Datasets:

paduraru2009

/

imdb-sample2

like 0

I found 'Still Crazy' to be marvelously entertaining, and not only to those of us who lived through that raucous era of late '60s, early '70s rock. My 15 year old daughter watches it with me every time I drag out the DVD (don't worry, it's only been three times) and she loves it too.<br /><br />It is a truly loving, poignant and hilarious nod to the era, and every actor hits his/her notes with perfection. It was my first introduction to Bill Nighy and I am glad his somewhat similar turn in 'Love Actually' brought him more attention. Bruce Robinson was incredible as Brian, bringing real life to what could have been a caricature of the drug-damaged rocker stereotype. It was interesting to see that Robinson has made quite a name for himself as a writer.<br /><br />I live in Sherman Oaks, California, and after the first time I saw the movie I bumped into Billy Connolly at the local mall (he lived here at the time) and told him it was one of my five favorite films of all time. He invited me to sit down at the food court with him and we discussed the movie for some time. We even talked of the idea of an American-oriented remake before wisely dismissing that. Why mess with the original?<br /><br />My only problem with 'Still Crazy' is that it wasn't hugely popular in theaters and too many people have missed out on a wonderful experience.

You know all those letters to "Father Christmas" and "Jesus" that are sent every year? Well, it turns out that they are not actually delivered but dropped off in a half-forgotten corner of the post office to rot unless some bright spark figures out a way of posting them. As bizarre settings go, it's a winner and one which perfectly fits the strange movie that is "Dead Letter Office". Having said that, this is obviously an Australian film as opposed to a British one. If it was Royal Mail, most letters get this sort of treatment anyway. I haven't been in this flat for two years and we're still getting letters for a Mr Wang, some female priest of the Church of Latter Day I've-Never-Heard-Of-You and various catalogues for industrial equipment addressed to a plumbing company.<br /><br />"Dead Letter Office" (the name given to the place where undeliverable mail ends up) follows the story of Alice (Miranda Otto) who grows up in a seriously divided home. Writing to her absent father, she only learns in adulthood that her letters haven't been delivered for one reason or another. So, logically, she gets a job at the D.L.O. and finds herself working alongside other social rejects including the brooding Chilean immigrant Frank Lopez (George Del Hoyo). Slowly, she finds herself drawn to him but can she find out where her dad is without bringing the self-contained world of the Dead Letters Office to its knees?<br /><br />Nothing against this film but I was reminded of the god-awful Heather Graham film "Committed" while watching this. However, this is so much better than that pile of horse crap but then again, that ain't difficult. For a start, this film is much more logical. True, the metaphors are somewhat blatant and the underflowing symbolism quickly becomes a flood. But at least this is cohesive and quirky without being complete drivel. It is also well acted. Both Otto and Del Hoyo are very good as the lovers looking for something they know they'll never find while other characters are peripheral at best. Part of the trouble is that it seems to wrap up far too quickly, leaving this viewer somewhat disappointed. The other part is that when you consider Australia's draconian immigration policy (i.e. if you don't speak English, rack off!), such a story is unlikely to take place in reality. The other characters, sadly, also help to destabilise the realism by proving to be little more than odd-ball stereotypes.<br /><br />Despite that, "Dead Letter Office" is certainly something a little different. It might not be to everyone's taste but I liked it. Yes, it was hackneyed and predictable but sometimes, it's nice to watch a film without guns or violence or heavy-duty swearing and nudity (no chance of that in an Australian film). There ain't any major laughs, there's no Bullet Time and the characters are usually one-dimensional. But it's the story that counts here and while it's not earth-shattering in its magnificence, it's a pleasant enough way of passing the time. It's the movie equivalent of a Sheryl Crow CD - nice to listen to now and again but you wouldn't really miss it if it wasn't there.

This movie changed it all for me...I heard of breakdancing and hiphop, but had never seen it professionally done (hey I was an 11-year old kid from Holland!) When I saw this movie, this all changed. I got actively involved in the hiphop-movement in our city, started breakdancing and writing lyrics.<br /><br />To this day, I still consider this movie to be a personal favorite. Sure, the filming and "cinematographic" importance might not be that significant. But who cares if the wide-shot was filmed badly or if you could see a mic hanging above somebody? It's what it does to you personally that counts...

So wonderful, so quirky, so romantic, so Italian. The film is so feather -light you float off into its refracted reality and you never want to return to the humdrum again. A kitchen sink world of bakeries, and hairdressers, and plumbing, but one that shimmers with a soft luminescence. Should the credit go to the screenplay or the direction? Take your pick -- they're both faultless. Let me get back to that New York City that lies just beyond the looking glass.

***SPOILERS*** Like some evil Tinkers-to-Evers-to-Chance double-play combination we have in "Omen IV" the evil seed of the deceased AntiChrist Damien Thorn come back. Terrorizing his parents his schoolmates his neighbors and finally the entire world as a she named Delia York, Asia Vieila. After being given to a "deserving" couple the Yorks Karen & Gene, Fay Grant & Michael Woods,by the Catholic Church's St. Francis orphanage.<br /><br />Little Delia didn't waste any time making her peasants felt by scratching her mom at a house party. Later Delia almost get killed by a runaway truck only to have herself saved by this "Devil Dog" named Ryder. Going to school Delia takes care of the local bully by getting the big guy to wet himself in front of all his classmates. Later when his father threatens the Yorks with a law suit she has his head sliced off in a self-induced traffic accident! Delia is someone that you never mess with if you know what's good for you.<br /><br />Meanwhile Dalia's dad Gene becomes a big man in town on his own, or so he thinks, by getting elected to the congress as a champion of the clean air and green trees crowd instead of letting the smog and concrete boys take over the neighborhood with his eye now on he White House itself! Did his bratty and strange daughter Delia have anything to do with Gene York's sudden good fortune?<br /><br />It's only later when Jo, Ann Hearen, is hired as Delia's nanny that the truth's comes out about her strange and evil powers. Jo a New Age type realizes that Delia is a bit weird, after turning all her white crystals black, and calls her New Age Guru Noah, Jim Byrnes, to come over and check her out. Noah is so upset by what he sees in Delia Kirilian color vibrations ,all black and blue with a little pinch of red, that it flips him out so bad that he almost crashed into Delia's moms car.<br /><br />Taken on a trip to a psychic festival by Jo Delia turns the entire event into an inferno setting the place, through mental telepathy, on fire and heaving everyone there run for cover including poor Noah who was at the festival and ended up with his leg broken. The and shaken and battered Guru was so shook up by the whole experience that he later checked out of the country to become a hermit in the Tibetan wilderness. <br /><br />Jo herself is later thrown out, with the help of the sweet and cuddly family pet Ryder, of a second floor window to her death because she knew and talked too much. It's when Karen is again pregnant that she decides, finally, to find out the truth about the real parents of Delia. That's when she,and we in the audience, come face to face with the truth. She's not only the feared AntiChrist of Revelations she's his twin sister! Her brother the AntiChrist himself is about to come on the scene as her kid brother the sill unborn Alexander York!<br /><br />Three times were more then enough for the AntiChrist coming back to earth to bring about Armageddon. The movie going public were already getting a little tired of of him and his evil adventures. With a fourth really not necessary since Daimen Thorn, the original AntiChrist, had been dead and buried for years. Were put through the usual ringer with no one believing that little Delia is "Thee" AntiChrist until it was almost too late to stop her in her deadly rounds of destroying the entire human race. The movie as bad as it is is also far too long, 97 minutes, for a horror flick that could well have told it's story is as little as 80 minutes.<br /><br />Having a private eye Earl Knight, Mchael Learner,and later a former Catholic nun sister Yvonne,Megan Lehch,and now faith healer Felichy in the film only to be killed off didn't help the plot either. It only prolonged the suffering of those of us watching the movie. You could see the surprise ending coming almost as soon as the film "Omen IV" began with the bases being cleared for Delia's eventual takeover of the civilized as well as uncivilized world. What was a bit of a surprise was Delia doing it with a little help from friends.

This movie feels like a film project. As though the filmmakers picked out a cross section of society with no experience and got to work. Characters are kind of uninvolved and naive though. Despite this amateurish feel, the movie is effective. It's like a cross-section of life with neighborhood kids trying to realize or nurture their honest sexual feelings. Being raised by a grand-parent, of course from that generation there is shame associated with sexuality. This provides for some predictable but well done conflict. Probably most enjoyable was the way the main character grew a little bit in his Romantic relationship realizing a greater depth to sexual feelings. A good watch but nothing stirring....

Loosely intended as a satire of D.W. Griffith's Intolerance, The Three Ages was Buster Keaton's first attempt at a full length comedy feature. The only similarities to Intolerance are the opening "book" scene and the fact that similar stories through the ages are edited together into a complete film. Keaton's reasoning for appropriating this style was that if it didn't succeed as a feature film, it could be reduced to three two-reelers. Fortunately, The Three Ages succeeds brilliantly as a comedy and contains some of the funniest routines I've seen in any of Keaton's film. There is nothing unique or daring about the story lines. They are simple boy-meets-girl, boy-loses-girl, boy-gets-girl plots, but the period satires are riotous and set the standard for future works by Mel Brooks and all films of this genre. However, I don't believe that anyone has ever topped this comedy. No one can play the lovable goof like Keaton and the stunts in this film are some of his best. In addition, Wallace Beery's appearance as Keaton's rival adds to this film's appeal. Anyone who thinks that comedy from the 1920's cannot be appreciated by modern audiences needs to see this movie.

This movie seems to send the wrong message. There can be morality without using Christ. Poeple of other religions, I believe, can get into heaven. I am a Catholic who goes to church every week, but I do not agree with such Christian arrogance. This is the worst time travel movie I have ever seen and I've seen Timeline.

Race car drivers say that 100 mph seems fast till you've driven 150, and 150 mph seems fast till you've driven 250.<br /><br />OK.<br /><br />Andalusian Dog seems breathtakingly bizarre till you've seen Eraserhead, and Eraserhead seems breathtakingly bizarre till you've seen Begotten.<br /><br />And Begotten seems breathtakingly bizarre till you've seen the works of C. Frederic Hobbs. Race fans, there is NOTHING in all the world of film like the works of C. Frederic Hobbs.<br /><br />Alabama's Ghost comes as close as any of his films to having a coherent plot, and it only involves hippies, rock concerts, voodoo, ghosts, vampires, robots, magicians, corrupt multinational corporations, elephants and Mystery Gas. And the Fabulous Woodmobile, cruising the Sunset District in San Francisco, of course.<br /><br />What's really startling is that somebody gave him a LOT of money to make Alabama's Ghost. There's sets, lighting, hundreds of extras, costumes, lots and lots of effects. Somehow that makes Alabama's Ghost SO WRONG. You watch some awful cheeseball like Night of Horror or Plutonium Baby, and at least some part of the weirdness is excusable on the basis that they were obviously making the film off the headroom on their Discover cards. But Alabama's Ghost was made with an actual budget, and that's EVIL. I mean, I've got a script about a tribe of cannibals living in Thunder Bay, Ontario, building a secret temple in the woods out of Twizzlers, and nobody's beating down MY door waving a checkbook - how did this guy get the funds for FOUR of the flakiest movies ever made?

I don't know how or why this film has a meager rating on IMDb. This film, accompanied by "I am Curious: Blue" is a masterwork.<br /><br />The only thing that will let you down in this film is if you don't like the process of film, don't like psychology or if you were expecting hardcore pornographic ramming.<br /><br />This isn't a film that you will want to watch to unwind; it's a film that you want to see like any other masterpiece, with time, attention and care.<br /><br />******SUMMARIES, MAY CONTAIN A SPOILER OR TWO*******<br /><br />The main thing about this film is that it blends the whole film, within a film thing, but it does it in such a way that sometimes you forget that the fictions aren't real.<br /><br />The film is like many films in one:<br /><br />1. A political documentary, about the social system in Sweden at the time. Which in a lot of ways are still relevant to today. Interviews done by a young woman named Lena.<br /><br />2. A narrative about a filmmaker, Vilgot Sjoman, making a film... he deals with a relationship with his star in the film and how he should have never got involved with people he's supposed to work with.<br /><br />3. The film that Vilgot is making. It's about a young woman named Lena(IE. #2), who is young and very politically active, she is making a documentary (IE. #1.). She is also a coming of age and into her sexuality, and the freedom of that.<br /><br />The magnificence and sheer brilliance of "I am Curious: Yellow/Blue" is how these three elements are cut together. In one moment you are watching an interview about politics, and the next your watching what the interviewer is doing behind the scenes but does that so well that you sometimes forget that it is the narrative.<br /><br />Another thing is the dynamic between "Yellow" and "Blue", which if you see one, you must see the other. "Blue" is not a sequel at all. I'll try to explain it best i can because to my knowledge, no other films have done it though it is a great technique.<br /><br />Think of "Yellow" as a living thing, actual events in 14 scenes. A complete tale.<br /><br />Think of "Blue" as all the things IN BETWEEN the 14 scenes in "Yellow" that you didn't see, that is a complete tale on it's own.<br /><br />Essentially they are parallel films... the same story, told in two different ways.<br /><br />It wasn't until i saw the first 30 minutes of "Blue" that i fully understood "Yellow"<br /><br />I hope this was helpful for people who are being discouraged by various influences, because this film changed the way i looked at film.<br /><br />thanks for your time.

Disney have done it again. Brilliant the way Timone and Pumbaa are brought back to life yet again to tell us how they came to meet and help Simba when he needed them. I love this film and watch it over and over again. It shows how Timone lived with his family and fellow meerkats before setting off to find his dream home and adventure. Then he meets Pumbaa and things do change. Together, they search for the home Timon wants and repeatedly fail, which is funny as Timone gets more and more crazy. Then Simba turns up and we see more of his childhood than we did in the previous 2 films. The rest, you already know.

SPOILERS THROUGHOUT!!!!<br /><br />I had read the book "1st to die" and wanted to see if the movie followed the book so I watched it. For the most part it did. There were some MINOR differences(location of the last violent scene for instance) but not many and for the most part the movie stayed true to the book more so then most movies.<br /><br />This may have been a mistake-although the movie was perfectly cast-with Pollen and Bellows especially-I was not that impressed with the book. Or let me take that back. I started off very impressed, gradually became more disillusioned and by the end was left completely unsatisfied and felt almost gypped. No difference with The movie. Here is why.<br /><br />There is no "payoff" in the book, or the movie. Rarely have I read a who done it thriller that has created such a letdown with it's final resolution and I had hoped the movie would vary a little.<br /><br />The whole-(he did it, NO she did it, NO they BOTH did it)-was not interesting, not fascinating and more confusing, annoying and depressing then anything else. Add to that, that the love of Lindsay's life dies at the end(after HER disease cleares and she cries at his grave).. and then cut to where she's contemplating suicide....then all of a sudden she's in a fight for her life with the REAL villain who was cleared after being arrested.. but it turns out he and the wife were in it together....HELLO!!! This whole thing has now become "GENERAL HOSPITAL" instead of a good old fashioned thriller. I felt cheated and ripped off by the book and watching the movie(I must admit it held my attention nicely -the acting was very good for a TV movie)was hoping it wouldn't follow the book which it wound up doing.<br /><br />I still think the movie is watchable and for some reason does not leave as bad a taste in your mouth as the book(or maybe it's just that I knew what would happen)But I have to say the way this story unraveled was not well done at all.

This is so to say a sequel to batman the animated and it is pretty much as good as it to and for all the same reasons it has lots of action in it the storyline to it is good the voice over actors are really good such as Kevin Conroy as batman, Mark Hamil as the Joker, etc. The villains are really good such as The Joker, Two-face, Catwoman, Clayface, etc. So i am sure you will not be disappointed with the new adventures of batman because it is really good. So make sure that you watch it on TV or rent or buy the collectors edition because it is really good.<br /><br />Overall score: ********* out of ********** <br /><br />**** out of *****

...but I've seen better too.<br /><br />The story here is predictable--a film crew trying to film a horror movie in a place where murders occurred. Three guesses what happens. This isn't a total bomb--the cast is fairly good with pros John Ireland, Faith Domergue and John Carradine giving the best performances. It's reasonably well-made--for a low budget film. Just don't expect any nudity, swearing, blood OR gore (the film has a very mild PG rating). I was never totally bored--it's OK viewing on a quiet night. I saw it on video--it was a HORRIBLE print--very dark and some scenes were impossible to see. Still I didn't hate it and it does have a cool ending which surprised me--basically nothing happens up till then so it catches you off guard. Worth seeing but only if you're a horror film completest.

If you want to see a movie about two utterly unsympathetic characters, this is the one. The acting is superb, both from John Cassavetes as the insane paranoid whom, as the saying goes, they REALLY ARE out to get, and from Peter Falk as his lifelong best friend to whom he turns for rescue. Big mistake, but since they're both amoral mobsters, and misogynistic bastards to boot, it's hard to decide whom to root for LESS. Only writer/director Elaine May could have gotten away with this one. I thought it interesting that in a lengthy interview with producer Michael Hausman included on the DVD, he disclosed that the two stars had "very different ideas" about the script, that the director was nearly impossible to work with, that the director of photography had impossible demands made of him, that the crew was constantly angry about being made to sit around waiting, and so on. This mood of one big VERY dysfunctional family comes across clearly on the screen.

This is just a case of a previously worthless island changed into something worthwhile. Jesus Christ people lets throw a big fit over 2000 islanders big deal.This is just a case of a previously worthless island changed into something worthwhile. Jesus Christ people lets throw a big fit over 2000 islanders big deal.This is just a case of a previously worthless island changed into something worthwhile. Jesus Christ people lets throw a big fit over 2000 islanders big deal.This is just a case of a previously worthless island changed into something worthwhile. Jesus Christ people lets throw a big fit over 2000 islanders big deal.

I must tell you right up front, I am certainly NOT an authority on Bollywood films and have only seen a handful. However, if you've never seen one, DON'T start with this one! I have greatly enjoyed the ones I've seen up until this one, but I just couldn't stand this one. I also must tell you up front that I could not finish this film--it was that annoying. So why was it so annoying? <br /><br />1. There is a character named 'Rambha' in the film. He is even more annoying than Jar-Jar Binks--which I never would have believed would have been possible. He is so #@^!# annoying!! He spoke in a falsetto voice and I think was meant to be comic relief. Instead, he just grated on my nerves and wanted him to die...slowly! His voice, his mannerisms and his obnoxiousness--he just didn't seem to shut up and dominated every scene he was in--and he needed to die! <br /><br />2. The heroes had the amazing ability to dodge AK-47 bullets with ease. I kid you not--there was a scene where several unarmed guys took on a small army of guys with these assault rifles!! And, again and again, they avoided taking a single bullet AND beat up the ruffians!!! This made Stallone's actions in "Rambo II" look mundane!! <br /><br />3. The film was so gosh-darn loud, in your face and intense--it practically made my brain bleed!! It was as if the film were made by people under the influence of meth!! Crazy camera angles, INTENSE music and action, action, action...this movie is clearly designed for someone who can't take a movie with plot and wants nearly 100% action.<br /><br />4. The two main characters and their actions and motivations made zero sense...none whatsoever! <br /><br />Perhaps if you are the most ardent action and Bollywood fan you can stand this film, but as for me I can see why it's on IMDb's infamous Bottom 100 list. Wow...this film is bad AND intensely bad!!

There is only one use for a film such as Bulletproof: it reminds you just how bad bad can be. We often see films which we describe as "pretty awful" or "not much good", but then you come across a film like this and you can see that although all those other films aren't "good" they are no way as stinkingly bad as Bulletproof. This was a birthday gift from someone who spent less than two seconds rummaging thru' the DVD bargain bin at our local superstore to fulfil an obligation (i.e. to give me a present). It could have been a serendipitous find but it wasn't: this is so utterly clichéd, so badly written, so poorly directed, so badly acted that I'm surprised everyone involved hasn't been arrested and sent down for 10 years. God, it's awful. I suspected as much from about 30 seconds in, but carried on because sometimes - sometimes - bad films are so bad they can be enjoyable. This isn't one of them. It is simply bad. I stopped watching after 45 minutes, and tomorrow I shall throw it in the bin.

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

Like one of the previous commenters said, this had the foundations of a great movie but something happened on the way to delivery. Such a waste because Collette's performance was eerie and Williams was believable. I just kept waiting for it to get better. I don't think it was bad editing or needed another director, it could have just been the film. It came across as a Canadian movie, something like the first few seasons of X-Files. Not cheap, just hokey. Also, it needed a little more suspense. Something that makes you jump off your seat. The movie reached that moment then faded away; kind of like a false climax. I can see how being too suspenseful would have taken away from the "reality" of the story but I thought that part was reached when Gabriel was in the hospital looking for the boy. This movie needs to have a Director's cut that tries to fix these problems.

This is one of the most brilliant movies that I have seen in recent times. Goes way above even any international movie of any repute. I am really surprised why this has not received the recognition it deserved. Sonali Kulkarni winning the National Award is perhaps the only consoling fact. Renuka Daftardar simply amazes as she speaks volumes through her eyes. There are a few scenes that stand out: When Gauri comes back from the city on Krishna's wedding, she and Krishna meet for the first time in many years. Krishna notices a change in Gauri, but not a single line of dialogue is said. The entire gamut of emotions is conveyed through subtle mannerisms and the eyes. There's another towards the end when Krishna pleads to Abhay Kulkarni to marry Gauri instead. If you are not moved by that scene, you don't have a heart.<br /><br />Watch this movie for sheer movie-making brilliance and acting capabilities.

I'm dumbfounded. Yes that's right. I'm really caught here. No way did I find it awful, but on the other hand it was a frustrating experience in macabre hysterical and murky incoherency. The idea behind such a trim, minimal low-budget Indie production isn't bad, but it's a confused muddle and in the end didn't do anything for me. It's amateurish and simple; it wants to exploit beyond reasoning and do so in that of-late fashionably rapid filming style. We have the documentary laced (hand-held) camera moving everywhere (despite never leaving the van), and sometimes feeling unfocused and blurry making certain details hard to figure out. Lately you kind of get use to it, but there are times when it does become too distracting and even nauseating. Keeping it still will help. The context has little groundwork (which has five teenage girls on their way home from a football game late at night and becoming lost on the back roads. At a road-side store they become involved in a minor accident which smashes an unoccupied SUV headlight. Scared, they flee and not too long that one-light SUV appears behind them. Soon to make their night an unforgettable ordeal in terror) spending most of the time playing out a drawn out, noisy and relentless cat and mouse game. <br /><br />As for being disturbing… I guess that depends. Some moments can make you squirm with its attention to pain, desperation and demented brutality (with good use of piercing sound FX that seem to be more favoured over the imagery and not forgetting the alienating background sound effects), but also I found myself snickering too. In passages it can be repellent and intense with a real gradual rush, but hardly believable. The injuries of random characters never seem as serious like you were to believe, despite obviously they should be. Watch how blood runs freely, but it's not entirely convincing and can get dull. The constant nocturnal car chase could only do so much before getting repetitive. We get screaming, spewing, bleeding, running, cursing, body fluids and so on. Quite unpleasant details followed too. With little really to do, it needed a much stronger script than the measly forced one that was penned up. Too many cringe-moments arose from it, and there was not much in the way of depth for the characters and situation they were in. It was about set-pieces, waiting for next torturous encounter and it drew it out long enough. Helping out is it had an unpredictable pattern. <br /><br />The performances; Jennifer Barnett, Angela Brunda, Danielle Lilley, Sandra Paduch and Mia Yi are workman-like with their distraught characters and draw an authentic chemistry to make up for the script's weaknesses in its character-foundation . Veronica Garcia's flipped-out, bug-eyed intensity as the loony driver of the SUV was something… yeah something. Her character's real motivation for terrorising the girls and her unstable state of mind is virtually non-existent. I guess being psychotic was good enough. Now probably the most unnerving thing I came across in the feature was that hideous soundtrack. Terrible techno music, to cheesy hard-rock and an overwrought closing score. It never felt overdone or got in the way, but it did stick out like a sore thumb. Co-directors Greg Swinson and Ryan Thiessen try to get the most out of their slight resources, but even with it edgy spirit it ends up being something quite ramshackle. Maybe it was enjoyable to make, but watching it just wasn't the case.

Charles Bronson stars as Lt Crowe a police detective who declares war on a pimp named Duke (Juan Fernandez) who kidnaps the daughter of a Japanese businessman who is the man who sexually harassed Crowe's daughter (Amy Hathaway) in this sleazy yet stylishly helmed revenge thriller. Kinjite may not be for everyone with it's somewhat disturbing plot threads but it is well made and indeed entertaining.

I have recently seen this production on DVD. It is the first time I have seen it since it was originally broadcast in 1983 and it was just as good as I remembered. At first as was worried it would seem old fashioned and I suppose it is a little dated and very wordy as the BBC serials were back then. (I miss those wonderful costume dramas that seemed to be always on Sunday afternoons back then) But that aside it is as near perfect as it could have been. I am a bit of a "Jane Eyre" purist as it is my favourite book and have never seen another production that is a faithful to the book as this one. I have recently re-read the book as well and some of the dialogue is just spot on. Reading the scene near the end where Rochester questions Jane about what St John was like I noticed their words were exactly reproduced on screen by Dalton and Clarke and done perfectly. <br /><br />All the other productions that have been done all seem lacking in some way, some even leave out the "Rivers" family and their connection to Jane altogether. I also think this is the only production to include the "Gypsy" scene done correctly.<br /><br />The casting is perfect, Zelah Clarke is like Jane is described in the book "small plain and dark" and I disagree that she looked too old. Timothy Dalton may be a little too handsome but he is absolutely perfect as Rochester, portraying every aspect of his character just right and acting his socks off! I agree with other comment that he even appears quite scary at time, like in the scene when he turns around slowly at the church when the wedding is interrupted, his expression is fantastically frightening. But then in another favourite scene his joy is wonderful to see when Jane runs down the stairs and into his arms the morning after they declare their love for one another. A love that is wonderfully portrayed and totally believable. Oh to be loved by a man like that! There were a couple of scenes that were strangely missing however, like when Jane climbs in to bed with the dying Helen and also when Rochester takes Jane shopping for her wedding things (I thought that one was in it but maybe my memory is playing tricks).<br /><br />Finally if you never see another production of Jane Eyre - you simply most see this one it is simply perfection!

I enjoyed a lot watching this movie. It has a great direction, by the already know Bigas Luna, born in Spain. And it is precisely in Spain that the movie takes place, in Cataluña, to be more precise.<br /><br />Luna explores once more the theme of an obcession, in this case the obcession of a young boy for the women's milk. There are some psychological concepts in this story such as the rejection complex that the elder son feels with the birth of his brother. In the movie this is what leads to the obcession of the young boy who suddenly sees all his mother's milk go to the recently born son. So he starts trying to find a breast who is able to feed him. He finds it in a woman recently arrived and from here on the movie is all around this.<br /><br />This movie lives a lot on imagery, more than the story itself, the espectator captures certain moments (unforgettable moments) and certain symbols (the movie deserves a thourough analyses on almost everything that happens because it usually means something...). The surroundings, the landscapes, typical from the region as well as the surreal behaviors of the characters, also symbolic, and the excelent ambiguous soundtrack by Nicola Piovani transport us to another dimension, not parallel to the real world, but which intersects it from times to times... Worth living in that world, worth watching this movie, even though we may eventually and for moments get tired and a bit sick with the excessive obcession, which is perhaps taken beyond the limits...<br /><br />I also enjoyed the performance of the protagonist... 8/10

As a teenager, I was pretty into the whole Bigfoot thing - I read the books and followed the reported sightings. As a more jaded adult, I've largely given up on the big guy now, but don't mind watching the odd movie when I come across one. This one had a few strong points to it - mainly, the recreations of two of the more famous Bigfoot encounters - the Ape Canyon incident of 1924 and the Bauman incident of c.1850 as related to and by Teddy Roosevelt, both of which I'm somewhat familiar with from that youthful reading I did. The movie takes for granted that both incidents involved a sasquatch, whereas both incidents have more plausible explanations, but the recreations were well done. There's also homage paid at the beginning of the movie to the famous Patterson video, again taking for granted its authenticity. The sasquatch encounter at the end of the movie was also very well done and had a very creepy feel to it as the sasquatch were portrayed mainly in the shadows or as hairy feet running past the terrified men. Unfortunately, in total those four things might have composed about 20 minutes, whereas the movie as a whole is slightly over an hour and a half.<br /><br />It's the fictional story (done in a documentary style) of an expedition to a remote area of northern British Columbia, to the suspected home range of the sasquatch. A computer had targeted this area based on sightings and - in one of the more amusing scenes in the movie - the computer also used "eyewitness sightings" to draw a picture of a sasquatch that looked exactly like the "creature" of the Patterson video! Aside from those 20 minutes I mentioned, we basically watch this expedition travel, which means we get to watch a bunch of guys go on a long camping trip. I've been on camping trips with the guys. Let me tell you - they've never been worthy of a movie. Interspersed among the long stretches of boredom are some nice wildlife shots (although one suspects that canned footage was used, or perhaps even captive animals performing as wild animals) and there are some spectacular scenery shots, except that the scenery isn't of northern British Columbia, it's from national parks in Oregon.<br /><br />I did appreciate that we were never given a real picture of the sasquatch, so we didn't have to deal with the bad makeup that would have been part of this. 3/10

The Sea Is Watching has been made from an original Akira Kurosawa script, and it is indeed a lush and warm film. Watching it will be a pleasure !<br /><br />Kei Kumai as director is certainly no equal to the old but everlasting master (particularly the mass scenes in the beginning of the film has some terrible acting), but the overall mood and scenery is very enjoyable. Another thing that is missed here: Kurosawa always managed to let the characters be so much more then what they are actually showing and doing.<br /><br />Probably that was his magic on set while shooting; and just maybe this script was not fully up to par yet.<br /><br />Maybe we just miss the eye of the master.<br /><br />This is one lovely and sweet film, but it is no Kurosawa. To expect that might well be very silly...

Henry Thomas was "great". His character held my attention. I was so "into" the story that I forgot it wasn't real. I wanted him to keep the baby and see what a special person he was. The other people in the story were essential in the makeup of his character. The way they banded together to help one another was truly awe inspiring. I love movies that show the real side of human emotions without having to hit you over the head, in that you are not smart enough to figure things out for yourself.

A famous show master enters the elevator with his girlfriend. Suddenly, she kills him and runs away while an old lady gets a heart attack. The name of the female assassin is Sawa. She is still going to school and works for an vicious criminal, Akai, who is sleeping with her. One day Sawa finds out he killed her parents..<br /><br />------- <br /><br />Even the biggest anime fans will have to admit that this vicious action thriller is an disappointing gore fest. "Kite" has style, but it is still trash. The weird plot about a teenage girl that kills people as an assassin tried to be scary and touching at the same time, only causing the story to fall flat on it's face. One of the highlights is an action sequence in which the good/bad heroine Sawa is falling together with a bodyguard from a building, yet the dramatic structure isn't nearly as good orchestrated and the director Yasoumi Umetsu's weird and grotesque animation of the character's faces is awful. Not only that, the intercourse sequences are just simply creepy.<br /><br />Grade: 3/10

The eight Jean Rollin film I have watched is also possibly the weirdest; the intriguing plot (such as it is) seems initially to be too flimsy to sustain even its trim 84 minutes but it somehow contrives to get inordinately muddled as it goes along! A would-be female vampire (scantily-clad, as promised by the title) is held in captivity inside a remote château and emerges only to 'feast' on the blood of willing victims (who are apparently members of a suicide club) As if unsure where all of this would lead him, the writer-director ultimately has the human villain – actually the blank-faced hero's kinky father – ludicrously revealed as a mutant(?!) from the future! The languorous pace and dream-like atmosphere (the cultists wear hoods and animal masks to hide their features from the sheltered girl) are, of course, typical of both the film-maker (ditto the seashore setting at the {anti}climax) and the "Euro-Cult" style, as are the bevy of nubile beauties on display. Personally, the most enjoyable thing about the whole visually attractive but intellectually vacuous affair was watching familiar character actor Bernard Musson (who appeared in six latter-day Luis Bunuel films) crop up bemusedly through it from time to time!

I tried restarting the movie twice. I put it in three machines to see what was wrong. Did Steven Seagal's voice change? Did he die during filming and the studio have to dub the sound with someone who doesn't even resemble him? Or was the sound on the DVD destroyed? After about 10 minutes, you finally hear the actor's real voice. Though throughout most of the film, it sounds like the audio was recorded in a bathroom.<br /><br />I would be ashamed to donate a copy of this movie to Goodwill, if I owned a copy. I rented it, but I will never do that again. I will check this database before renting any more of his movies, all of which were (more or less) good movies. You usually knew what you were getting when you watched a Steven Seagal movie. I guess that is no more.

My girlfriend and I were stunned by how bad this film was. After 15 minutes we would have called it quits except we were too curious to see if the film could possibly redeem itself. It didn't.<br /><br />I can't understand the praise given to this film. The writing was downright awful and delivered by some of the worst acting I have seen in a very long time.<br /><br />One thing that especially annoyed me about this film was that often when people were talking to each other there was an unnatural pause between lines. I understand using a pause to create a feeling of awkwardness (like in Happiness). This was not that type of pause -- it was just simply bad directing. This film might actually be much better with subtitles, and maybe the overseas market is the best one for this film, because then the innane dialogue and bad acting wouldn't be noticed as much.<br /><br />I generally like these types of small quirky films (The Real Blonde, Walking and Talking, Lovely and Amazing), but this one failed on so many levels that I consider it one of the very worst films I have sat through in the last few years.

Neatly sandwiched between THE STRANGER, a small film noir picture that proved Welles can do a formidable genre work on budget and on time and ironically proved his biggest box office success in the forties, and MACBETH, a no-budget Shakespeare adaptation shot in old western shets in 23 days, comes THE LADY FROM SHANGAI, a dark film noir woven from the very same fabric of Wellesian mythos that covers THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, MR. ARKADIN and any other film the director didn't manage to save from the clutches of studio bosses.<br /><br />Six years after THE MALTESE FALCON, with the post-war craze of the film noir in full swing, Welles, always ahead of his time, a true visionary director of tremendous artistic integrity, envisioned a labyrinthine world of shadows that is already darker, more sinister, paranoid and serpentine than anything his contemporaries were doing at the time. It's no wonder the movie was so misunderstood at its time, to the point that one full hour of footage was forever left in the cutting room floor, and it was once again Europe that championed it as another Welles classic.<br /><br />Certain set-pieces stand out. The aquarium scene with its flickering light and ominous shadows, and of course the Funhouse/Hall of Mirrors finale that is as classic a piece of Wellesian bravura as any in CITIZEN KANE or THE TRIAL. The only faults I find with the movie is Welles' ill-advised Irish accent and perhaps some of the erratic editing in the first act. The story however unfurls in a progressively mesmerizing manner, which the cuts only serve to intensify. I believe the heavily chopped versions of Shangai and Ambersons attain a surreal quality for that matter.<br /><br />Welles would exile himself in Europe for ten years and return in 1958 to deliver yet another stonewall classic, the monumental TOUCH OF EVIL, perhaps the crowning jewel of the film noir that was already in its waning days by that time. Shangai was not the box office success a star vehicle for Hollywood's premiere star of the time, Rita Hayworth, ought to have been, and Welles marriage with Hayworth ended before the movie was even released. Sixty years later and one hour of footage less, Shangai is still one of the best film noir pictures one is likely to discover. Surely that must count for something.

I remember seeing promos for this show before it appeared back in 1993. I was 8 at the time, and now at the age of 22 it feels weird to have seen this cult show start and end and to look back on it.The 90's all of a sudden seem so far away, what a great decade. Anyway I used to watch MonsterVision all the time, as I am a huge fan of monster flicks and horror films. It was like the 90's version of Chiller Theater. If MST3K can get DVD's why not Joe Bob's show, at least MonsterVision was more interesting and informative. A lot of Joe Bob's comments and info on the films were just hilarious. Most of the movies shown on the show were B or C grade but it showed a lot of A house films as well like the Hammer films from England which are Top notch as well as many with the stop motion majesty of Ray Harryhausen. Many were oddball flicks that you wouldn't see anywhere else like the the Japanese Sci-Fi movies besides of course Godzilla which is familiar to almost everyone and independent movies like Metal Storm and Motel Hell. With the new Decade of film preservation and more independent minded directors, I think MonsterVision would be a good show for IFC to pick up, since they already have a hit with the IFC grind house show. I'm sure this show will be picked up again for nostalgia reasons some day, I guess will have to wait and see. Until then "thats Great Television"!

I wanted to see the movie because of an article in a film magazine. It wasn't a highly recommended one by the critic. The storyline is different and I am sure that it could have been a good movie if it was in right hands. Directing and acting were awful!! I had the feeling of watching a movie which was made a bunch of amateurs. Although the movie started promisingly, it got worse and worse. I think this is an unoriginal movie with awkward characters.. I still think that it is worth watching as I haven't seen films subjecting gay porn. Don't keep your expectations high though,then you will be very disappointed. * out of *****

I've been a fan of all things Bill Maher for 15 years but this film was disappointing and at times disgusting. Of course, I am Catholic, come from a well-educated family and go to church of my own volition, which probably puts me at ends with quite a few of Bill's opinions.<br /><br />Bill's problem is that he presumes that religion is uniformly negative. He's correct to document the sociological aspects of it i.e. one faith builds its holidays on top of another and that many wars have been started because of religion (or, more accurately, by the sinister appeals of men to the ultimate and unquestionable authority of God), but that said he never looks at its positive side. Quite frankly, I think that hell would freeze over before Bill would ever humble himself and travel to the slums of Calcutta where Mother Theresa spent her life working with the poorest of the poor. She's dead now of course, but he could easily visit the Jesuit priest in East LA who runs Homeboy Industries, which works with young men typically with gang and prison backgrounds to teach them career skills, get their tattoos removed, and to become responsible members of society, or he could visit USC's Institute for Advanced Catholic Studies, which has brought together some of the world's finest theologians, diplomats, and investment bankers to study ways in which to ethically integrate the world's poorest countries into global capital markets and thereby improve the standard of living for the half of the world's people who live on less than $1 a day. Of course he won't do that because that would require him to consider evidence that does not easily fit into his preconceived beliefs about religion, and it's so much easier to continue to make snide, superficial jokes.<br /><br />That fits into the other large problem with Bill's movie, which is that he never subjects himself to anyone either on his level or who is better than he is. In this movie, you have Maher the Cornell grad spend most of his time talking down to truck drivers at a nondenominational Christian truck stop service, in a night club with a Dutch guy who smokes pot all the time, with the minister of a storefront church in Miami who claims to be the reincarnation of Christ, and with an actor playing Jesus at a "Holy Land" theme park.<br /><br />What you won't see in Bill's film, beyond some superficial speculation alongside a Ph.D in Grand Central Station that religion chemically alters the brain like drugs do and that religion is the fallacy of tradition wrought on the masses, is any sort of serious and questioning interviews with philosophy and theology professors from schools like Notre Dame, BYU, or Wheaton College, who could easily rhetorically decapitate him in a debate on the matter. You won't see any serious discussion of any of the writings of C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, or any papal encyclicals, and of course you also won't find any discussion whatsoever of any of the non-Abrahamic (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) faiths whatsoever. All you get at the end of the day is a textbook example of a condescending, snobby elitist from the west side of LA who makes a movie for his own kind and who has absolutely no gut-level understanding whatsoever of how the other half of America that elected George W. Bush (twice) lives their lives or about the school of thought behind it.<br /><br />I get a lot of what Bill's saying, but for someone possessing his intellect and influence, this film was nothing less than pathetic. Anyone interested in the kind of intellectual ferment that indie documentaries typically bring could find more stimulation in an old rerun of the Teletubbies.

Something that really does not go down right with Al Gore (and his supporters)'s theory is the whole thing about "concensus".<br /><br />If there were such a consensus, why is it that the "believers" in the almighty global warming feel the irrepressible need to try and bully anyone who questions them.<br /><br />Why is it that anyone who does not toe the line on global warming is met with smug accusations of being either stupid or on the payroll of the oil companies (apparently being a professional global warming researcher does not mean you're on anyone's payroll in that wondrous world...) Why is there such a need to tell everyone how the whole question is settled, when it is the very nature of science to honestly question assumptions? For some ideas on the answer to those questions, read Prey by the well-know oil-stooge Michael Crichton... oh wait, he is rich and not on the payroll of the oil companies. He just took a huge career risk in not toeing the line of the Greens and other Kyoto worshippers and told the truth as he researched it. By the way did you know that abiding to the Kyoto protocol would result in almost no lowering of temperatures, according to its own backers? Just a few questions that Al Gore made sure to stay away from lest he not get every penny of the environmental lobby in case he decides to run again.<br /><br />So who's a stooge..?

Picking up right after the Moscow-showdown of Supremacy, this is Bourne's greatest adventure and his final climax. Throughout the tight, 115-min-runtime the movie takes Bourne from Russia to Madrid, Paris, Marocco and ultimately New York. Damon is every inch of the hard-trained killer Robert Ludlum imagined, he is the most deadly spy in the movies right now, and it's the underpinned emotions to his character that makes him so believable, and it's exactly the fine way Damon manages to combine these two polar-opposites of himself that's so breathtaking. In this third, Bourne is on a mission to save his soul and while watching it, Ultimatum delivers such an high-octane performance that you'll find yourself sweating and gasping over its truly powerful branch of ideas and pull-offs; just look out for two great car-chases and a fight-scene as realistic as Bond vs. Shaw back in '63. Director Greengrass has surpassed himself with this compelling thriller and this is probably as exciting as cinema thrillers get; a true pay-off to Bourne fans and a new breed of spy-thriller standard.

If it wasn't for the bad dialogues and script. I mean, the direction was really in touch with it's subject. The actors were doing good at bringing their characters to life. But in the end, the thing that was really missing was a solid script to hold all the pieces together. I would highly suggest not to watch this. Unless you're a Al Pacino enthusiast like I am and will watch everything he is playing in. Even if the result lately are rather poor. This is, after S1m0ne, a second very bad movie for this actor that once knew how to choose roles.

Oh dear... as an Englishman, and a small part Welsh, a fan of Anthony Hopkins' work in the industry..... to date, I am truly disappointed. <br /><br />You see I am a nobody, who hoped for better. So my comments are as 'straw in the wind'. But, that's the point isn't it? - I have no axe to grind on the commercial value of a work. I, a full member of the great unwashed, go to see a movie to be transported to another place. To yes, suspend belief for a brief period. But not to enter a state of total disbelief.<br /><br />Had this been by an unknown author and director, I would guess that this 'production' would have been castigated into oblivion. Unfortunately, its not, and I was left wide eyed and confused. Having seen some of the rave reviews given this work I am faintly worried....<br /><br />Perhaps its that I try, without prejudice, to view each movie on its own merits. Regardless of author, director, studio or even the notoriety of the content.<br /><br />My advice, as many before me: Don't Write and Direct the same production. It is fraught with danger. Movies need to be moderated to retain a semblance of credibility.<br /><br />As they say in school reports "Could and can do better..."

I attempted to watch this film without being able to really sit through it, for while it is suppose to have a "good" message; the problem is that it is obviously produced according to one particular interpretation of scripture. An interpretation, in my opinion, will mislead a lot of people. In addition, I am a movie maniac and the acting in this film was completely unacceptable. Never before had I wished for a negative score to rate a movie. So, if you wish to be preached to incessantly by those without authority, then by all means, get this film. This comment is also a warning to people who like or love scifi, because the title will deceive a lot of people as well. This was an unfortunate film, because the basic idea had possibilities and those possibilities were squandered. The film's only redeemable quality is that it did make me realize that the character in the "Time Machine" probably should have shown a little more moral outrage at the odd behavior by those in his future.

T.Z. Post, college professor, receives a false letter stating he inherited $750,000. Now with financial means, he withdraws his life savings of $4,000, and decides to finally going out & live. After having his baggage sent on a train to Chicago, he meets a traveling vaudeville troupe, and decides there good enough for him to put on a show on Broadway. The night of the show, poor Prof. Post has to hide from his creditors, settle the relationship woes between girlfriend Pansy and & floozy diva Eleanor, and still make sure the show must go on. After watching many of Keaton's silent gems, this one is a pain to sit through, but I felt, it could have been a lot worse. Supporting cast Durante, Todd, & Selwyn come off very annoying at times, but still likeable. A pre-Charlie Chan Toler is good as the frustrated show director. 90% of the script is badly written as MGM is trying to pass this off as a poor man's Marx Bros. film where many of the sight gags fall flat from the beginning. Compiled with Keaton's drinking problems at the time, this movie just is a sad moment in Buster's life. Rating- 3.

In 1930,Europe received quite a shock when Luis Bunuel's 'L'Age Dor' was released, causing a riot in Paris when screened there,resulting in it being banned for something like over forty years. Three years later,in 1933,when Europe had gotten over the shock,it was once again turned on it's ear with 'Ekstase',a symphony (of sorts)to love. The film starred a young,unknown German actress named Hedwig Kiesler,who would later change her name to Hedy Lamarr,when she moved to America to escape the madness of Adolf Hitler,as Eva,a young bride who has just married a cold,distant loveless husband (played by Emil Jerman),only to discover that she has made a major mistake. One divorce later,Eva is footloose & fancy free & is out one day, skinny dipping in a lake,when she discovers Adam,a handsome,young engineer (played by Aribert Mog)who takes a real fancy to her (and she,him). After a wild night of passion,Eva's ex-husband turns up once again,hoping to win Eva back,only to find he now has a rival. I won't spoil what transpires. Czech director, Gustav Machaty (who directed the original screen version of 'Madam X',another parable in romantic obsession) directs from a screenplay by Jacques Koerpel,Frantisek Horky & Machaty,from the novel by Robert Horky. The film's velvety cinematography (which reminded me of Avant Garde photographer,Man Ray's photos of the era,which goes for some impressionistic use of light & shadow,a lot)is by Hans Androschin & Jan Stallich). The film's brisk editing is by Antonin Zelenka & the films art direction, which goes for a lush,nearly Art Deco look,is by Bohumil Hes). If I have any quirk about this film, it is the music score,by Giuseppe Becce,which goes for an over the top,melodramatic feel to it that gets old fast (certain themes are repeated over & over again,wearing out it's welcome,fast---kind of like some of David Lean's over use of certain musical themes,especially in 'Lawrence Of Arabia',and 'Dr.Zhivago'). Some years back,a brand new restored print was made up of the best source material,cobbled together from various European existing prints available,restoring it to what is quite possibly the closest version of what it originally looked like before the Vatican condemned it as "decadent" (yeah,right...like the Church never did anything wrong),and the Hayes office cut it to ribbons,when it was finally released in the U.S.A. in 1936,in a "Hayes Office" approved cut (likewise). Minimal dialog in German with English subtitles (it was meant to be a mainly visual experience). Not rated,but contains that infamous nude skinny dipping scene by Hedy Lamarr (done tastefully,mind you) & some suggestions of sexual content (likewise)that would scarcely earn it a PG-13 rating,nowadays. Worth a look if you have any interest in early European cinema,or Avant Garde/Experimental cinema

Bertrand Blier is indeed l'enfant terrible of French cinema and in the seventies he always could shock the public. Filmed with his fave duo (Depardieu and Dewaere) and the usual dose of sex (Miou-Miou plays her typical role, at least the one from the seventies as little could we know that a decade later she would be the best French actress ever). In first "Les Valseuses" is also one of the first roadmovies as the viewer is just taken to some journeys of two little criminals. Those who only are satisfied with family life, or simply know nothing more, the movie would be quite a shocker but this movie is more than just that, it just let you think of all the usual things in life (working for the car, being bounded at work etc.). It's a sort of critic towards the hypocrite society we're living in. Great job and it just makes you wish two things : Dewaere died just too young as he was a topactor and of course Depardieu, he'd better should have stuck with French movies as he proves here that no one can beat him. Timeless classic and 20 years later it will still shock some...

Hickory Dickory Dock was a good Poirot mystery. I confess I have not read the book, despite being an avid Agatha Christie fan. The adaptation isn't without its problems, there were times when the humour, and there were valiant attempts to get it right, was a little overdone, and the events leading up to the final solution were rather rushed. I also thought there were some slow moments so some of the mystery felt padded. However, I loved how Hickory Dickory Dock was filmed, it had a very similar visual style to the brilliant ABC Murders, and it really set the atmosphere, what with the dark camera work and dark lighting. The darker moments were somewhat creepy, this was helped by one of the most haunting music scores in a Poirot adaptation, maybe not as disturbing as the one in One Two Buckle My Shoe, which gave me nightmares. The plot is complex, with all the essential ingredients, though not as convoluted as Buckle My Shoe,and in some way that is a good thing. The acting was very good, David Suchet is impeccable(I know I can't use this word forever but I can't think of a better word to describe his performance in the series) as Poirot, and Phillip Jackson and Pauline Moran do justice to their integral characters brilliantly. And the students had great personalities and well developed on the whole, particularly Damian Lewis as Leonard. All in all, solid mystery but doesn't rank along the best. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox

I'm not going to bother with a plot synopsis since you know what the movie is about and there's almost no plot, anyway. I've seen several reviewers call ISOYG an 'anti-rape' film or even a feminist statement, and I just have to chime in on the galling hypocrisy of these claims.<br /><br />First of all, what do we see on the cover of this movie? That's right: a shapely woman's behind. Whether it was Zarchi's attempt to make an anti-rape statement - and I absolutely don't believe it was - is entirely beside the point. The film is marketing sex and the titillation of sexual assault and the material is so graphic (everything but actual penetration is shown) that NO ONE but the hard core exploitation crowd will enjoy it.<br /><br />The rape(s) in the film is uncomfortable, brutal and hard to watch. There's something to be said for presenting a horrible crime in such a brutal light, but there was no reason for this scene to go on for seemingly 30 minutes, none. There was also little character development of the victim and only one of the rapists is slightly developed (mere moments before he's murdered) so the scene isn't at all engaging on an emotional level. Really, it's just presented for the sake of showing extreme sexual violence and you can tell by the movies ISOYG is associated with on IMDb (Caligula, Cannibal Ferox, etc.) that it attracts only the exploitation crowd.<br /><br />Finally, a few reviewers have commended Zarchi's so-called documentary style and lack of a soundtrack. But considering how inept everything else in the film is (acting, script, etc.) I suspect these were financial decisions and the film looks like a documentary because he literally stationed a camera and let his porn-caliber actors do their thing.<br /><br />I'm not going to get all up on my high horse talking about the content of ISOYG. I'm all for exploitation / horror and love video nasties. In fact, I'm giving this movie three stars only because it truly does push the envelope so much further than some other films. However, it's also poorly made and after the rape occurs, just downright boring for the rest of the film as we watch a bunch of ho-hum, mostly gore-less murders and wait for the credits to roll.<br /><br />This is probably worth watching once if you're a hardcore 70s exploitation fan but I'm telling you, the movie is overall pretty bad and not really worth its notorious reputation.

I'm only rating this film as a 3 out of pity because it attempts to be worthwhile. I love to praise a great movie and I'm not biased toward "male" movies. Legally blonde was an excellent film. Georgia Rule on the other hand, was a disorganized, weak, poorly written, unrealistic example of movie making at its worst. by the end of the film I didn't care who was lying or if anything was resolved. <br /><br />The most important thing in a film is a good STORY. This story is weak and never develops (just because the subject matter is deep, doesn't mean the story is good). A good story has dynamic characters. A dynamic character is one that experiences a major character change, and is primed for that change over the course of the movie. In Georgia Rule, the character changes were abrupt and undeveloped. Secondly, there were too many ATTEMPTED dynamic characters. Pulling off a really good dynamic character is a tough job and takes time (you've only got a couple hours in a movie). That means that too many attempted dynamic characters will get too little attention to their personal change. Even if I ignore the poorly written story, and the litter of weak dynamic characters, I can't even say I liked anyone. Every character was a mess. That's fine if your're writing American Beauty but not when you're attempting a dramatic comedy. Georgia was a horrible mother, her daughter was a horrible mother and daughter, and Lohan was a horrible excuse for a human being (no I'm not cutting her any slack because she was molested, crap happens to everyone and we're all responsible for our own actions). The "Dudley Do Right" Mormon kid should have had the guts not to compromise his religion and commitments...and Simon, I mean seriously, what kind of guy lets a 17 year old girl who's been molested just stay over occasionally (unless he's an actor or a politician). This movie is worth watching if you want to remind yourself what good movie making is NOT!

This movie was a major disappointment on direction, intellectual niveau, plot and in the way it dealt with its subject, painting. It is a slow moving film set like an episode of Wonder Years, with appalling lack of depth though. It also fails to deliver its message in a convincing manner.<br /><br />The approach to the subject of painting is very elite, limited to vague and subjective terms as "beauty". According to the makers of this movie, 'beauty' can be only experienced in Bob-Ross-style kitschy landscape paintings. Good art according to this film can be achieved by applying basic (like, primary school level) color theory and lots of sentiment. In parts the movie is offending, e.g. at a point it is stated (rather, celebrated by dancing on tables) that mentally handicapped people are not capable of having emotions or expressing them through painting, their works by definition being worthless 'bullshit' (quote).<br /><br />I do not understand how the movie could get such high rating, then again, so far not many people rated it, and they chose for only very high or very low grades.

I read the running man from Kings books as Bachman and I felt for the main character John and his family. This movie could have been SO much more. The trouble? It was set during the big action movie craze. I watched the movie and was in pain during the whole thing. I felt nothing for the character and less for his cause. Yes it had funny scenes (or laughable) though I think that it did not save the movie in my eyes. If you read the book you can feel the climax and the fire in the heart of John as he gets his final revenge.<br /><br />I give this movie a low number. It may not have been this low if I had not read the book.

Steven Speilberg's adaptation of Alice Walkers popular novel is not without its share of controversy. When first released members of the black community criticised its treatment of black men, while others questioned why a white man was directing this film about black women.<br /><br />This is the story of a young black woman named Celie, growing up in rural America after the turn of the century. She has two children by her abusive father which are snatched from her arms at birth. Her only solace in her miserable life comes from her sister.<br /><br />Celie (played in later years by newcomer Whoopie Goldberg) is married off to an abusive husband (Danny Glover). The husband is humiliated by the sister and so she is quickly removed from Celie's life.<br /><br />The story is often heartbreaking as Celie keeps up hope that she may one day be reunited with her sister and with her children. Throughout her life she meets an assortment of characters, including Sophia, a tough as nails wife to her step son, and Shug, a loud and luscious saloon singer, who teaches her a thing or two about love.<br /><br />Speilberg's direction is all over this picture, which offers brilliant cinematography and some stellar performances. I dare you to watch this film and not be moved! The film The Color Purple manages to capture the essence of what is a complicated story. While it tends to minimise the lesbian aspects as well as the African story, both of which were so vivid in the book, the movie remains true to its themes, allowing the voice of Alice Walker to shine through.<br /><br />I couldn't begin to respond to the controversy that surrounded this film. Suffice it to say, however, this is one of the few films that I can watch again and again, and which has left an indelible mark on me.<br /><br />

This movie was the most out of line and liberally fed movie i have ever seen in my life. (Besides Farenheit 9/11). All of the information was only supported on the opinion of FIVE scientists while 80% of the Asssociated Press highly criticize the science promoted be Gore. Global Warming is a Mass Media Hysteria and nothing more. Most of the information in the movie was either misquoted or it was wrong all together. THis movie has been investigated over and over again and has been shown evidence against that prove its lies were nothing but lies.<br /><br />LIBERAL BLINDNESS! An to think that they show this in school proves that the media has brainwashed us into believing this garbage!

When a small glob of space age silly putty lands on earth it soon begins consuming earthlings and putting on weight. The only part of this senseless drivel that I enjoyed was all the cool classic cars. This dog had so many holes it could be sliced and sold for swiss cheese. This thing actually made 20 million bucks? And McQueen's salary was 3K? All were vastly overpaid. The 'monster' looked a lot like a large beanbag and the 'teens' looked as though they could have children approaching their teen-age years. And those blasts from the shotgun; sounded like a pellet rifle with a sound suppressor. The ending was pitifully trite; obviously the producers were leaving the door open for a sequel....and there were many. Thumbs down.

I miss Dark Angel!..<br /><br />I understand not ever one likes it, but as far as I'm concerned the show should not have been canceled, especially for another space show mock up...<br /><br />I'm reading the books now. they are doing a pretty good job of explaining somethings, but I still think we should get a TV movie or something.<br /><br />THE FREAK NATION LIVES!!!!!!!!

What were they thinking at "Cannes"? One of the most irritating, films of all time. Every detail of this film, no matter how meaningless was shown. If I had to watch her put on those boots one more time I think I would have shouted. If the point of this film was to show how pathetic a life Rosetta had, then it was covered within the first fifteen minutes of the movie and then the credits should have been running. But no, we had to see countless redundant scenes over and over. The whole thing was filled with un-likeable and unsympathetic characters. They deserved the misery that was Rosetta. And to think I passed up "Tumbleweeds" to see this over-hyped film of boredom. It was like watching grass grow, only that is more exciting.

This superb film draws on a variety of talented actors and musicians at the top of their form - Levant, Crosby, Martin, Rathbone, Manone are completely at home in the story that apparently was supplied by Billy Wilder. One would love to know more about how much he had to do with it, because it's an exceptionally clever variation on the sterile master/fertile servant tale - nearly an allegory of the entertainment industry, run by dried-up numskulls, but made into a vibrant world of art and play by an exploited underclass of nobodies and non-WASPs. Looking at the last six decades of music, TV, and film in the US, it's hard not to see the underlying insights of this film as prophetic.

Overall, I agree wholly with Ebert's review. In a sense, I feel that I should not even be commenting since it is so much a vet's movie and I am not a vet (I was a resister). The flaw is that Martha is badly underdeveloped and does not act consistently. My guess is that Stephen Metcalfe is a vet himself and spent too little planning time on her character.

...thankfully he hasn't, yet! This is crude, simplistic student politics made into drama. It needs the viewer to buy into a series of conceits. Conceit 1: That a British electorate could be swung from being basically right of centre to being overwhelmingly far left. Conceit 2: That all debate in the media and the general public is unanimously ended and that the new Prime Minister's only critics are sinister civil servants, MI5, big business and the Americans (naturally). Conceit 3: That this radical socialist PM can solve all union, economic and social problems with consummate ease in a way that unites the nation. Conceit 4: That severing all ties with the US and NATO is a good thing. Conceit 5: That the Soviet Union isn't a brutal and oppressive regime and that we should have had closer times with them back in the 80's. And finally, Conceit 6: That the reactionary forces of the US would actively seek to launch a coup d'etat against Britain.<br /><br />It's ludicrous and the show only gained the reputation that it did by trying to cash in on some anti-Thatcher feeling in the country and having left wing TV critics singing its praises. When it was made, television was still a hugely popular and influential medium with shows getting huge ratings so a widely talked about drama with a hint of controversy had a good chance of getting a big audience. Ray McInally's performance was great, which is one of the few plus points. History and time has shown the huge weakness in the premise and plot of this show.

In April of 1965, CBS broadcast the first of Barbra Streisand's monumental television specials. The show was not only a runaway ratings success, but garnered 5 Emmy awards as well. This is one of the most memorable moments of 1960's television and (unfortunately) the kind of television special they don't produce anymore. Filled with wonderful songs and a spectacular performance by Barbra, this special is a must view for any Streisand fan and anyone interested in early television.

really awful... lead actor did OK... the film, plot etc was completely crap and inaccurate it may as well have been a sequel to well... anything it had little or no relevance to Carlitos Way... and should be avoided like the plague by any Carlito's ways fans... no mention of Gail in fact he ends up with some other bird, no mention of Klienfelt, no mention of how he got caught, no mention of how he ended up in jail... they attempted to make it like the original with flash backs at the beginning... but to be honest when rating it I was looking for a zero mark... unfortunately I had to rate it higher...<br /><br />Its a terrible attempt to cash in on what was one of the best films of the 90's... overall it was approximately £6 and 2 hours of my life wasted... for all the "action" in it, it was truly boring slow and predictable... again to any Carltio's Way fans avoid this fiasco...

"Spaced Invaders" is one of the funniest movies, I´ve ever seen. I don´t understand, why this movie didn´t get better critics, it´s funny, harmless and sweet. I first watched it, when I was 11, and I really fell in love with it... 2 days later, I got it on VHS :-P Till today, I´ve shown it to many friends, and they all liked it, but nobody knew the movie before. I think, that´s the problem, nearly nobody knows it, so nearly nobody can like it... This movie never got a real chance, that´s sad, "SI" has really the potential of a comedy like "Monsters Inc." or "Spaceballs". Ok, enough displeasure - What I really wanted to say, is that, if you ever want to laugh your head off, watch it! Even if you don´t get mad about it, it´s worth watching! --> Prepare to laugh, earth scum!

I had to walk out of the theater. After an hour, all I was seeing was people cheating on wives, schtupping like dogs in a rut, and using the f-word like a diabetic using Equal.<br /><br />No thanks.<br /><br />It was especially frustrating because the movie could have done a lot. Any one of the characters could have been quite interesting if they were given more to do than fornicate, talk about it, and swear at each other.<br /><br />The few times that it looked as if there were about to be some sort of character development, all that happened was another sex scene. Plot development in the 1st hour can be summarized as 1)several murders occur, 2) Vinnie sees murder scene 3) Vinnie stares moodily across Atlantic/East/Hudson River 4) Vinnie cheats on wife, and 5) Joey (most sympathetic character in the show) gets kicked out of his parents' house. More than that, I didn't wait to see.<br /><br />The photography and the interplay between the characters were superb, but THERE WAS NOTHING for them to DO. The flood of sex and vulgarity was hardly worth waiting another hour for SOMETHING to happen.<br /><br />Sorry, Spike. Take some lessons from Notting Hill, or Shawshank Redemption. Either one is a better study in community and interpersonal relationships.

Bad. Bad. Bad. Those three lines sum up this crappy little film that can only attract idiot children and their parents to the cinema. and its... #1 Movie in America! What is this country thinking? Mike Myers looking more like Micheal Jackson. Some Chineese lady that falls asleep within 3 minutes. A lame plot with dirty jokes. It's grotesuque and awful. When Green-Eggs and Ham comes out in 2005 I'll be so happy! (not) Eddie Murphy and Tracy Morgan will probably play two hipsters trying to find the lost Green-Eggs and Ham. They'll try to chase Sam-I-Am and that mean guy who are running away with it. (I hope they don't ruin the classic book.) Don't waste time and money by seeing this.

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnn! :=8O<br /><br />ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........... <=8.<br /><br />Oh, um excuse me, sorry, fell asleep there for a mooment. Now where was I? Oh yes, "The Projected Man", yes... ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........... <=8.<br /><br />Ooops, sorry. Yes, "The Projected Man". Well, it's a British sci-fi yawnfest about nothing. Some orange-headed guy projects himself on a laser, gets the touch of death. At last he vanishes, the end. Actually, the film's not even that interesting. Dull, droning, starchy, stiff, and back-breakingly boring, "The Projected Man" is 77 solid minutes of nothing, starring nobody. Dull as dishwater. Dull as doorknob dust. Dull as Ethan Hawke - we're talking really DULL here, people! But wait, in respect to our dull cousins from across the puddle, the MooCow will now do a proper review for "The Projected Man":<br /><br />ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............. <=8.

This horrendously bad piece of trash manages to be racist, sexist and homophobic all at once, while pretending to be terribly chic and sophisticated. Atrocious performances, a cliche ridden screenplay, and boring direction make this movie one to steer clear of. Two scenes were especially offensive - the one in which Schaech scrubs his tongue after being kissed by another man (could it really have been that gross), and the scene where Eastwood is kissed by Schaech's best friend, who is pretending to be Russian. After he leaves the room she exclaims "f**king foreigners"! So much for her being a cultured artist who dreams of living in Paris!?!<br /><br />Jonathon Schaech can be a likeable actor on screen, and is astonishingly good-looking. It's a shame he didn't learn more from working with cutting edge gay director Gregg Araki on an earlier film, and try to salvage this film from descending into a string of gay stereotypes and a mire of homophobia.

"The Days" is a typical family drama with a little catch - you must relate to the character's emotions in every way possible in order for you to truly appreciate the show.<br /><br />[Possible Spoilers For Those Who Are Unfamiliar With the Show]<br /><br />The story, obviously, for all the people who has watched the show, is the world of Cooper Day, the middle child of the family. He records his days with his family and hopes to become a rich and famous writer one day because of his observations. His family includes a mother, a father, a perfect sister, and a genius-little-brother. The first episode, which is going to sound a bit stupid since John Scott Shepard has created this situation - both the sister and mother gets pregnant. That's the first situation the writer hits. Then the father quits his job at the law firm. The youngest son gets a panic attack. The middle child gets in a fight with the sister's boyfriend. This is all in a day's work.<br /><br />[/Spoilers]<br /><br />I admire this show. I don't know. It's a bit crappy but I like it. First I thought the camera-work was a ripoff but then I got used it and started to like it. I liked the quiet conversations under a dark light. I liked the intimate feeling of the show. I liked the low-budget style. I liked the acting. I admire the story. Then I find myself wanting a second season of The Days. I slowly became a fan of it as the 6-episode airing on ABC came to an end. It's a really good show and it's nothing like The OC. The two have nothing in common. So I hope fans will stop comparing them.<br /><br />And if you can relate to either Abby, Jack, Natalie, Cooper or even Nate, you'll like this show. A lot.

The plot of The Thinner is decidedly thin. And gross. An obese lawyer drives over the Gypsy woman, and the Gypsy curse causes him to lose and lose weight... to the bone. OK, Gypsy curses should be entertaining, but the weight-losing gone bad? Nope. Except Stephen King thinks so. And Michael McDowell, other horror author and the screenwriter of this abysmal film, does so, too. The lawyer is not only criminally irresponsible, he is fat too, haha! The Thinner is like an immature piece of crap for a person who moans how he/she has never seen anything so disgusting than fatness. Hey, I can only say: Well, look at the mirror.

This film has scenes that come back to me at the strangest times -- that intense scene with Mr. Muckerji telling Mrs Melandez that someone he spoke with witnesses the girl being pushed out the window by a woman who fits HER description ---is one that rolls around -- the way she keeps referring to him by name --- in a Greek accent "Mr Muckerji" -- and then when Boyer discovers her having just taken poison and gives her one last smack up the side of the head before she dies --- its a delight! "Fools -- Fools -- all my life"...etc etc -- you get the point..I have to buy this one. I love Dan Seymour's acting -- he usually plays some plump foreign sultan or police chief and appeared in Casablanca and many great pictures.

This, and "Hidden fortress" are the Kurosawa's that are most dear to me. I don't hand out 10's like candy, but this certainly deserved it, if anything. Even though it's quite long (like all Kurosawa's pretty much are) it concurred the problem which bugs me with most of his films; the storyline is often too loose and slowly evolving, containing scenes that are unnecessary or just lenghtened too much without any real purpose to the storyline or the character description. Dodesukaden delivered to me the same experience that for example "Hidden fortress" did; despite its lenght, there wasn't a single minute I would cut out.<br /><br />This is also a very unusual Kurosawa film in a way, it has no storyline, but many little independent stories which are based more to the character description than storyline, unlike any other Kurosawa-film I have seen so far. It also leans much on the dialogue, which he uses brilliantly (especially in the story between the father and the son planning their "new house"). <br /><br />Still the thing that makes this one a masterpiece is how the subject being so tragic as it is, is managed to be described so humanely and sympathetically, without pointing fingers at anybody at any point. From the beginning to the end it delivers the whole emotional scale from laughter to tears in perfect balance.

I literally fell asleep 3 times watching this movie. Granted, it's Shakespeare and that takes a certain mindset to be interested or not. But this movie exceeds any barrier of long soliloquies and what not, that may prevent many from just not caring about a Shakespeare based story.<br /><br />The largest roadblock to this production is the complete flatness of the characters. Often during character's interacting, it's nearly difficult to distinguish who's lines are who's. Granted, I believe this movie is dubbed in English. Certainly they could've obtained voice actors which could've added a bit more drama to these classic, literary lines.<br /><br />It would be difficult to rate this movie greater than 1, although perhaps that's based on prejudices of perhaps age and what would seem a very low budget. Still, it's absolutely painful and boring. If you insist on Hamlet, do yourself a favor and read the book again. 1/10

Some saying about 'The Play is the Most Important Thing', or something like that, is attributed to that old Bard of Avon, himself, William Shakewspeare. if it wasn't old Will, it may well have been our own, super-veteran film Director, Mr. Raoul Walsh. There are a large number of his films that would support this hypothesis. None are more appropriate than GENTLEMAN JIM(Warner Brothers, 1942).<br /><br />The Film also racks up another award, being named as Errol Flynn's favourite of his own starring vehicles. It clearly gives on screen evidence that would easily lead viewers sitting in the darkened theatre, or viewing it on their home TV or DVD, to conclude same.<br /><br />To be sure, the story is a semi-serious Biopic, which takes a portion of factual material and blends it with a liberal dose of the old imagination to bring us a very satisfying, albeit somewhat fictionalized(what Biopic isn't?)occurrences.<br /><br />The casting is excellent, as it makes good use of the natural athleticism of our lead, Mr. Errol Flynn. Though not a Swashbuckler, a Western or a War Picture, this GENTLEMAN JIM is perhaps the starring role that was the best fit for the rugged Australian.<br /><br />Errol was a member of the Australian Olympic Boxing Team in either 1928 or 1932. His training and skills in the 'sweet science'are clearly in evidence throughout the film and especially in the "Big Fight" for the World's Heavyweight Boxing Championship with the great John L.Sullivan,Himself.(played in expert fashion by Ward Bond) The cast reads like a duty roster of Warner Brothers' resident supporting players. It features Alan Hale as Jim Corbet's father, a Livery Wagon operator*. His two brothers are Harry and George (Pat Flaherty and James Flavin), the two 'blue collar' men of the family, their occupations being stated as being 'Longshormen'.<br /><br />The great Jack Carson does his usual masterful serio-comic performance in support as Jim Corbett's friend and fellow bank teller. The rest of those we can both recognize and remember are:John Loder, William Frawley,Madeleine LeBeau, Minor Watson, Rhys Williams,Arthur Shields,Dorothy Vaughn to name but a few.<br /><br />Director Walsh also used a number of Pro Wrestlers in roles of various Boxers. Hence we have Ed "Strangler" Lewis and an unknown Grappler* are featured as the 2 waterfront pugs in the opening scenes. Others were Sammy Stein, Mike Mazurki(ever hear of him?)and "Wee Willie" Davis. These guys had a powerful,yet unpolished look about them that the old Pier 9 brawlers would have possessed.<br /><br />We haven't forgotten Leading Lady, Alexis Smith. She is powerful in her characterization of an "independent" woman, yet maintains enough true ability as a comic player in many of the scenes. She displays quite a range in her part as poor little rich girl, Victoria Lodge.<br /><br />With all these ingredients at hand, the trick is how to mix the elements in proper proportions to give it the 'just right' blend. Well, Director Walsh does so with a reckless abandon. Because he is looking for, above all, a great film. His treatment shows all of the skills he had honed to a fine tuning starting with his days as a player with D.W. Griffith. Mr. Walsh seems to have a special fondness for that period, the 1890's.*** Mr. Walsh's direction moves through the script at a fairly fast clip, breaking up the exposition scenes with a humorous punch-line, "the Corbetts are at it again!" Hence, he is able to maintain a light, even humorous touch to a story which could become too drab and serious.<br /><br />Furthermore, in an almost unnoticed element, Brother Walsh gives us an authentic look of a San Francisco of the 1890's. And as a further example of his fondness for that period, he creates wide, dynamic images of the historic Prize Fights. There is a vibrant, joyful mood conveyed in those Boxing scenes. As a crowning glory to this great, perhaps underrated film, Director Walsh gave the image a look as if it were an illustration from The Police Gazette, which covered such events in those "Old Days".<br /><br />But there's just one thing to remember before viewing. If it is for the first time, or if your seeing it once more:<br /><br />"THE CORBETS ARE AT IT AGAIN!!"<br /><br />* In my humble opinion as a historian of both Film and Pro Wrestling, it looks like Tor Johnson, who years later was a favourite of Director Ed Wood's.<br /><br />** A 'Livery' is a somewhat archaic term for a vehicle for hire for local city transportation.<br /><br />*** It's true. Mr. Raoul Walsh was a Griffith Veteran Player. He was the actor to portray John Wilkes Booth in THE BIRTH OF A NATION(1915).<br /><br />**** Being born in 1887, Raoul Walsh was old enough to have his own memories of the 1890's and of the Sullivan-Corbett Championship Bout and what it meant to the Sporting Life in the America of those days.

It's sad when you can see what a movie was attempting to do, and it is quite obvious that it fell far far short of the mark. Film students should take this as a lesson and a warning. Would be graduate has an idea. He wants total control. So he writes, directs, produces, his cinematic masterpiece all by himself. Usually, his concept is far beyond his budget. Usually he writes an overblown script full of every tag line he can come up with. Usually, he is more interested in the grand sweep of the story rather than on the nitty gritty of working with actors on individual scenes. Usually, he ends up with a movie that is feeble in it's attempt to create miracles on a tiny budget. Usually, he ends up with a series of encounters (we cannot do justice by calling them scenes) that feel like they were written by a 12 year old. And usually he ends up with badly acted scenes that fail to grab the viewer. When you look at Judges from this perspective you can immediately tell it's just the usual fare.

Simply put, this is the best movie to come out of Michigan since... well, ever! Evil Dead eat your heart out, Hatred of A Minute was some of the oddest, and best cinema to be seen by this reviewer in a long time. I recommend this movie to anyone who is in need of a head trip, or a good case of the willies!

If you are a fan of Zorro, Indiana Jones, or action in general this is a must-see. Directed by Republic's ace team of William Witney and John English, and starring Reed Hadley as Don Diego/Zorro, this serial delivers! I won't bore you with the plot (who cares? less talking, more fighting); what really matters here is Hadley's superb interpretation of the character/s and the stunt work of Dale van Sickel and Yakima Canutt. <br /><br />***STUNT SPOILERS FOLLOW ***<br /><br />You can see the influence this film had on Lucas and Spielberg -- Zorro gets caught in the original version of the Star Wars trash compactor in one chapter, trapped on a rope bridge a'la Temple of Doom in another, does a Raiders horse-to-coach transfer and even flees through a tunnel while the baddies knock over a huge water tank and flood the tunnel behind him, exactly as Mola Ram does to Indy in Temple of Doom. In addition to all this, the whip action is great as Zorro disarms villains, swings to safety, etc. with his trusty lash. Most of the sword work is fair to lame, except for chapter one, which features a terrific sword brawl in a cantina choreographed by sword/stunt legend Ralph Faulkner, who makes a rare screen appearance as the evil Rodriguez. This was the first serial I ever saw, on Matinée at the Bijou when I was a kid and I have been hooked on them ever since. <br /><br />Zorro's Fighting Legion delivers "Z" goods!

Now, I won't deny that when I purchased this off eBay, I had high expectations. This was an incredible out-of-print work from the master of comedy that I so enjoy. However, I was soon to be disappointed. Apologies to those who enjoyed it, but I just found the Compleat Al to be very difficult to watch. I got a few smiles, sure, but the majority of the funny came from the music videos (which I've got on DVD) and the rest was basically filler. You could tell that this was not Al's greatest video achievement (that honor goes to UHF). Honestly, I doubt if this will ever make the jump to DVD, so if you're an ultra-hardcore Al fan and just HAVE to own everything, buy the tape off eBay. Just don't pay too much for it.

What more can be said? I have not been this fascinated with a young actress since Cate Blanchett burst upon the scene over ten years ago. And although both Blanchett and Blunt have played Queens now( seems to be the benchmark for up and coming actresses), the roles are complete polar opposites.<br /><br />Simply put if you are looking for high passion, compelling drama, and Machiavellian intrigue, this is not the movie for you. This isn't to say that the script or direction was bad, its just that the subject of the film did not lead too dramatic a life when compared to other notable royals like Elizabeth I, Anne Boylen, Henry VIII, Henry V, Henry II and Elainor of Acquitane. These are people whose lives were the stuff such as good soap operas are made of and whose policies and decisions altered the course of British ,and in most cases, world history. Victoria, in contrast, ascended the throne without incident, she quasi-governed a nation that was fast becoming a global power due to industrialization and the rise of the Navy, her State had a stable government led by competent and dynamic politicians, and she married young had a harmonious family life. The facts of her life are not the Sturm und Drag such as powerful dramas are made of.<br /><br />The heart of the film, aside from the attempt to dramatize her stultifying upbringing and the machinations surrounding her throne, is the story of the one thing that was truly shocking and surprising about her reign- a love story. Marriage made for financial or political reasons is with reason not necessarily the place to look for world shaking passion, yet Victoria will always be remembered in history as being sort of a Patron Saint marital fidelity, happiness and ideal family life. Thus, central to the film is the budding love of Victoria and her Prince Albert. I was very taken with Rupert Friend's characterization of Albert whom he portrayed as a kind, patient, somewhat earnest and maybe a touch naive young man, looking to" do good in the world and help". In short, he is a good man with a good heart, not the most dynamic figure to base a drama around, but as that is not the point of the story, that does not matter. The heart of the character shines through thanks to Friend's understated yet earnest performance. <br /><br />As for the Queen, well..Emily Blunt is sublime. Her beauty cannot be denied, but she is more than something pretty to look at; her face is like quicksilver because of her expressiveness. The slightest arch of the eyebrow, glance of the eye or slight wry smile delivers so much. Again, this is not a bombastic performance of heavy speeches and impassioned pleas, its not that kind of movie. But what Ms. Blunt does do with the role is show the simple humanity of the character with potent subtlety. <br /><br />For example, we see the joie de vivre that has been kept in check by Victoria's mother ( Miranda Richardson) and her scheming adviser/lover Conroy expressed in the simple things like Victoria trying to sketch her dog. We see her delight and fascination upon first meeting Albert by her eyes being continually drawn to him. We see her nervous and overwhelmed when addressing Parliament upon her Ascension. And my favorite scene of all in the film- we see her nervous, happy, and hopeful as she steels herself to do what really most women never have to do in their life- ask the man she loves to marry her, a proposition so ridiculous for those times( and some would say now) that Victoria bursts out in nervous laughter before she can even say "marry me". Again, this is not a movie for over the top larger than life expressions, but more a study in the subtleties of a character and making the little things say so much.<br /><br />So, overall, I judge the film by what it is and what it tried to do and as such I give it a 7. I felt that some of the politics could be better explained and that some very fine actors were wasted with little do and little character development, namely Miranda Richardson as the Duchess of Kent, and the characters of Conroy and Lord Peal. Again, the film need not have spent a large amount of time on those characters, but a little more exposition would have helped to explain the political environment. Also I would have loved to have seen more of the adjustment to married life between Victoria and Albert, but that may be just my greed for more scenes between Friend and Blunt. <br /><br />In summary, don't view this film in terms of a historical drama but for what it really is, a love story between two characters that happen to be historical figures. I give this film a solid 7 for wonderful lead performances, brilliant costumes and scenery and the magnificent Victoria of Emily Blunt. And anyone who has any shred of romance left in them, you will be touched by the end of this movie. God save the Queen.

This was great. When I saw the Japanese version first, it was probably the scariest movie I had ever seen. It was not blood and guts, it was eerie, atmospheric and terrifying. When the mother ghost lent over the bed in the Japanese version, I nearly had a heart attack... I was concerned that the American version would be watered down, and that Buffy would take away from the dark creepy nuances of the original version. I needn't have been concerned. The makers of this movie wisely kept the same Japanese people who were involved with the original movie on hand, and gave the direction of the movie to the same man. They also set it in Japan in the same location, in the same house. In fact, the Japanese director took pains to remake the same movie as it was in the original, the only difference was the casting of American actors. That actually turned into a benefit as it added the element of "Strangers in a Strange Land" to the overall horror. Not only were they being haunted by an absolutely terrifying and relentless ghost, but they were also stuck in a completely foreign land, having difficulty integrating into society. It just added to the overall anxiety built into the movie and I thought it was an excellent touch.<br /><br />Buffy actually does a very good job. She looks vulnerable and is able to convey her fear well. There are none of the smart aleck remarks that are so common to American horror movies, or one liners that detract from the overall darkness and horror of the characters' situation. In fact, it was easily as good as The Ring which I also thoroughly enjoyed. I hope the future of American horror follows more closely the Japanese New Wave of horror started with the incredible success of Ringu. We are finally getting movies that actually can be categorized as "Horror"!! 8/10

Comes this heartwarming tale of hope. Hope that you'll never have to endure anything this awful again. *cough* Razzie award *cough*<br /><br />I disliked this movie because it was unfunny, predictable and inane. While watching I felt like I was in a psychology experiment to determine how low movie standards could get before people complained. When I requested my money back at the end of the movie I was informed that because I watched the whole thing 'I wasn't entitled to reimbursement'. I was told by the assistant manager that several people had complained and gotten refunds already though.<br /><br />The movie summary is pretty basic. The midget thief steals a diamond and the poses as a baby to elude police. Underneath this clever outline however, lies a repertoire of original, fresh and hilarious skits. Or not.<br /><br />Ask yourself the following: Do you like to see people getting hit by pans? Do you like fart jokes? Do you like to see midgets posing as babies threatened with a thermometer in the anus? Do you like tired racial jokes? Do you think babies say 'goo goo goo goo goo gaa gaa'? Do you drool?<br /><br />If you answered 'yes' to any of the above then this movie is definitely for you. Although it has been billed in some places as 'The Worst Movie of the Decade', there is probably a movie or 2 that are worse...somewhere. I can't say for sure. I gave this movie 2 stars because we all know a review with only one star would indicate bias on the part of the reviewer and then the review wouldn't be taken seriously. <br /><br />This lowbrow comedy is intended for a less intelligent audience and I cannot in good conscience recommend it to anyone. Save your money for something funny.<br /><br />Respect

Same old same old about Che. It completely ignored the really interesting facts of Che's true character. Sodeberg redid the same boring narrative of Che. The silly seductive tale of an Argentinean rich-boy who was so shocked by poverty he became a Robin Hood fighting alongside the poor, until eventually he was murdered by the CIA. Yeah, yeah, heard it all before, BORING AND UNTRUE!. The reality of Che Guevara is very different and far more explosive! The facts show that he was a totalitarian with a messiah streak, who openly wanted to impose Maoist tyranny on the world. He was so fanatical that at the hottest moment in the Cold War, he even begged the Soviet Union to nuke New York, Washington or Los Angeles and bring about the end of the world. CHe urged Khrushchev to launch a nuclear strike against US cities. For the rest of his life, he declared that if his finger had been on the button, he would have pushed it. When Khrushchev backed down and literally saved the world, Che was furious at the "betrayal". If Che's recommendations had been followed, you would not be reading this review now. How a homicidal maniac became a pop icon would have made a much more interesting film. Incredible that no filmmaker has been daring enough to show the real side of Che and his posthumous media transformation. THAT WOULD MAKE AN Oscar WINNING FILM! I thought making independent film meant taking REAL RISKS and being GROUNDBRAKING! They only stick to "safe counterculture themes", to wit, "Che cool", "Wall Street bad", "Republican= Nazi", "Bush ex Hitler", "NRA is worse than KGB", "Christians are fanatics and stupid", etc...ad nauseum. Oooh, how daring, how mind blowing. Tres anti-mainstream and edgy. I wish they would have some real cojones and tackle the Independent Film Oligarchy! That would be truly daring!

I don't remember a movie where I have cared less about where the characters have come from, what happens to them or where they are going. I realize that Hollywood's greatest pastime is navel-gazing, but these people are either too despicable or too boring to take up time with. For what it's worth, though, the discussion that followed the showing, under the auspices of the Key Sunday Cinema series, did make allowance that possibly the three women did show some redeeming characteristics. I disagree.

Page 3 is one of those films Madhur Bhandarkar makes to expose societal filth. The film is compelling, but, like most of Bhandarkar's films, it is one-sided and overly pessimistic. This film is all about tabloid journalism, gossip, celebrities. The film exposes the lives of socialites, whose lifestyle is disastrously boastful, peculiar and repulsive. They party, they care for nothing but fame, they plan parties at funerals, they are craving for more money and a higher reputation, they will do anything to get due exposure in the media, to get their names boldly printed on the daily newspaper's social column known as "Page 3" with huge photographs which will be the center of people's discussions. They are attention seeking, salacious and hypocrite. The film industry is shown as sleazy, with casting couch being a common phenomenon among filmmakers. That's where our lovely heroine, a young social column reporter Madhvi Sharma, is thrown. All these people from Mumbai's elite depend on her articles and she is the right person to befriend at these parties if you want her to mention you in her article. Later in the film we learn that even those who are Madhvi's friends are no different from these high-society people. This was tough viewing for me, although the film is unquestionably brave and the issues it deals with are interesting.<br /><br />The film's music is average. The only passable songs are "Kitne Ajeeb" and "Huzoor-E-Ala", sung by the two melody queens Lata Mangeshkar and Asha Bhosle, respectively. Otherwise the soundtrack is bad. One song which was particularly horrendous is "Filmy Very Filmy". The film's writing is quite good. The second half is far better than the first, as it turns more matter-of-fact and exposes much more important issues such as terrorism and child abuse. That's where the film has to be applauded. It was sad to know that people prefer to ignore such crimes out of fear and Konkona Sen Sharma's character's disappointment was very easy to relate to. She was excellent throughout the film and her acting in the last few scenes was particularly impressive. Atul Kulkarni's part was very small but he did full justice to it. Boman Irani is solid as the newspaper's editor. Sandhya Mridul is lovable as Madhvi's sassy roommate Pearl who marries an older man for money and is honest enough to admit it. The film's ending is really well-done, and provides a certain sigh of relief after the unimaginably tough proceedings. Page 3 is a good film, it is interesting and at times moving, but the level of its interest and its general quality are marred by its exaggerated, overly messy and negative portrayal of the rich and famous.

It's good to see that Vintage Film Buff have correctly categorized their excellent DVD release as a "musical", for that's what this film is, pure and simple. Like its unofficial remake, Murder at the Windmill (1949), the murder plot is just an excuse for an elaborate girlie show with Kitty Carlisle and Gertrude Michael leading a cast of super-decorative girls including Ann Sheridan, Lucy Ball, Beryl Wallace, Gwenllian Gill, Gladys Young, Barbara Fritchie, Wanda Perry and Dorothy White. Carl Brisson is also on hand to lend his strong voice to "Cocktails for Two". Undoubtedly the movie's most popular song, it is heard no less than four times. However, it's Gertrude Michael who steals the show, not only with her rendition of "Sweet Marijauna" but her strong performance as the hero's rejected girlfriend. As for the rest of the cast, we could have done without Jack Oakie and Victor McLaglen altogether. The only good thing about Oakie's role is his weak running gag with cult icon, Toby Wing. In fact, to give you an idea as to how far the rest of the comedy is over-indulged and over-strained, super-dumb Inspector McLaglen simply cannot put his hands on the killer even though, would you believe, in this instance it happens to be the person you most suspect. Director Mitch Leisen actually goes to great pains to point the killer out to even the dumbest member of the cinema audience by giving the player concerned close-up after close-up.

Patricia Hunter: Oh, professor, do you also make a habit of collecting coffins? Dr. Lorenz: Why, yes, in a manner of speaking. I find a coffin much more comfortable than a bed. <br /><br />Interesting Bela Lugosi (Glen or Glenda, Dracula) vehicle where he plays the mad scientist. I was especially creeped out when he appeared in the bedrooms of his guests when they were sleeping.<br /><br />Luana Walters (Girls in Prison) was really appealing as a sensual reporter, Patricia Hunter< who was to be a victim, but woman-power trumps evil scientist every time.<br /><br />2'11" Angelo Rossitto and creepy Frank Moran , who liked to stoke the women's hair added to the film.<br /><br />Interesting look at a 40s horror film.

There is a lot of talk of torture these days. That's all this movie is. It's about a good person who makes a bad decision. Because of his kindness, he becomes vulnerable to two psychotic women. From then on its a just-for-kicks assault on him. I don't know at what point you do something about it. There is a wife and child out there somewhere; he has great feelings of guilt and fear. But there should have been some times when he could have acted. The movie seems to be somebody's joke. I suppose in the wake of the Manson murders, we had a bit of a fixation on the likes of these two. Nevertheless, why would someone make a film like this? What appeals does it have except for sadism. The conclusion is totally unsatisfying, but that could have been remedied with an obvious plot twist. Oh, well. Another hour and a half of my life.

You get 5 writers together, have each write a different story with a different genre, and then you try to make one movie out of it. It's action, it's adventure, it's sci-fi, it's western, it's a mess. Sorry, but this movie absolutely stinks. 4.5 is giving it an awefully high rating. That said, it's movies like this that make me think I could write movies, and I can barely write.

My ten-year old liked it. For me it was hard to get through it. Christopher Lloyd played it way over the top and the suit was tedious and unfunny. Sorry to see Jeff Daniels in this.

As other reviewers have noted, this is an unjustly neglected Depression-era film. Directed by Frank Borzage (two Oscars) and written by Jo Swerling (Leave Her to Heaven, The Westerner, Lifeboat, etc.), it is a tough-minded, well-structured and -realized move about denizens of a New York City shantytown. They're grifters, beggars, and women forced into prostitution, but they're a community of people both good and bad, with loyalties as complex as any group's.<br /><br />Perhaps primary among this movie's many admirable qualities is the contrast between Spencer Tracy's character, Bill, and Loretta Young's Trina. He tough-talking, physically aggressive, and evidently fearless-- but Bill is not the character who gives this film its steely sense of survival. While he blusters, Trina actually hangs tough (if that term can be applied to a character so ladylike). Her devotion to him is obvious, and complete. When she becomes pregnant, she says she will raise it herself if he wants to leave, or "I'll even give up the kid if you'll only be happy." Such is the dignity of Loretta Young's performance (at age 20) as a quite simple character, that she seems neither weak or dependent, but rather a woman who recognizes happiness when she finds it, and wants nothing more.

It begins on a nice note only to falter quickly and let down expectations.<br /><br />Mac (Akshay Kumar) and Sam's (John Abraham) characters are not properly built before Mac's boss decides to hitch him with three air hostess. Rest of the drama is about how Mac, Sam and Uncle Mambo (Paresh Rawal) deal with situations which at times seem forced.<br /><br />About the cast, Paresh Rawal is a very talented actor, I thought was wasted in the role of a moody cook. Akshay Kumar is tolerable, John Abraham is very bad keeps stumbling over furniture & Rajpal Yadav is the only saving grace in the movie. <br /><br />The second half of the movie is funny at times, but in all a DUD (songs are boring) and a major let down if you are hoping for some wholesome entertainment and comedy.

Skip Mission: Galactica and watch the original Living Legend episodes instead. The network took parts 1 & 2 of Living Legend and jammed them into one plot with the awful Fire In Space episode. Although Galactica suffered from network-controlled writing and a lack of time to prepare for a proper production, Living Legend is the best of the 1978 TV series. Fire in Space, on its own, is one of the worst episodes. As a historical note, watch Galactica, the original Star Trek, and then the revival Trek series, and you'll see the difference in quality between network-produced sci-fi and syndicated sci-fi.

The quintessential road movie...if your idea of a road movie involves three would-be magicians with Eastern European accents and Claire Forlani. (Well, one out of four ain't bad...) A no-talent magician with an eye for showmanship (Max) watches a very skilled pickpocket (Hugo) plying his trade in New York. After convincing Hugo that he (Max) is a) mental and b) desperately in need of a partner to make his dreams of being a stage magician come alive, the not-so-dynamic duo enlist the managerial expertise of an inventor of illusions (Milo) and the, ah, gentler attributes of a lovely waitress (Lydia). The unlikely four pile into a van (obtained by Hugo...you guess where it came from) and head to Vegas. Havoc ensues. Anyhow, it's funny, it's well-written, and the ending is surprisingly good. A solid comedy with a warm heart, and all the better that it was totally unexpected.

Enjoyable and watchable. Tim Meadows at his best. A big boost from Billy Dee Williams. He and a very funny John Witherspoon provide a solid foundation for Mr. Meadows' riffing. Have fun with this one.

I'm a fan of Columbo, especially on a rainy Saturday, and it was fun to see Oskar Werner after Fahrenheit 451, but this episode was very lacking. The original plot and plot twists were obvious and could be guessed way in advance, even years before the modern detective shows of today. But it was amusing to see the crazy couch patterns and "modern" electronics equipment and, of course, the mandatory suburbanite humor poking fun at modern art for sale. The high-tech home is a Jetson's or Disney version of Tomorrowland, and fun to think of writers inventing those "way-out gizmos".<br /><br />If its sunny outside, go play, as there are much better Columbo episodes. Still, we should be thankful for Cable TV that these episodes are being broadcast.

A light-hearted comedy, Nothing shows us a world that we sometimes wish to escape to: a world of nothing. Anything you don't like, be it a stack of bills, a bad memory, or even hunger can disappear at your wish. They approached this movie very well, and with an enjoyable starring duo, there were only a few things I didn't like about Nothing, and they weren't even part of the main movie.<br /><br />First, the post-credits scene (and yes, there is one): Good for a chuckle, but what were they trying to accomplish with that? I was confused and eager to see a return to something after a whole movie of nothing. Instead, we just hear a random assortment of noises and they scream. It tries to set up a sequel in my opinion, and wasn't really necessary, nor was it funny after the turtle crawled out of frame.<br /><br />Second, the trailer: I saw the trailer on the DVD, and like others have already said this, it promotes a horror movie that never came. Oh well, poor marketing I guess.<br /><br />If you see this at your movie rental store, take a look, because Nothing is a great movie to watch. If you have a big screen though, you might want to wear shades.

The Oscar season has arrived so this means a slew of these deep, engaging, powerhouse ensemble films are all over the movie theaters in hopes of gaining an audience and having the opportunity to earn Best Picture in the big show. Among them is this film that is based off a very popular and well-acclaimed play. The original playwright was actually the writer and director of the film adaptation; which comes as a double-edged sword. On one hand, who better to translate the play than the original writer? On the other hand, who better to not see the mistakes and drawbacks of the play and fix upon them than the original writer himself? Doubt mixes excellent acting and plenty of tension and suspense; with a frustrating ending, unnecessary dialogue, questionable directing, and of course, the inability to provide substantial answers. It is a growing trend among these "high-caliber" films to not answer all questions it provides, and this has to stop.<br /><br />Doubt is like a joke without its punch line, like a book with the final 20 pages missing, like losing reception while watching the fourth quarter of a hotly contested football game, and like not having the 50 cents to continue playing the arcade game and see what happens next. Doubt, just like the previous Best Picture frustrationfest No Country For Old Men, doesn't really end; it doesn't provide us with considerable answers nor does it deliver enough for us to figure out the ending. Yes, that was the intent, but this isn't a test of humanity, it's a cop-out. I do not pay money to see an unfinished work, I pay money to see a beginning, middle, and end, and pray that I don't fall asleep during the three acts. We are forced to become the "writers" of the movie by filling in the blank ourselves as to what happened before and what will happen to the characters we saw screaming at each other.<br /><br />This little drama is about a nun (Meryl Streep) who seems very sure that the well-beloved priest (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is making sexual advances towards a child that goes to the church; the first African-American boy in the Catholic church. The church is secretly torn as to whether or not he really is committing heinous sins behind everyone's backs. The plot thickens as some of the kids begin behaving differently, which attracts the notice of a young teacher (Amy Adams). The story is set right after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, which shook the nation for quite some time and questioned their faith in humanity and in each other.<br /><br />Doubt's strong points come in the acting ensemble and also the ever-engaging suspense that builds slowly and never boils over. Streep seems to be Oscar-worthy in every role she's in, and here she is no different as her sternness and cold-hearted behavior places a blanket of fear in all the students and with some of the staff in the church. Hoffman excels yet again as the priest, by successfully meshing suspicion with a charming personality and a friendly aura. The seemingly hypocritical personality is tough to pull off, especially when we are suppose to like him and also ponder about him at the same time; but Hoffman steps up to the plate against one of the best actresses of our generation and fantastically delivers. When these two argue, you can hear the fireworks fly without ever seeing one launched. But let's not forget Amy Adams (Enchanted) and Viola Davis (Law ad Order) for their superb job either. Doubt's casting ensemble is among the best in 2008.<br /><br />Yet, like previously stated it's the writing and directing that ruins this film, especially when dwindling down the third act. Questions pop up, but they aren't answered. Characters pop up, but provide no real enhancement towards the plot. Kids behave different, but we never truly find out why. There are awkward angles in the camera-work…and…there's no actual reason why. John Patrick Shanley, the writer of the play, had one previous film in his directing repertoire: Joe Versus the Volcano. Whether sheer arrogance or stupidity, we are stuck with seeing overdrawn sequences of random conversation, utter annoying chatter that bores to no end (There was a two minute discussion about coffee and how much sugar the priest wanted) thanks to Mr. Shanley.<br /><br />Bottom Line: The lack of an ending is a stupid trend that's just as irritating as the seizureific camera-work in action films. It doesn't matter that we have a great talented acting cast, or decent cinematography, or a good story being worked upon, or good usage of sound and music; because we have a barrage of unanswered questions that sprinkles all over a film that is over 100 minutes yet doesn't even finish! The translation from play to film is good and quite accurate, because we have the original madmen behind the project—but he took the mistakes and stupid hiccups from the play to the film as well. This decade has seen its share of blockbuster and high-profile films that could have gotten a much higher score from me if they had just decided to add a few more minutes of footage and actually end: Sideways, Cast Away, No Country For Old Men, Burn After Reading are a few examples.<br /><br />Newsflash: end your stinkin' movie. Please or at least provide a good amount of clues for us to easily fill in the blank (like Wall-E's depressing backstories), instead of staring into space as the credits suddenly start rolling and you are left with a feeling of emptiness, confusion, and mental anguish. Have a beginning, middle, and the end please!! As a critic, I prefer my films to be whole, not incomplete. Doubt feels incomplete, which is why it gets an incompetent grade.<br /><br />Someone has to break this stupid trend.

After Dark, My Sweet is a great, modern noir, filled with seedy characters, dirt roads, and, of course, sweaty characters. It seems that most of the truly great noirs of the last two or three decades have taken place in the South, where the men glisten and the ladies, um, glisten too. Why? Because it's hooooottttttttttt. And because everyone looks better wet (at least the men do - sweaty women leave me clammy). <br /><br />Anyway - there might be some spoilers in here. <br /><br />This film is a wonderful example of everything a noir should be - steady pacing (though some with attention disorders refer to it as 'slow'), clearly and broadly drawn (though not simple) characters, and tons of atmosphere. Noir, if anything, is about moods and attitudes. That's why the great ones are not marked by your traditional definitions of 'great' acting (look at Bogart, Mitchum, Hurt, and Nicholson - they (and their characters) were anything but real - but they had style and sass and in a crime movie that's exactly what you want). or quickly paced adventures (again all great noirs seem to be on slow burn like a cigarette). Great noirs create an environment and you just inhabit it with the characters for a couple hours. <br /><br />After Dark My Sweet let's you do that - and it let's you enjoy the company of some very interesting and complex characters. Uncle Bud and Collie are intriguing - never allowing the audience to know what really makes them tick - and Patric and Dern (I love Bruce Dern, by the way) are pitch perfect, Dern especially (see previous comment). They take the basic outlines of a character and give them depth and elicit our sympathies. <br /><br />The story itself is also interesting. There're better plots in the world of noir (hardly any mystery here - mostly it's suspense), but this one is solid. If anything, the simply 'okay' plot has more to do with Jim Thompson's writing than anything else. With Thompson, plots are almost secondary; he eschewed the labyrinthine tales of Hammett and Chandler for simpler stories with stronger, more confusing characters. Look at a novel like The Killer Inside Me and and you'll see right away (from the title) what it's all about. When it comes to Thompson, it's not what it's about, it's how it's about it (to quote Roger Ebert). So, really, the relatively simple plot of a kidnapping is not the point and, if you don't like it, well the jokes on you. <br /><br />Why this is an 8star movie rather than a 10star one is because of the female lead. She's not bad, per se, but she's not Angelica Huston or Anette benning (see the adaptation of Jim Thompson's The Grifters if you don't know what I'm talking about - besides it's a better movie and you should start there for contemporary noir - it's the best of the 1990s and challenges Blood Simple for the title of best since Chinatown). She simply doesn't have the chops (or the looks for that matter) and though she and Patric have some chemistry, I don't have it with her. So there.

Fay, the sister of the notorious Nobel prize-winning smut poet Simon Grim, still loves Henry Fool. Their son receives an ingenious orgy-in-a-box from an undisclosed sender and a chase across three continents ensues, involving a supremely sad-sack collection of government agents, terrorists, flight attendants, and bellhops.<br /><br />Parker Posey delivers a perfectly timed comic performance, including some brilliant physical work. With strong contributions by Jasmin Tabatabai and Saffron Burrows, Fay Grim proves in the best Billy Wilder tradition that nothing is funnier than a beautiful woman in trouble.<br /><br />Another good score by Hartley (and thanks in the credits to the American Academy in Berlin, where Hartley served as a fellow in Fall 2004).

This is the best movie I've seen since White and the best romantic comedy I've seen since The Hairdresser's Husband. An emotive, beautiful masterwork from Kenneth Branagh and Helena Bonham Carter. It is a tragedy this movie hasn't gotten more recognition.

Outside the household is a different world and the family struggle to tread the line between Dads authority and their hopes and dreams.<br /><br /> The period is captured; The bakelite light swithes, the Georgian floorpan, the picture rails, the wall paper, the short skirts, the cheeky lads, the Mini van, shiny modern mangles....<br /><br /> The location is captured; A wind lashed glacier hewn rocky landscape, walls of local stone, community, freedom.<br /><br /> But there is much much more; Childhood, happiness, sensuality, pride, values, freedom, authority, rebellion, violence (in the deepest sense), love, struggle, puberty, naivety, morality, trust, faith, deceit, machismo, manners, maturity, loss, poverty, sacrifice, horror, acceptence, revelation, comedy and parenthood are all there. (And in no particular order!).<br /><br /> This film is a richly woven expression of family tensions that are as relevent today as ever. The fact that some of these aren't tackled directly is testament in itself to the attitudes of the day but the fact that they are all here is a testament to the acting skill, the story and the direction.<br /><br /> If there's anything bad about this film, it's that all this deeply entrenched and wonderfully enacted tension is swept away a little too lightly towards the end. Maybe I missunderstand - the doom and gloom felt by many teenagers really does disappear if they deal with it (**) - maybe the film is trying to send even that message too - well worth doing.<br /><br /> What is the film trying to say? Kids: Parents were young too, parents struggle too, everyone makes mistakes, everyone learns, things change, struggle can end happily. Parents: Don't try too hard! Try to remember that your support is the key to their well being.<br /><br /> It sounds simplistic doesn't it? Sometimes the film feels like that too but it's then that you notice how much is being being challenged and uncovered.<br /><br /> The film is a classic.<br /><br />(**) - Not the problems themsleves.

What a dreadful film this is. The only reason you would want to sit through this mess is the pleasurable sight of Miss Eleniak. The painful overacting of Mr McNamara, which became embarrassing at times, ruined what might have been a reasonable film if the correct actors had been cast. Mr McNamara is no Tom Cruise, the actor he obviously wants to be.

This story about three women is a very sensitive study about: Muriël (Charlotte Van Den Eynde) the youngest, Laura (Els Dottermans) who is about 37 and Martha (Frieda Pittors) the oldest who is the mother of Muriël. They live together in the same building. They have different expectations of life. The vital Laura wants a child. Muriël comes from a village and wants to change her life in Brussels. Martha dreams about her youth when she was a young girl. In fact nothing happens in this movie so you wait for something - for instances an accident - which could dramatize this story. As times goes on, you discover that the director Dorothée Van Den Berghe only wants to develop a psychological portrait of the three women and nothing more. This movie is disappointing because you expect the women to learn from their experiences which is not the case, so one is left with a feeling of emptiness.

I can't believe this film was allowed to be made. These people should be drug out and beat with blunt objects. They should be tortured. This film is an abomination.It's nothing but footage from the first film. Whatever is original is freaky and makes no sense whatsoever. It's like some sort of drug hallucination.Like, what's with the laying on a mirror naked therapy. Also, whatever moron patched together this turd didn't even bother to watch the first film, because they kept calling Suzanna Love's character Natalie, when it's Lacey. I felt like shouting that at the screen, "IT'S LACEY, IT'S LACEY!!!!". I give it a -50 out of 10. MY GOD!!!!