush job in Paris to keep Lily quiet and the new bank president who is so addicted to Lily that he embezzles company funds to keep her in luxury. A tacked-on ending is somewhat disappointing but not before Stanwyck sears the screen. The film has curious touches like Lily's bonding friendship with an African-American woman named Chico and the German immigrant who teaches Lily about Nietzsche philosophy regarding the importance of avoiding sentimentality.

This movie i have been dying to see. Well it took till now to decide to actually rent it. It was completely worth it. This movie made me laugh from the beginning to the end. Chris Rock is funny no matter which movie he is in. However, this should come real close to being his greatest. If ur lookin for a family movie, ie pre-teens and up then this is one u can't pass over.

i should love this movie . the acting is very good and Barbara Stanwyck is great but the the movie has always seemed very trite to me . the movie makes working class people look low and cheap .the fact that the daughter is ashamed of her mother and that the daughter does not rise above it has always made me a bit uneasy . Barbara Stanwyck as the mother worships the daughter but the daughter forgoes a mothers love to find happiness with her well to do fathers family . i wonder how many others who have seen this film feel this way about it.again the acting was very very good and worth watching . i really don't like the story line . just a personal preference .thank you

With no affinity towards any type of filmmaking, and a healthy appreciation of documentaries, I can honestly say I was angry at myself for bothering to sit through the entire length of "20 Dates". I won't waste your time with the plot, you may read other reviews. I will say though that Berkowitz's hyper, Woody Allen-style narration was extremely annoying. You either wished he'd lay off the coffee or ingest some tranquilizers. And it's potentially apparent to Berkowitz himself that this film was a bad idea, as parts of it details his trials to finance the documentary. Forgive me for disguising insults as compliments, but I'll give credit to Berkowitz for having the skills to convince some idiot to finance this horrid piece of ****. I appreciate the boundaries & intentions of the film here, but even when regarding the standards Berkowitz sets for himself, he fires off and misses on all levels. In closing, I'm sure many of these female companions were not at ease going on a date with a twitchy wanna-be filmmaker, and therefore I question the film's sense of authenticity. Hey Myles, I loved your film the first time I saw it... when it appeared as an episode of Seinfeld or was a film directed by Woody Allen or Kevin Smith.

My observations: vamp outfit at end is ravishing and wonderful, exotic and fantastic. Jeanette wore it well, and got even with naive Nelson. Boat crashing into his balcony served him right. Costume outfits of his female mafia were designed surprisingly well, especially by today's standards. 1942 costume designer did great job. Main song theme just lovely.<br /><br />Caution to negative posters: 1942 was time of WW II; Pearl Harbor happened year before. U.S. just coming out of Great Depression; needed to get out and spend that hard earned money on diversion of singing, dance and yes, fantastic fantasy. Despotic dictators were trying to rule out there in RL, snuffing out freedoms. Thank goodness the public had these fantastic plot line movies to attend. Movie going was a privileged treat, in those depressing times. When you, negative posters, become actors or even movie stars, then YOU have room to talk and criticize. Jeanette's and Nelson's movies stand the test of time.<br /><br />Angel wings wonderful, on the real angel. RL wings at costume party not so hot, but great on Jeanette considering the SL.<br /><br />Beautiful singing by Jeanette and Nelson, as always. Jeanette dancing was a pure delight.<br /><br />15/10

Being a fan of the manga and anime of Go Nagai (DEVIL MAN, DEVIL LADY, VIOLENCE JACK, etc.), I was looking forward to this one. I'd seen neither the manga nor the anime, so I had no preconceived notions going in. Good thing, too. What we have here is a series of silly softcore movies of the type that used to turn up with alarming regularity on cable channels late at night. While it's tame compared to what gets rammed down the throats of regular cable viewers (our hero's naughty bits are either tastefully tucked away behind a strategically glued-on scarf or emblazoned with a ridiculous sunburst effect), there are prolonged scenes of bondage and torture that lend the proceedings just enough smarminess to make it unsuitable for the kiddies. While I have nothing whatsoever against nude female heroes, I do dislike amateurishly made movies (there are at least four in this series). On the plus side, there's at least one stunningly beautiful actress in each of the four episodes I saw. It's no wonder Nagai's TESTICLE BOY never made it...

So what's the big fuss out of making an INDIANA JONES wannabe when you have an actor who's cast as a fictional dude from adventure storybooks who doesn't want to go out on an adventure??? Whoever wrote the script for JAKE SPEED was probably fired, but for whatever reasons possible, this movie greatly lacks in excitement! That doesn't mean it has no action, but look on the dark side of the picture. This has got to bare no resemblance to INDIANA JONES or other action-adventure thrills containing cliffhangers and narrow escapes, and JAKE SPEED was promoted that way using clever propaganda to make me and several others interested in it! Besides, I've never heard of the guy, so who needs his attention?

In my opinion this movie advances no new thought. seems to me like taking a spear to a spear without looking to the side! the director seems to have an agenda! Duh! I find that his rational is lacking there does not seem to be room for the alternative view. I for one am usually on the side of the naysayer but this movie lacks credibility as it relies on the fantastic observations of the man/woman on the street. really now if you wish to cr5eate a credible alternative to a creed held onto for 2000+ years you have got to make more of an effort allowing the other side to voice their beliefs. I'm not sure but at the beginning of the movie it felt like an attack on the Cristian faith, I for one am a non believer, but allow for the beliefs of others, and would not wish no ridicule them but try to understand and tolerate.