Datasets:

paduraru2009

/

imdb-sample2

like 0

I missed this movie in the cinema but had some idea in the back of my head that it was worth a look, so when I saw it on the shelves in DVD I thought "time to watch it". Big mistake!<br /><br />A long list of stars cannot save this turkey, surely one of the worst movies ever. An incomprehensible plot is poorly delivered and poorly presented. Perhaps it would have made more sense if I'd read Robbins' novel but unless the film is completely different to the novel, and with Robbins assisting in the screenplay I doubt it, the novel would have to be an excruciating read as well.<br /><br />I hope the actors were well paid as they looked embarrassed to be in this waste of celluloid and more lately DVD blanks, take for example Pat Morita. Even Thurman has the grace to look uncomfortable at times.<br /><br />Save yourself around 98 minutes of your life for something more worthwhile, like trimming your toenails or sorting out your sock drawer. Even when you see it in the "under $5" throw-away bin at your local store, resist the urge!

As a Dane I'm proud of the handful of good Danish movies that have been produced in recent years. It's a terrible shame, however, that this surge in quality has led the majority of Danish movie critics to lose their sense of criticism. In fact, it has become so bad that I no longer trust any reviews of Danish movies, and as a result I have stopped watching them in theaters.<br /><br />I know it's wrong to hold this unfortunate development against any one movie, so let me stress that "Villa Paranoia" would be a terrible film under any circumstances. The fact that it was hyped by the critics just added fuel to my bonfire of disillusionment with Danish film. Furthermore, waiting until it came out on DVD was very little help against the unshakable feeling of having wasted time and money. <br /><br />Erik Clausen is an accomplished director with a knack for social realism in Copenhagen settings. I particularly enjoyed "De Frigjorte" (1993). As an actor he is usually funny, though he generally plays the same role in all of his movies, namely that of a working-class slob who's down on his luck, partly because he's a slob but mostly because of society, and who redeems himself by doing something good for his community. <br /><br />This is problem number one in "Villa Paranoia"; Clausen casts himself as a chicken farmer, which is such a break from the norm that he never succeeds in making it credible. <br /><br />It is much worse, however, that the film has to make twists and turns and break all rules of how to tell a story to make the audience understand what is going on. For instance, the movie opens with a very sad attempt at visualizing the near-death experience of the main character with the use of low-budget effects and bad camera work. After that, the character tells her best friend that she suddenly felt the urge to throw herself off a bridge. This is symptomatic of the whole movie; there is little or no motivation for the actions of the characters, and Clausen resorts to the lowest form of communicating whatever motivation there is: Telling instead of showing. Thus, at one point, you have a character talking out loud to a purportedly catatonic person about the way he feels, because the script wouldn't allow him to act out his feelings; and later on, voice-over is abruptly introduced, quite possibly as an afterthought, to convey feelings that would otherwise remain unknown to the audience due to the director's ineptitude. Fortunately, at this point you're roughly an hour past caring about any of the characters, let alone the so-called story.<br /><br />The acting, which has frequently been a problem in Clausen's movies, can be summed up in one sad statement: Søren Westerberg Bentsen, whose only other claim to stardom was as a contestant on Big Brother, is no worse than several of the heralded actors in the cast.<br /><br />I give this a 2-out-of-10 rating.

So this made for TV film scores only a 7.6 on this site? Bah! Humbug! Without question this 1984 version of Dickens' classic tale is the best ever made. And yes, the Hound has seen the 1951 version which was also good, but not good enough. The lack of color is perhaps the biggest shortcoming of that version, although the acting was wonderful.<br /><br />George C. Scott is simply incredible as Ebenezer Scrooge. We all know the story of this stingy businessman who is haunted by the ghost of his dead partner, then by three other spirits later on that evening. Scott is properly gruff as Scrooge. Too gruff in fact for some critics who claim he is unable to project the new-found glee that he awakens to on Christmas morning after the spirits teach him a valuable lesson. But hey, this is George C. Scott. He's never going to go dancing down the street in a fit of joy. He has too much dignity, and his Scrooge projects his emotion in a realistic manner.<br /><br />The supporting performances are uniformly excellent, as are the costumes, music, and scenery. 19th Century London comes to life in Clive Donner's visionary style. The film even borders on frightening in several scenes involving the spirits. The important tale of morality shines through in every frame, though.<br /><br />You won't often find this version aired on television anymore, and that is a disappointment. The 1984 version of A Christmas Carol should be a required part of every household's celebration of the holiday. When the decorations come out of the basement, this film should find its way into the DVD player at least once during the season.<br /><br />10 of 10 stars.<br /><br />The Hound.

Haven't seen the film since first released, but it was memorable. Performances by Rip Torn and Conchata Farrell were superb, photography excellent, moving story line and everything else about it was of the highest standard. Yet it seems to have been pretty much forgotten<br /><br />Maybe because UK is an odd market for it but I haven't seen the film on TV or video, which is sad. Has it had more success in US where it might rightly be seen as a quite accurate historical drama?<br /><br />Always reckon that 50% of a good film is the music and though I'm not certain I think the title theme was a simple but moving clarinet solo of "What a friend we have in Jesus". The film then went on to disprove that! Am I right or wrong?

Both my friend and I thought this movie was well done. We expected a light hearted comedy but got a full blown action movie with comic thrusts. We both thought that this movie may have not done so well at the box office as the previews lead us to believe it was a comedy. I was impressed with the supporting actors and of course Dave Morse always puts in a terrific acting job. Most of the supporting cast are veterans not first timers and they were solid. We both felt that the writing and direction were first rate and made comments to each other about buying this movie. If you don't buy rent it for a good time.

Why do they insist on making re-makes of great movies like "High Noon" "From Here to Eternity" and this one?<br /><br />Why do they think that color is more engrossing to a viewer than stark black and white?<br /><br />Why did Robert's insist on wearing that dopey, broad-billed, baseball cap?...it made him look like Jim Varney.<br /><br />Why would anyone spend four hours suffering through this?<br /><br />Watch the original. Then YOU won't have to ask yourself WHY.

Not funny - how can anyone link this to Monty Python? That is absolutely ridiculous - there are no laughs. This is not funny. Over the top, but ugly, weird just for weird sake and it seems to me these people were on something all the time. Unfortunately something that did not make them funny.<br /><br />It should be given some points for effort etc. whatever. Actually it appears there is a laugh track - or is there one? Hummm.... Since there are barely any laughs that's a debatable question.<br /><br />Maybe I'm doing it injustice - maybe it's some sort of exercise. Some sort of art - in that case anything goes, never mind.<br /><br />But these guys playing women with high-pitched voices, turned-up noses. Come on !!! Not funny. <br /><br />There is only one heir apparent to Monty Pythons intellectual wit and that is Stephen Colbert, and maybe Jon Stewart.

Fantastic documentary of 1924. This early 20th century geography of today's Iraq was powerful. Watch this and tell me if Cecil B. DeMille didn't take notes before making his The Ten Commandments. Merian C. Cooper, the photographer, later created Cinerama, an idea that probably hatched while filming the remarkable landscapes in this film. Fans of Werner Herzog will find this film to be a treasure, with heartbreaking tales of struggle, complimented by the land around them, never has the human capacity to endure been so evident. The fact that this was made when it was shows not only the will of the subjects, but of the filmmakers themselves.

The Shirley Jackson novel 'The Haunting of Hill House' is an atmospheric tale of terror, which conveys supernatural phenomena in an old mansion. The atmosphere is well set out, and the chills are staged well. A haunting masterpiece.<br /><br />The 1963 chiller 'The Haunting' stays closely to the book, but also adds its own details to the plot. Fortunately, these are very few, and so the terror of the book and the chills are executed even better on the screen. The black and white photography only adds to the creepiness of the movie. Excellent! <br /><br />And then, Jan de Bont made this. In 1999, the remake of The Haunting hit the cinemas - if you could call this a remake. Why they had to make a remake of the 1963 movie is a mystery in itself, but for the moment, lets look at the film itself.<br /><br />It starts off averagely, as most horror movies do. The set used for Hill House is beautiful, and oddly mysterious, and for a few minutes, it seems as if the film is actually going to be quite a fair re-telling. And then, the first scare comes: a loose harpsichord wire slashes a woman's face (Dr. Marrow's assistant). This is hilarious, and truth be told, it nearly had me in tears.<br /><br />From then on, the film just spirals downwards. The acting seems to become somewhat wooden as the film goes on, with Owen Wilson's character being particularly irritating (so it's such a relief when he's decapitated by the flue).<br /><br />The special effects practically make this movie,, which is a shame, because most of them are incredibly cheesy and look very dated. Examples of these are many, so I won't bother listing them.<br /><br />So, all in all, I, along with hundreds of others, strongly recommend that you watch the original chiller, or, as an alternative, buy the novel by Shirley Jackson. But please, stay away from this. And, if you do decide to watch this, watch it on the TV (as a lot of the channels love to screen this film, and not the original) or rent it cheap, but please don't buy it, whatever you do. Don't waste your money!<br /><br />Final rating: 4/10

Solid comedy entertainment, with musical interludes, it generates a fast pace that carries proceedings along in zestful tempo through a maze of humorous and chiller complications. Boris Karloff, Bela Lugosi and Peter Lorre form a strong setup of sinister villainy. The script contains all the standard mystery film props-sliding panels, secret passageways, thunder and lightning and poisoned blow-darts. Karloff, Lugosi and Lorre go in for heavy leers and obvious melodramatics of the gaslit era. Kay Kyser and his band offered great entertainment for the people living in the 1940's who were trying to forget about the horror's of World War II.

Over the years I've seen a bunch of these straight to video Segal movies, and every one holds the same amount of entertainment; unfortanetley, the entertainment level is at a low. Sure, the action sequences were amusing, but that was pretty much it. Seagal was really in his prime when he did movies like; Under Siege, Under Siege 2, and Executive Decision(at least on the action standpoint), but during the past ten years, these types of movies that star Segal really do not meet his past qualifications.<br /><br />On the more positive side, the movie did make good use of time, like some of the action sequences and use of wit. Just when the movie seemed to just drag on, a pretty cool action scene brought it up out of the gutter. I honestly believe that more of Segal's movies would do better if he wasn't the only one that fans recognize in the movie. Supporting actors and actresses are a very important thing, and if his current movies had this known supporting actors and actresses, maybe the movie will get more popular results.

Corridors of time. The movie you can watch if you're looking for a sophisticated way of suicide. Some use guns, ropes, or gas, but you want to ruin your brains ? Do not wait any longer ! Corridors of time is probably one of the biggest possible mistakes : thinking Christian Clavier is able to act and to bring you fun. I do not miss the 45 francs this poor thing cost me : sometimes, one has to reset its evaluation system looking at the absolute zero. This film deserves a 2/10, but that's only because I like Jean Reno. Too bad for him, he also stars in Ronin. I think I'm gonna dislike him...

This film was so amateurish I could hardly believe what I was seeing. It is shot on VIDEO! NOT film! I have not seen the likes of this since the early 70's, when late night networks showed movie of the week 'horror flicks' shot in......video. It looks like a bad soap opera, and that is paying it a compliment. Some of the actors give it their best shot. Michael Des Barres does okay with what he is given to do, which is to act like a sex addict out of control. I can't say that it is pleasant to watch.<br /><br />Nastassja Kinski as the therapist sits in a chair for practically the entire film, with very little variation in camera angles. I can't fault her for someone else's poor blocking, but she is totally unbelievable in her role. Her little girl voice works against her here. And I consider myself a Nastassja Kinski fan. She is certainly ageless and exotic, but she's outside her range with this.<br /><br />Alexandra Paul is pathetically overwrought. Every line she delivers is with three exclamation points. Someone must have directed her to scream at all costs. Why would Michael Des Barres want to have sex with such a raging shrew?<br /><br />Finally, Rosanna Arquette as the sweet, maligned wife comes off okay, and probably the most believable of the bunch. But that is not saying much.<br /><br />This has to be the worst film I have seen in years.

Joe Don's opening line says everything about this movie. It takes place on the island of Malta (the island of pathetic men) and involves Joe Don Baker tracking down an Italian mobster. Joe Don's character is named Geronimo (pronounced Heronimo) and all he does in this movie is shoot people and get arrested over and over agin. Everyone in the movie hates him, just like everyone hates Greydon Clark. I liked an earlier Greydon picture, "Angel's Revenge" because it was a shirne for thriteen year old boys. Avoid this movie at all costs!!

You don't expect much from a PRC picture, and with rare exceptions--mainly from Edgar G. Ulmer and a few by Joseph H. Lewis or Lew Landers--that's exactly what you get: not much. This "epic" about Nazis in Africa trying to incite an Arab revolt against the British isn't much different. The script, by longtime PRC hacks Arthur St. Claire and Sherman Lowe, is trite, laughable, full of unfunny "wisecracks" and plot holes the size of Outer Mongolia. The direction, by longtime PRC no-budget specialist Al Herman, is semi-comatose at best. The performances, though--except for spectacularly incompetent and irritatingly hammy lead Walter Woolf King--aren't really half bad. Veteran comedian Parkyakarkus is actually the best thing about the film. He plays a guy from Brooklyn masquerading as a razor-blade salesman and brightens up the screen considerably when he shows up. He's got great comic timing, charm to spare and seems to be having a heck of a good time. Duncan Renaldo is fairly convincing as an Arab sheik--despite his Spanish accent--and veteran bad guy George J. Lewis as Renaldo's Arab rival does his usual fine job of villainy, even if he goes a bit over the top sometimes. Joan Woodbury is quite pretty and has a nice light touch, and she and Renaldo have great chemistry together, although--like the rest of the cast--she has none at all with King. H.B. Warner, whose career stretched back to the silent era, lends a shred of dignity to the low-rent proceedings, even though he blows his lines several times and, PRC being PRC, they weren't cut out. There's a great deal of stock footage spliced in from a big-budget silent movie with a similar Arab theme--although I have no idea which one it is--and, PRC being PRC, no effort was made to try to make it inconspicuous: I've seldom seen stock footage that was so blatantly obvious.<br /><br />"A Yank in Libya" isn't very good, of course--well, OK, it stinks--but it would be worth a look just to see Parkyakarkus in his prime. I had heard of him and knew that he was the father of actor/director Albert Brooks and Super Dave Osborne, but had never actually seen him in anything before. It was worth watching this tenth-rate PRC "extravaganza" just to see him in action. Otherwise, forget it.

Alone in the Dark is Uwe Boll's kick in the nuts to Hollywood after House of the Dead's punch in the face.<br /><br />If anything it proves just how much of a master manipulator Boll is. After forcing Artisan out of business over the flop that was House of the Dead, one can only assume the normally credible Lion's Gate Films only released AITD under contractual obligation after acquiring Artisan's assets. Because AITD is an even bigger example of complete lack of coherent film-making ability, plot exposition and just plain stealing poorly from other movies because it was supposed to look cool instead of because it fitted within the movie's framework.<br /><br />But then that's the point, isn't it. Boll isn't trying to make a coherent film because he isn't trying to direct Alone in the Dark. He's just trying to manipulate Hollywood.<br /><br />Alone in the Dark, like House of the Dead, Dungeon Siege, Far Cry, Bloodrayne and the other 3 or 4 projects that are "announced" or in "pre-production".<br /><br />These aren't movies to be directed, but investment portfolios. Every single one of them rushed into production under the pretence that the tax law Boll and his investors are exploiting may be closed within the next 2 to 3 years. The more bomb projects he can release within that time-frame, the more money he and his investors can gain. Why bother making a good movie when a bad movie's making you a mint anyway? The result is movies like the awfulness of Alone in the Dark.<br /><br />Alone in the Dark, like all his other movies are just a cynical exploitation of Hollywood's current trend for lazy film-making.<br /><br />And to those who support Boll by calling him misunderstood or the next Ed Wood, congratulations, by making a cult figure out of the man, you're just making it easier for him to get investors but giving him notoriety.<br /><br />For more information, read here: http://www.cinemablend.com/feature.php?id=209 http://www.cinemablend.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21699 As an aside, just don't ask me how he's getting his cast-lists together. Unless the actors are in on the investment-scam somehow, that mystery has still to be uncovered.

One of the best of the Fred Astaire and Giner Rogers films. Great music by Irving Berlin. Solid support from Randolph Scott, Harriet Nelson, Lucille Ball, Betty Grable, Frank Jenks, and Astrid Allwyn.<br /><br />Terrific songs include "Let Yourself Go," "Let's Face the Music," and "Putting All My Eggs in One Basket." The last song is introduced by Astaire playing a jazzy piano and then a cute dance with Rogers. Rogers also sings "Let Yourself Go" with Grable among the backup singers.<br /><br />Harriet Nelson (then Hilliard) sings two nice songs and plays Rogers' mousy sister. "Get Thee Behind Me" is a song that sticks with you for days. She also sings "But Where Are You?" Snappy and fast paced, this entry in the Astaire-Rogers series is one of the better ones. The classic and amazing beautiful finale, "Let's Face the Music and Dance" is among the best-known of their numbers. Rogers wears one of the great dresses in movie history.... a shimmering sequined number that swirls around her legs as she dances (weighted hem) and is also slightly see through. Just gorgeous. This is the number that Steve Martin and Bernadette Peters re-created in Pennies from Heaven.<br /><br />Randolph Scott seems an odd choice as Astaire's pal but he also appeared in their Roberta with Irene Dunne. Luckily he does not attempt to sing or dance. It seems that Grable and Ball would have had bigger parts in 1936 but they have a few scenes and make little impact. Allwyn has the bigger role but is only OK.<br /><br />Rogers has one of her best solo numbers in the series with "Let Yourself Go".... Jazzy and thumping, it's a great song.<br /><br />Fun all the way, although I got tired of "We Joined the Navy" after the third time....

I'm Irish and I've been living in Denmark for a while so I was looking forward to going home last week so I could see Intermission. And I will go on record as saying:<br /><br />THIS FILM IS AWFUL.<br /><br />It is not quite as bad a something like "The Most Fertile Man in Ireland" but it definitely does not stand up there with other Irish films such as The Commitments, I Went Down or Michael Collins.<br /><br />Some aspects of the film are actually quite funny, such as Colm Meaneys American-style garda. But the film itself is shot completely wrong. The bouncing around of the camera and the constant zoom-in, zoom-out tries to give the film an edgy look as if it were a gritty drama. But it isn't. This is an Irish Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and it should be shot like this. It should have smooth movement from one shot to the next. The film just looks sloppy and thrown together.<br /><br />The performances are okay, given the awful script. A friend of mine said to me like it was like they just followed Colin Farrell around Dublin for a week. He gives a decent display as a Dublin Dirtbag, but it no way compares to his performances in Minority Report, Tigerland or Phone Booth. The best performance was from Dierdre O'Kane who plays a sexually frustrated middle-aged woman who has just been dumped by her bank manager husband for a younger woman. I think she should leave her god-awful stand-up and focus more on her acting.<br /><br />All in all, its does in no way live up to the expectations put on it by the Irish press or deserve to be even considered as one of the best Irish films ever.<br /><br />I'm expecting a backlash from these comments because most people I have spoken to have said it was great. But before you reply, ask yourself: Would think so highly of this movie if it was set in England or America?

My friends and I walked out after 15 minutes, and we weren't the first. Afterwards, we tried to get our money back. Movie theater management wouldn't allow this, but they did agree to let us see another film. The only time that worked for us was to see Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star. As you can tell, this wasn't a memorable night. Probably one of my worst movie nights. Close second has to be when I saw a double header of Domestic Disturbance and Heist. In conclusion, for the sake of humanity, please don't see The Order.

I just saw this movie today with my children (son, 10 and daughter, 4.5) at the 3rd Annual Roger Ebert Overlooked Film Festival. After the film the children in the audience were allowed to ask questions to the Director, Tian-Ming Wu. He (through a translator) told several stories about his life and the making of the film.<br /><br />All tangents aside, both of my children really enjoyed this movie. Of course, I had to paraphrase many of the subtitles for my daughter, but much of the film is visually self-explanatory.<br /><br />I won't give anything away, but the bottom line is that this film is SO MUCH better than 95% of the Hollywood crap (especially children's films) out there.<br /><br />Cheers.<br /><br />p.s. There is a "real"/original King of Masks who can/could do 12 masks at once. The actor in the movie trained and learned to do up to 4 masks at a time (then they would cut and change to 4 new masks).

I think "Anyway..." is a kick-ass movie. Really. Tom Barman spent like years making it, and it shows: every scene is polished, has a meaning,... I guess most agree on that. One thing many people tend to criticize is the "lack" of story. I'm afraid that that's an effect of us being overwhelmed with "traditional" storytelling, all the time. I mean: what you can achieve with a book, you can't achieve with a movie, what you can achieve with a movie, you cannot achieve it by just telling it to a buddy. The problem is that we're so used to movies, series,... to be just a filmed version of a story; a visual recording of events -just like when you watch the news- that we expect every movie to have this epic characteristics: a strong storyline with a lot of unusual events. And I stress the idea of "unusual events": most people see on TV in the news, in movies, series,... very unusual things, once-in-a-lifetime situations. And here, in "Anyway...", there are unusual events, but not in the same "hollywood big explosion" kind of way: guy gets fired, couple back together, car gets stolen... and of course very usual things. And that's strong: just being able to appreciate all of that, that universe, that's art. And I agree that especially what can only be achieved in movies, that atmosphere created by the score and the photography is put central. But not like in traditional visual movies (visual blockbusters such as the Matrix); it serves the characters and remains deeply human. I mean, in every shot you feel the love that Tom Barman has for Antwerp and urban lifestyle. And he has no point with this movie, like to "learn" us something; and he has no big story to tell with incredible scenario twists. He just shows everyday people with everyday lives, he shows a city, all with their good and bad sides and says: this is us, that's our city, that's life, let's enjoy it. So basically, "Anyway..." is not only that super groovy movie, it also has a much stronger "message" (it's not explicit, maybe even not intended) than most movies how really intend to pass a message. One drawback: now, we'll have to wait five years to see the next Barman pic, and everyone will expect so much of it...

The cast is OK. The script is awkward at times, and it takes a while to figure out what the point of the movie is. I found myself looking forward to doing the dishes. The Shehan bit is a cheesy statement on the war. I guess we were supposed to not notice it...we did. Its a house, you did nothing more than kill forty five minutes. The shower part...huh? What was that about? Literally, it is I have a client, "Ok you can use our shower." Yawn. The angles are trying way to hard. There was a set of woods, suddenly its gone cause you can see right through, then next it is deep and animals are dying. In the end this is a horrendous movie of boring proportions.

Chances are if I watched this again I might get physically sick, the film is so annoying.....unless you believe in psychics, re-incarnation and the other hocus- pocus which this promotes big-time. The "re-cycling of souls," they call it here. Puh-leeze.<br /><br />This story has been done several times before with such films as "Heaven Can Wait." It's also been done a lot better. Too bad they had to waste the talents of Robert Downey Jr., Cybill Shepherd, Ryan O'Neal and Mary Stuart Masterson.<br /><br />At least it's a pretty tame film, language-wise. That's about the only redeeming quality of this movie.

A few weeks ago the German broadcaster "SAT1" advertised this movie as the "TV-Event of the year" - sorry, but I've seen better things on TV this year.<br /><br />I didn't thought much of the movie but I soon reminisced about two other horrible movies when I watched the commercial - namely Titanic and Pearl Harbor because the picture looked so familiar: The "heroine" (if I can really call her that) in the middle and her two "loved-ones" next to her - Pearl Harbor, anyone? In fact the love-story is a poor man's version of the one in Pearl Harbor and that one was already poor!<br /><br />But as I like watching movies and analyzing their patterns I eventually decided to watch that rubbish. The movie begins with a doctor leaving his family for the military strike against Russia near the end of the Third Reich promising his wife that he will return. Now fast forward to Spring 1948: Germany lost the war and the allies & Russia captured the country and they both try to eliminate each other for world power and their ideologies: capitalism versus communism. Well, I guess you already know the story because you have to know it - The movie doesn't really bother with it so much and literally takes a dump on historical facts. The movie tries to depict the US government as angels and completely ignores the contribution of other countries during the airlift especially Great Britain who was responsible for nearly a quarter of the rations despite having their country bombed from a country that they're trying to help.<br /><br />What was also pretty annoying were the historical remarks the people said in the movie like when the heroine's mother tells her daughter that Germany might be parted in two with a response like: "That's impossible!" Or when Stalin (where the director thought we just stick similarly looking mustache on the actor and he WILL look like him) says that Russia has to stop "Coca Cola" from spreading in Germany. Yeah right, if Stalin has ever said something like this. Or there is this one US pilot who tells his fellow of a bread with meat and everything possible in it - please! Burgers were invented WAY before that time.<br /><br />In the movie you once see a map showing the airlines, funnily enough the map looks like it came straight out of a laser printer - in '48. The US general Lucius Clay who's main idea was to stay in Berlin is portrayed as a guy who is mean and grumpy and all the ideas he historically had like for example the airlift and improving on that idea came from the fictive character Phillip Turner, the love interest of the main actress which leads me to other aspects: Not enough African-American soldiers in the movie, there were like two in the whole film! Also relationships between US soldiers and German civilians was not allowed and by a revealing of such a relationship the US soldier would've been sent home. I don't want to say that there were no relationships at all but in this movie there was a couple that almost got married, If it wasn't for the death of the pilot in his fake CGI plane which looked terribly unrealistic especially the CGI fire!<br /><br />If it wasn't enough all Americans in this movie spoke accent-free German although they only were in Germany for a couple of months - look I'm also American living in Germany for my whole life and even I have a little accent. Notably bad was also the child acting - the kids had like two expressions on their faces: "Normal-I-look-monotonous-like-a-robot" and grinning.<br /><br />All in all the movie was boring from beginning to end moving way too slow especially the love story which was the same as the one in Pearl Harbor just with half of the dialogue. The sad part is that the movie was very successful - 8.97 millions watched the first part and 7.83 millions the second part the day after thus SAT1 receiving two consecutive wins in the overall market share and a whopping win in the commercial relevant group. But like I always think: The biggest pile of bull-crap is where the most flies go to.

We expected something great when we went to see this bomb. It is basically a Broadway play put on film. The music is plain terrible. There isn't one memorable song in the movie -- heard any hits from this movie? You won't because there aren't any. Some of the musical numbers go on so long that I got up to go to the restroom and get some pop corn and it was still going when I got back! If they were good songs well -- but they suck. The pace is slow, terrible character development. The lead was praised for her singing but sounded like she screamed every song -- it was almost impossible to stand. This movie has NOTHING to offer anyone but die-hard Broadway enthusiasts. This is without a doubt the most over rated movie I've seen in my entire life. A complete waist of time and money. There is nothing memorable about this movie except Danny Glover -- who wasn't on screen enough and whose character wasn't developed enough. Rent the video and you'll agree -- this movie was an expensive, over produced, polished dog do.

Although Super Mario 64 isn't like the rest of the games in the series, it is still a classic and is every bit as good as the old games. Games with this much replay value are few and far between. Plus, this game has so much variety. There are 15 levels each with several different tasks you can do, and many other hidden tasks. The game isn't very challenging, but its lack of challenge doesn't take away from the game at all. Once you beat it, you'll want to erase your game and start again. And its just as much fun the second time, or third time, or two hundredth time. A must own for any Nintendo 64 owner, and is a reason in itself to own a Nintendo 64.

In recent times I have been subjected to both this movie and "King Arthur", on DVDs chosen by others for an evening's "entertainment" and together they achieve nothing more than bearing out a growing notion I have that the modern movie-watching public totally lacks discrimination, and is content as long as they get "action". Both movies were utter rubbish.<br /><br />Whatever happened to character development? Whatever happened to meaningful dialogue? Whatever happened to ACTING? And, when watching something that vaguely purports to be "historical", whatever happened to attempting to capture some measure of accuracy, some realistic idea of the "political map" of the time, even some slight flavour of the era, especially in its social attitudes. Why do they all have to display the value set of 21st century America? I have read on the message boards of disclaimers that "little was known" of the dark ages. Not so. Considerable amounts are known, with much learned scholarship on the era, but these jokers simply couldn't be bothered to do any homework.<br /><br />I only wish I could vote 0/10

(Only minor spoilers except as noted).<br /><br />I've enjoyed a lot of Spanish cinema recently; both the actual Spanish cinema of people like Almodovar, and the Latin American cinema of directors like del Toro, whose superb "Devil's Backbone", set in Civil War Spain, was the finest horror film of the last decade. It's no surprise, then, that this film is both well-made, well-acted, and manages to sustain that distinctively different Spanish atmosphere. But it's also as nasty and pointless a film as one could hope not to have to see.<br /><br />What actually is the purpose of all this? We have no real idea what caused the creepy central character to embark on his killing spree, despite the fact that large amounts of narrative voice-over are drawn directly from his own narcissistic journal. In a routinely unpleasant opening sequence, set more than a decade earlier, we see the central character killing his girlfriend in a rage of jealousy and control-freakery ("…if I can't have you nobody can…."). Oddly enough, that is perhaps one of the best sequences in the film, but it has no discernible relation to his subsequent killing spree, which appears completely different in both motivation and execution. What happened to him in jail to cause this change? We have no idea, though we do later discover, as an absurd sort of afterthought, that he obtained a law degree while imprisoned.<br /><br />In Britain, in several of our notorious "serial killer" or "sex killer" cases, the terrible question arises; what about the wife? Did she know, or suspect what was going on? This is a question that this film could have asked, and indeed the wife does begin to emerge as one of the more intriguing characters. But banally, the answer to the question is quite clearly: "No, she didn't". Even when a dramatic opportunity like this is presented on a plate, the film still manages to bungle it. All we actually get, sketched perfunctorily out at the end, is her slightly amoral preparedness to cash in on the proceeds after the event. Compare this to the awful revelatory moment in Ten Rillington Place, where Christie's wife says "you know what I mean…." thereby sealing her own fate and allowing us an appalled glimpse into unimaginable chasms of suppressed knowledge and horror.<br /><br />(Major spoiler in this paragraph). In the meantime, we are supposed to believe that the killer himself is a criminal mastermind who comprehensively outwits the police, thereby securing the briefest of incarcerations in a mental hospital before being released so that he can kill again. How exactly did he achieve this? The plot gets extremely sketchy at this point; something to do with deliberately leaving certain clues for the police; but how this all works or why, or how the subsequent court case actually proceeds, remains a mystery.<br /><br />I actually don't believe serial killers are like this. The Silence of the Lambs may be comic book stuff, but – Lecter aside – it gets its serial killers right. They are deeply disturbed, deeply dysfunctional, deeply inadequate people; not the creepily charming mastermind presented here (closely related to the equally implausible suave killer of The Last Horror Movie, or indeed even Man Bites Dog, though it appears not to have been noticed that that was a satire).<br /><br />This film has little suspense, and bungles what little intrigue the plot might have generated. It has nothing useful to say about the motivations of serial killers, either generally, or in the specific cultural milieu of Spain. This is nothing more than a poorly plotted excuse to show some pretty misogynistic violence to women. And oddly, what makes that violence even more repulsive is a certain prissy failure of nerve even in how it is presented. The soft core character of what is actually shown just makes it seem even more repellently titillatory. Just one explicit shot, properly timed, would have been infinitely more shocking, and would have rendered all the rest completely unnecessary, freeing up more film time to flesh out the gaping holes in plot and characterisation. Instead we just get endless shots of young women vulnerably spreadeagled on a table in their pretty but slightly revealing underwear. Very, very creepy. I'm sorry to be rude; I love horror films, and can tolerate even the most extreme, to the extent even of worrying my partner. But I think anyone who finds this film good, or interesting, even I'd find myself edging away from. The purpose of a horror film is to scare you; this is just lascivious.<br /><br />It leaves a very bad taste in the mouth indeed. I have to give this film more than one star just because it's competently executed, but morally it deserves none at all and should never have been made.

It figures this is a French film, LOL, with the emphasis on young girls with much older men...why is it the French are so fixated on this kind of thing? When the age difference is this great, it really comes off as pervy! Valentina Cervi is beautiful (she bears a strong resemblance to Olivia Hussey, of Zeffirelli's '68 Romeo and Juliet, set in a similar period), but she looks about 15 and the actor playing Tassi, her painting instructor, looks...well, 50 is KIND.<br /><br />Other posters have done the work of explaining the historical record (unusually detailed in this case) of the real Artemisia, a great artist and one of the earliest recognized female painters of this period (17th century). Her story speaks to us in modern times particularly because of the age-old accusation that "all great artists were men" -- she pretty much blasts that assertion to bits -- and because the story of her rape trial is so poignant. Not only was she clearly assaulted, and forced into a degrading sexual relationship (because in those days marriage to your assaulter was the only way to avoid social shame), but Tassi was a serial rapist and possibly killed his wife and child.<br /><br />The movie does a terrible disservice by inverting this truly fascinating and remarkable real life story -- very dramatic and not in need of any "spicing up" -- because in some weird Frencified way, it's "hotter" to have an oversexed teenager drawing male sexual organs and having a hot love affair with a man old enough to be her grandfather. That's "sexy" -- the truth is boring and seems too feminist/politically correct.<br /><br />It also disturbs me that this is ONLY part of Artemisia life considered interesting enough to film. The fact that she painted for decades (her famous painting of Judith beheading Holfernes was painted AFTER, not before the rape), that she was the first woman admitted to the prestigious Florentine Academy, that she went on to have children...oh that's boring stuff. After all, that's about a middle aged woman and they aren't "hot" like teenagers.<br /><br />I understand that there is a lot of creative license in making a film (or a book) about a real historical character. You need to create dialog, have subplots, create dramatic structure. Certainly some details can be sacrificed -- it's no big deal if the dates are moved a few years, or if Artemisia is played by a blonde actress (when we know from her self portraits that she was a brunette...and a big boned one, not a skinny minny), or something like that. But to turn her story around on her, and make rape into a romance is actually sick and disturbing. It's even worse because the director is female. She should be horribly ashamed of herself!<br /><br />If you LIKE this (and I know some people could care less about the real woman artist and just like period costumes and hot sex), you will probably like "Dangerous Beauty" with Rufus Sewell and Catherine McCormack. Similarly based on heavily re-written history, with lots of heaving bosoms and jewel encrusted goblets: Bon Appetit!

Having read another review, I thought this movie would actually be good. I do enjoy the "B" movies, but this couldn't even be classed as such. The photography is probably the only half-way decent thing in the movie. But the editing left much to be desired. It was very choppy and staccato. Whoever chose the music and sound did a terrible job. The music was awful, specially anything atmospheric or scene setting. If the acting had been better, they could have pulled the movie off. Unfortunately, I've seen better acting in porn flicks. If you want to see a "B" vampire movie, check out 'Blood Ties'. You'll be much more entertained.

Reading web sites on Bette Davis one can find instances where authors claim that there is nothing special about her acting. I even found a site which claimed that Bette Davis' success was probably due to her luck. But Ms Davis films of 1934 tell quite the opposite. The most evident example are two films that she did only few weeks apart: Fog over Frisco and On Human Bondage. Characters she played in these movies, though both being negative, are quite different. Arlene in the former is a beautiful, glamorous and frivolous heiress and much more likable character than Mildred in the latter, which is a pale, uneducated and impudent Cockney waitress. Needless to say that Ms Davis played both characters very authentic and with the same enthusiasm. But even that is not all. The point is that the former role, which would be wished by most actresses of the day, was the one she was forced to play. The latter role, which seemed to most actresses as undesirable, career destroying role, was the one she fought for ferociously for months. And it was the latter role that launched her among the greatest stars. So there is no question that Ms Davis knew from the start what she was doing.<br /><br />The film, which tells about a medical student Phillip Carey (Leslie Howard) which falls unhappily in love with Cockney waitress Mildred Rogers (Bette Davis), has a few week points, but many more strong ones. The story is simply too big to be told in mere 83 minutes. For example, it is quite unclear why refined student found any interest in an impudent waitress in the first place. Well, there is one scene in which we are exposed to Ms Davis captivating eyes, but this is when his emotions are already fully evolved. Nevertheless, the integrity of the story is preserved by superior acting from Howard and Davis as well as fantastic Steiner's music which tells tons of emotions even when we do not see characters' faces. In fact the film is amalgamated by Phillip's walking sequences showing him from the back supplemented with shuddering two-tone repetition. Every detail is well thought - Max Steiner wrote a beautiful leitmotif for each women in Phillip's life, which is consistently used through the film. And a beautiful scene in which we see Sally's face in front of calendar is one of the sweetest scenes I've ever seen exactly due to Francis Dee's breathtaking beauty (Ms Dee was by the way considered to be too beautiful to play leading role in Gone with a Wind) as well as Steiner's captivating music. Camera movements between the some scenes is also original and refreshing.<br /><br />But my strongest objection is that events are presented too two-dimensionally, which induce viewer that Mildred is an ultimate slut. The most disgusting characters ought to be men which lure her into relationship, despite well knowing that they will abandon her after taking use of her, but they, curiously, finished portrayed as likable characters. After all, Mildred always - in her own specific, but still a honest way - lets Phillip know that she despises him and had no interest in him. Which he just refuses to hear. It is Phillips masochistic nature connected to his club foot and infantile experiences that is the principal reason of his love problem. He is enslaved to his club foot as much as to Mildred and perhaps has to be free of both to start a normal life. Of course, selfish and impudent Mildred, after discovering voluntary Phillip's bondage to her, did its own share to make his life hell. Even taking into account that she exploded after realizing that the bondage has loosen, it is less than clear why would she burn Phillip's money (Maugham intended different in his novel). After all, she could as well steal it and drunk gallons of champagne.<br /><br />For modern standards the film is a bit outdated, but each subsequent time you watch it, you can reveal new interesting details due to superior acting, fascinating music and original editing, so it does deserve the highest possible mark.

There are plenty of reviews on this page that will explain this movie's details far more eloquently than I could; but I would like to offer a simple review for those who occasionally go to the movies for more than entertainment. Raising Victor Vargas is so true you will believe it. This flick gets inside your head.

Less than 10 minutes into this film I wanted it to end as it was painful. All this "horror" movie was about was a group of whiny bitches doing stupid things for 90 minutes, arguing, crying and screaming. Do not let the positive reviews fool you as this really is a terrible movie and you really shouldn't watch it.<br /><br />The movies plot had potential to be something great, but it just doesn't happen. A group of five "teenage" girls are driving home one night when they find themselves being pursued by a crazed female driver who wants to kill them. Two minutes into the movie, and the characters are already arguing and this doesn't stop. All we have for 90 minutes is a bunch of girls whining, crying, screaming, "acting" and arguing. None of the dialogue is even remotely interesting too, so you don't get to really know these characters or enjoy them.<br /><br />The acting was terrible and I was shocked to find out that these characters were meant to be teenagers. None of these women looked a day under 20, and one of them easily looked like she was nearly 30 years old. At least get people who look the age. None of them gave even remotely decent performances, and just seemed like they were picked off the street or were friends of the director with no acting abilities. The "actress" who played the killer overdone it, but she at least showed something that the other girls didn't - a little bit of talent.<br /><br />The characters don't help things because these girls are a bunch of whiny, stupid bitches. That is all I can really say about them, and it did not help that they ALL survived. If I have to go into detail, in one scene the girls are being chased by the killer and having their car knocked a lot. One girl injures herself and is whining about it...four of them aren't wearing seat-belts...what do you expect? One of your friends is being brutally attacked by the killer...and you all just happen to be conveniently "too hurt" to help? Whatever.<br /><br />The filming of the movie is absolutely terrible. I don't care if this movie had a budget the size of a peanut, the filming was terrible and it was like watching a pirated version of a movie. The cameraman was clearly in the car with the girls, pushed up against a window somewhere and the amount of times the camera blurred out, shook and brushed up against an "actress" was horrendous. It was also grainy, and at times you couldn't hear what characters were saying (not that it was anything worth listening to).<br /><br />Supposedly the killers car in the movie (that supposedly got hit, even though we only heard the accident) is actually the directors car in real life. No wonder they didn't show the car getting hit! This movie is so cheap, they can't even show a car getting a little scratched up. Oh, gotta mention the soundtrack also...if that's what it was. It was horrid...sad one second, then hard rock the next. <br /><br />At the end of the day, Five Across The Eyes just feels like a terrible home-movie filmed in the middle of the road at night with a bunch of stupid girls screaming and arguing for 90 minutes. It doesn't help when the script is terrible, the scares/tension/suspense and (hardly even any gore to make up for it) are absent, the acting is terrible and the picture quality and filming are horrendous.<br /><br />This was a horrible low-budget movie. Avoid it at all costs.<br /><br />1/10

Okay, just by reading the title you would think that it would be a good movie. Well, at least I did. It started out good but became so boring after the first half hour. *spoiler*<br /><br />It tells a story about a mother that is so desperate for her daughter to become a cheerleader that she will go to any lengths to get what she wants. The only problem is that her daughter's friend is the girl in the way. She always wins the competitions, therefore pushing the mother further towards "eliminating" her. After talking to a "hitman", the mother decides that the girl needs to be roughed up a bit. So actions are taken but she eventually gets caught.<br /><br />The cast is awful and the movie drags on too long with nothing happening. Don't waste your time watching this.<br /><br />

Maybe I'm missing something because I've read more positive things about The Man Who Cheated Himself than I have read bad reviews - and I just don't get it. I like my noirs to have a little style to them with characters that speak, look, and act like Humphrey Bogart in The Big Sleep or Gene Tierney in Laura. None of the characters in this movie have that style or presence or whatever you want to call it. Take the lead actor, Lee J. Cobb. His rumpled, rolled-out-of-bed look is about as far from the dashing, smooth-talking noir archetype as you'll find. Or, take Jane Wyatt as the femme fatale as another example. This is one of the worst cases of miscasting I've seen in a while. She's just not convincing in the role.<br /><br />As for the plot, it's tired and lacks any real surprises or anything new for the genre. I could have predicted the outcome of The Man Who Cheated Himself after about five minutes. And that final cat-and-mouse chase scene is plain old dull. Ten to fifteen minutes of nothing happening really ruined any pacing the movie may have had going for it.

This movie is just so good! Despite Carmen Electra, this has to be one of the better films I have seen in awhile. Jamie Kennedy is just amazing, and Loren Dean plays an insane spoiled movie star very well. The plot is great as well. It's all very real which is scary. It says here that it's a drama, but this is one of the damn funniest dramas I have ever seen. Go check it out.

This movie was directed by Victor Nunez who also wrote the screenplay (Ulee's Gold). Nice and straightforward writing, that was nominated for the Independent Spirit Award, looking at Ruby's day to day life. What we see is a slice in the life of the young woman Ruby. Ashley Judd (Sisters) won the Independent Spirit Award Best Female Lead for this role. Ruby is starting to live on her own and establishing her own identity. She explores jobs, friendships, boy friends, sex, a typical young adult search. The movie won Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival. As an independent film enthusiast I picked the movie because of Sundance. I appreciate this type of movie, because it does not carry the Hollywood baggage.<br /><br />Although the stories are completely different this reminded me of Nobody's Fool, staring Paul Newman. The later movie is a slice of the daily life of a common man. I like that. The story is very nicely told, and all we had to do was sit and enjoy the story. The only thing I am not sure about is the title. I am sure that there are not that many bugs, and flies in paradise as there are in Florida. As I am allergic to mosquitos, Florida is no paradise to me, I itch all over thinking about Florida. I turn into a complete red boil. I recommend this movie! Favorite scenes: Ruby and her friend Rochelle Bridges, played by Allison Dean walking at the beach of Panama City, Florida. Indeed the sand is very white. I have been there. Favorite Quotes: "Necessity has always been a good excuse." "All that fuss over finding a man is not at all different now, who is going to be and when and why."<br /><br />

This comedy has some tolerably funny stuff in it, surrounded by a lot of unfunny stuff. Just about every scene involving the servants of the castle and their silly antics is a waste of time. And the plotting is so sloppy that it makes you wonder if they actually had a script ready before they started filming this, or they were simply making it all up as they went along. (*1/2)

Space Camp is a pretty decent film. The plot is predictable, but the actors do a good job, and the special effects are decent for the time.<br /><br />This film was originally released about the time of the shuttle disaster, and that really put a hamper on how popular it was.<br /><br />The scene where the shuttle doors open in space is simply spectacular... on the big screen, that is... on a TV... it just looks average. I remember this scene in the theater. It made you feel like you were really up there.<br /><br />This would be a good film to see on IMAX, but I'm sure that will never happen.

The word 'classic' is thrown around too loosely nowadays, but this movie well deserves the appelation. The combination of Neil Simon, Walter Matthau (possibly the world's best living comic actor), and the late lamented George Burns make for a comic masterpiece. It is interesting to contemplate what the movie would have been like had not death prevented Jack Benny from playing George Burns' part, as had been planned. As it is, the reunion scene in Matthau's apartment is not likely to be surpassed as a sidesplitter. Definitely one of my desert island films.<br /><br />"Enter!!!!!!!!!"

No spoilers here but I have been a fan since Waking the Dead started but the last series, of which only 3 have been on so far is awful. The stories bear no resemblance to the original idea of the series. I found these 3 in the last series jaw droppingly ludicrous. As a BBC licence payer, after the show I rang BBC complaints to pass on my disappointment. I'm amazed that actors of the calibre of Trevor Eve and Sue Johnstone didn't object to the story lines. These actors have been with these characters for 8 seasons, surly they can see it's lost all direction. It's a good job it is the last series or the next series may start with the team investigating the death of Father Christmas!<br /><br />Paul Bentley, West Yorkshire, England.

I think Cliff Robertson certainly was one of our finest actors. He has a half dozen classics to his credit. He does fine here as the heavy, but the direction is so bad and the pacing so tiresome, it never gets off the mark. The story starts off well although it makes me wonder how he could count on his wife hanging herself. Still he mugs well and carries things along. The death knell is twofold. First of all, if we were to take the amount of time characters spend walking from one room to another or one part of the house to another, it would eat up about a third of the movie. Add to that, Robertson's character sitting up in bed in the blue light, looking confused, that might add another chunk. I agree with those that said a half hour shorter would have made it a pretty decent, though insignificant film. The biggest weakness is just a convoluted plot that, when all is said and done, leaves incredible questions. I'm not putting in spoilers, but when it ends, don't think too much. I can come up with ten what-ifs without raising a sweat. It would have been better if it had remained a ghost story.

Who made this film? I love this film? Somebody has a wacky sense of humor...<br /><br />This Zany, Surreal style of film making is appealing, but it is hard to create - or easy to forget - that substance, and characters who actually have souls, are what give such a film depth. Without that a comedy is just a bunch of ideas. Who cares. It may get laughs, but it goes through you like a half-good hamburger...next...<br /><br />Crosseyed may not intend to change anybody's life, but I appreciate the depth and substance. They sneak up on you. I started this film thinking "Oh, I get it - indie comedy - off the wall - gonzo...yup." And it is that - but if you pay attention there is sub text and character moments filling it out. In this sense the film breathes. It makes propositions that give pause - if you're available to see them - and then, of course, it goes on its insanely merry way.<br /><br />You will miss the point if you don't sign the contract to suspend belief at moments in the film. Stepping between reality and surreality IS one of the points of this movie.<br /><br />Crosseyed isn't perfect, but smart people made it. I want more.<br /><br />The dining room scenes are an absolute HOOT.<br /><br />Put on your seat belt.

More a snapshot of the most popular pinup of all time than your typical dragged out biopic, this fun and fabulous film has the look and feel of the era with an excellent soundtrack and everything you would want in an indie-type film. I think the tendency would be to portray Bettie Page as some sort of sex vixen, like a Jayne Mansfield. But if you've truly looked carefully at Bettie's poses, she always looked happy. Not a "you wish you could get with me" haughty look, nor the "I'm just doing this because my acting career didn't work out" look of a porn star. And so, the ladies involved with this film (three female producers, a female writer/ director, female co-writer and the lovely Gretchen Mol, who I'm sure helped shape this role with her own sugary influence) really captured the idea of a sweet, somewhat naive, southern girl who really enjoyed having her photo taken and hoped that good ol' JC wouldn't be too upset with her. <br /><br />Gretchen Mol turns out a career high performance (she may just have the most perfect breasts ever), which I am happy about, because she did have the curse. Several years ago, she made the cover of Vanity Fair when no one really knew who she was, touting her as the next It-girl. And let's be frank, that was a bit presumptuous. I mean unfortunately she has never made it to Gwyneth status, though not for lack of talent. Making a few poor film choices when you are a pretty blonde in fickle Hollywood renders you forgettable I'm afraid. If this doesn't put her back on the A-list, well I'll be a monkey's uncle.<br /><br />Intensely private, Bettie herself has not seen the film yet. Bettie left the pinup party on a high note and fell in love with her old flame, Jesus. Whatever floats your boat honey. You were one helluva woman. I hope you're happy wherever you are.<br /><br />Congratulations Mary Harron, you've done our cult idol justice.

Leave it to geniuses like Ventura Pons, the Spanish director, to convince the higher ups in his country to subsidize this misguided attempt of a film. The sad state of the film industry in that country is a product of trying to make a film out of such thin material. Most of the pictures that are made in Spain fall under two categories: those about the Spanish Civil War, that love to present past history as the writers deem fit. The other type of films show the viewer with a lot of gratuitous sex because the 'creators' don't have anything interest to say. <br /><br />As the film opens we get to watch Pere's penis as he attempts to cut it off and place it in one of the platters at a party. Later on, Sandra will show all she has been given for the audience to admire. The story of Pere's attraction to Sandra, a married woman that seems to be happily married, is false from the start.<br /><br />Our only interest in watching the film centered on an earlier, better made picture by Mr. Pons, "Amic/Amat", but alas, it has nothing to do with the mess we are punished to watch in this venture. As far as the comments submitted in IMDb, all the negative votes come from Spanish viewers, which speaks volumes coming from them!

The little girl Desi is so adorable... I cant think of a more beautiful story then this one here. It will make you cry, laugh, and believe. Knowing that this was based on a true story just made me gasp and it also made me realize that there are nice people out there. Great cast and an overall great movie.

... It even beats the nasty "raw". Almost twenty years old is this show and still I laughed VERY MUCH when I was watching it last night. It shows Eddie Murphy dressed in tight red clothes(Old School)and he jokes with everything from celebertis to his family. He was only 22-years old then and this is a must-see!<br /><br />8/10

This is one of the best animated family films of all time. Moreover, virtually all of the serious rivals for this title came from the same creative mind of Hiyao Miyazaki and his Studio Ghibli. Specifically, other great films include "My Neighbor Totoro" and "Kikki's Delivery Service." Spirited Away is quite good, but a bit too creepy for typical family fare - better for teenagers and adult. The one thing that sets "Laputa: Castle in the Sky" apart from other films by Miyazaki is that it is far more of a tension-filled adventure ride.<br /><br />Why is this film so good? Because it's a complete package: the animation is very well done, and the story is truly engaging and compelling.<br /><br />Most Japanese anime is imaginative, but decidedly dark or cynical or violent; and the animation itself is often jerky, stylized, and juvenile. None of these problems plague Castle in the Sky. It has imagination to burn, and the characters are well drawn, if slightly exaggerated versions of realistic people. (None of those trench-coat wearing posers) There is plenty of adventure, but not blood and gore. The animation is smooth, detailed, and cinematic ally composed - not a lot of flat shots. The backgrounds are wonderful.<br /><br />The voice acting in the dubbed English version is first rate, particularly the two leads, Pazo (James Van der Beek) and Sheeta (Anna Paquin). The sound engineering is great, too. Use your studio sound, if you've got it.<br /><br />One aspect that I particularly enjoyed is that much of the back story is left unexplained. Laputa was once inhabited, and is now abandoned. Why? We never know. We know as much as we need to know, and then we just have to accept the rest, which is easy to do because the invented world is so fully realized. Indeed, it is fair to say that the world is more fully realized than most of the minor characters, who are for the most part one-dimensional stock characters (e.g., gruff general, silly sidekick, kooky old miner, etc.) Highly recommended for people aged 6 to 60!

Ti%s and As*, lots of boobies. Some great characters, fun filled pranks and well put together teen action in this spin off of the Amercan Pie franchise. This feels like really OLD SCHOOL. It feels a bit like Porkys for the 2000's. Some great funny characters combined with some very humorous situations make this one a real surprise for me.<br /><br />Whilst the original cast is all but gone except for one, this movie I found really entertaining. Lets not get too excited, you have to take it for the booby teen comedy that it is, but for what it is, it excels. The characters are likable and funny, the girls are hotter than hell. The fun and games are hilarious, with some stuff I've never seen before in comedies, they make me cringe but laugh at the same time.<br /><br />So ignore the haters and give this a run and see what you think. Don't expect the classic American Pie, but expect something that should make you laugh and spark your attention for an hour or so.

Moon Child, starring Japanese rockers Hyde and Gackt, was a better movie then I expected. In fact, I was very impressed and it immediately became one of my favorite movies.<br /><br />Set in Mallepa, the story follows a group of street orphans, Sho, Sho's brother Shinji, and Toshi who rob and murder to make a living. On one of robberies, Sho encounters Hyde's Kei vampire burning in the sunlight. Through the coarse of events Kei's true nature is shown, yet no one shuns him away.<br /><br />The time passes and implies that the immortal, never-changing Kei has raised Sho, and the two have a an extremely close bond. Sho and Kei then encounter Son in an outrageous gun fight, and they become quick friends. Both Kei and Hyde fall in love with Son's sister, Yi-Che.<br /><br />Time skips ahead again and shows a grown Sho, this time void of Kei. It also explains that Sho and Son have become enemies.<br /><br />Through tragedy after tragedy this movie dives into the reality of life and all it's hardships, focusing on friendship and love. It is a truly touching movie that is sad yet beautiful at the same time.<br /><br />As for the acting, I think Gackt did a magnificent job. Hyde did an amazing job for a first timer.<br /><br />The shots were beautiful, but the movie did have it's rare and short gruesome shots.<br /><br />All in all, I must say this movie is amazing, moving, and I highly recommend it.

Loony Tunes have ventured (at least) twice into the future. The first time was with the brilliantly funny "Duck Dodgers". The latter time was with this … um … effort. "Loonatics Unleashed" isn't without merit, and might be considered a good product were it not that it isn't up to Warner Brothers quality. WB cartoons are noted for their cheeky humor, appealing at least as much to adults as to children. These pedestrian superhero episodes, on the other hand, cannot fail to convince adults to pass them up.<br /><br />The premise of the series is that 6 ordinary individuals (2 bunnies, a Tasmanian devil, a duck, a roadrunner, and a coyote) live on the "city-planet" of Acmetropolis and acquire super powers when a meteor strikes the planet in 2772. What's confusing is that the titles section features these individuals with a count-up to 2772 from the 21st Century. Cute, but frelling stupid.<br /><br />In each episode, the super sextet – amid mildly amusing but essentially banal banter – fight various super villains. For the most part, these are types that appear in every mediocre superhero adventure series and even some of the better ones. Like many mediocre superhero series, this one takes its villains far too seriously for the context. And of course these guys are the only characters that laugh – the usual evil laugh, of course. Why is it that villains in predictable superhero adventures always – ALWAYS – laugh evilly at every opportunity? Animated material of this sort seems to leave laughter exclusively in the province of villains and (occasionally) their henchpeople and/or henchthings.<br /><br />In point of fact, the makers of this series missed their best bets right from the get-go. The superpowers of the characters are sometimes based on their previous normal abilities, but sometimes not. The problem here is that we don't see enough WB looniness. Lexi and Ace have fairly ordinary biologically generated energy weapons and have virtually no personality traits one could describe as "Bugs-like". What we have here is basically the silly and drekish "Teen Titans", including its overly "modern" animation "look", but with animals. Feh.<br /><br />The other misstep by the program's creators is (or are) the villains. As noted before, these are not terribly imaginative and do the evil-laugh bit excessively. Amazingly, the writers totally missed the obvious technique of making villains from stock WB characters as well as the protagonists. Adding to the fun could have been, say, Jupiter Sam – as well as The Fudd, still hunting wabbits – as well as Tech E. Coyote converted into a really neurotic villain – and so on. Ah, the sadness of missed opportunities….<br /><br />Sadly, this whole production has gone into too much overtime (that is, a 2nd season). Nevertheless, we can rejoice that there's something new out there for the 14-going-on-9 crowd. The rest of us can hope for a 3rd season of Duck Dodgers.

Not sure why this movie seems to have gotten such rave reviews.<br /><br />While watching "Bang" one night on TV, I found myself bored by the nonsensical, random plot which was occurring on screen. The entire movie seems to be nothing more than an exercise in meaningless, artsy-fartsy self-indulgence on the part of the filmmaker. The fact that the director/writer goes by a one name moniker only reinforces this sense of pretentiousness. <br /><br />Those interested in indie flicks would be better off looking for something better written and dare I say, more entertaining than this complete waste of time.

Like many people on this site, I saw this movie only once, when it was first televised in 1971. Certain scenes linger in my memory and an overall feeling of disquiet is how I remember being affected by it. I would be fascinated to see it again, if it was ever made available for home video.<br /><br />Possible spoiler: I wonder if anyone else would agree that the basic plot setup and characters might have been derived from a 1960 British movie, originally titled City of the Dead, retitled Horror Hotel for the American release? There are some similarities also to a later British film The Wicker Man.<br /><br />One detail remains with me years after seeing the film. It's a small but significant moment near the beginning of the film. As I recall, a minister and his wife have stopped to aid some people by the side of the road, circa 1870, somewhere out West. The friendly seeming Ray Milland introduces himself and his ( daughter?), Yvette Mimieux, a beautiful young mute woman. While the preacher is helping Ray Milland with the wagon, a rattlesnake slithers into view and coils menacingly, unobserved by any of the characters except Yvette Mimieux. She doesn't look scared at all, but stares at the snake with silent concentration, until it goes away. With this strange little moment, we already realize there's something highly unusual about these seemingly normal folks, though the possible danger to the minister and his wife remains vague and uncertain for a long time.<br /><br />That one little scene stays with me vividly after all these years, along with many others. The film has a haunting quality about it that won't let go, and it's not surprising that people remember it so vividly. Someone ought to make this available for home video!

Having first achieved fame with Drunken Master, Jackie Chan was thrust into the spotlight once more with 1983's Project A, a hugely enjoyable pirate flick which re-established him as a major star. By the time Police Story was released two years later, the extraordinary hype surrounding Jackie was reaching its zenith, and crowds flocked to see this frenetic blend of awesome stunts, brutal fight scenes and questionable comedy. It broke numerous box-office records and inspired a 50% rise in police recruits, but, viewed 20 years on - is it any good?<br /><br />As an action movie Police Story unquestionably stands up. There are several terrific fight scenes, some stuntwork that recalls the very best of Chan's hero Buster Keaton, and a compelling if over-violent climactic tussle. Jackie's performance is also very strong, and whilst the frequent forays into laboured comedy dull the film's impact just a little, his charisma carries it through. Furthermore, in presenting our hero as a borderline psychopath whose recklessness puts others in danger, Jackie took a momentous gamble ... though in the event nobody seems to have noticed! By praising Police Story as a simple 'Good vs. Evil' battle critics belittled the film's ambiguity of tone, and whilst it's hardly The Brothers Karamazov, in depicting such uncertainty the film nevertheless represented a notable and praiseworthy shift from conventional ideas.<br /><br />In short, this remains a quality "popcorn" movie* (though you may empty your stomach as numerous villains are thrust against or deposited into glass showcases in the film's final scene) - a potent, boisterously entertaining action movie that ranks with the best of its period.

I watched the un-aired episodes online and I was so sad that the show won't be back. It had the best cast of mature, talented actors and an amazing chemistry. It seemed like all the actors are personal friends in real life. Towards the end the show became engaging, sexy and highly watchable. Of course, some of the story lines are not realistic, so what... The characters are all likable and you root for them. The show reminded me a cross between 2 other favorites: "Sex and the City" and "Felicity". Big kudos to all the cast. Note to ABC execs: Nielsen ratings reports do not show you true results. The show audience will mostly record it. I've been very disappointed with major networks for flooding us with reality-TV or teenage oriented shows. Why to get a mature, thoughtful, well-acted material we have to switch to HBO or FX? I can only thank the network for putting the rest of the episodes online. The new stream media will gain more and more popularity among viewers.

If you were brought up on a diet of gameshows you'll understand that you gradually need a bigger and better fix. Well, in the world of the Running Man, your needs will be sated. For in this game show, prisoners compete for freedom, and the ultimate prize - their very lives.<br /><br />I loved this film. It was such a parody on the mind-numbing tripe that we watch on a daily basis. It isn't one of Schwarzenegger's best performances, but on the whole it is a very good film. The underlying idea that Television Corporations will one day be the "real" rulers of the planet is very believable, and is very well portrayed in this film. Of course there are the usual Arnie one-liners, my favourite is when he is about to be catapulted into the gamezone, the gameshow host asks "Any last words?" Arnie says: "Yeah, I'll be back" but the host quips "Only in a re-run" and presses the eject button. I give this film a 10 for sheer originality. I must have watched it 30 or more times. The only film apart from the Die Hard series that I watched this often!!<br /><br />In short, do not for a minute think that you own the T.V. - It owns you.....

speaking solely as a movie, i didn't really liked it. not because there were no FX or because we had a single cabin as the scenario for the whole film, actually that was what kept me watching it.<br /><br />i didn't like it because the acting was shady, his "friends" are all happy and then they're mad, but you have no idea why; then they take distinct roles, one is the believer, other is the antagonist, but they never really make the point! also, the lighting was terrible and i'm just mentioning technical issues.<br /><br />in a few words, i thing the movie could have just had a "ok i'm outta here!" from some characters. like the lady who doesn't want to hear his version of the bible.<br /><br />about the story itself, everyone is free to write about what they want, and the story is proof of some good writing and imagination. i credit the book author for that, hence, my 4/10.<br /><br />so, in the end, hear the man's story believe it or not, just don't spend the whole time acting like you believe him and being shocked at what he says, and at the same time moving around and making jokes like you don't believe him.<br /><br />Coherence.<br /><br />thanks for reading ;)

This movie is so aggrivating. The main character looks like he's 35 and I've seen scrawny beanpoles with more balls than this guy. The plot twists are so predictable its not even worth watching for the humor factor.<br /><br />Also some of the worst dialogue I've heard in 3 years, "lets go find a small animal to torture".<br /><br />Ugh.....I can't even continue, don't watch this pile of garbage, it was made in 8 days.<br /><br />The one highlight is the drunk dude calling the main character a faggot for drawing pictures.<br /><br />2 out of 10, unwatchable

I'm a male, not given to women's movies, but this is really a well done special story. I have no personal love for Jane Fonda as a person but she does one Hell of a fine job, while DeNiro is his usual superb self. Everything is so well done: acting, directing, visuals, settings, photography, casting. If you can enjoy a story of real people and real love - this is a winner.

This movie is a good example of the extreme lack of good writers and directors in Hollywood. The fact that people were paid to make this piece of junk shows that there is a lack of original ideas and talent in the entertainment business. The idea that audiences paid to see this movie (and like an idiot I rented the film) is discouraging also.<br /><br />Obsessed teacher (3 years prior) kills teenager's family because he wants her. For no reason he kills the mother, father and brother. From the first five minutes you see the bad acting and direction. Years later, obsessed teacher breaks out of prison. HMM--usual bad writing--no one in the town he terrorized knows until the last minute. Obsessed teacher somehow becomes like a Navy SEAL and can sneak around, sniff out people and with a knife is super killer. Sure!!! Now obsessed teacher kills hotel maid for no reason, knifes bellhop for the fun of it, and starts to hunt down the teenager's friends. Now there is the perfect way to get the girl to love you. Obsessed teacher sneaks out of hotel---again it is stupid, ever cop would know his face--but he walks right by them. Now he kills two cops outside teenager's house and somehow sneaks into her bedroom and kills her boyfriend.<br /><br />There is not one single positive thing about this piece of garbage. If any other profession put out work of this low quality, they would be fired. Yet these idiots are making hundreds of thousands of dollars for writing and directing this trash.

Everyday we can watch a great number of film, soap... on tv. Sometimes a miracle happens. A great film, with real feelings, with great actors, with a great realisator-director. For me there are two films that everyone needs to see : the first is the Pacula ? "Sophie 's choice" with Meryl Streep. The second is "Journey of Hope". As human beings, we need to learn about humility, about love of the others, about acceptation of other civilisation, other way of living. We also have to struggle against racism and fascim. We must avoid judging, criticize; we only have to love our earth companion. This wonderful film, helps us reaching John (Lennon) his dream : Imagine all the people living live in peace. These two films are difficult to see : watch these, but sure you will be hurt, but better. Great film, great actors, terrible story, pain and cry guarantee, but also better understanding of the others. Enjoy it.

There's only one thing I'm going to say about cat in the hat...as a KIDS movie and a good comedy movie it sucks...I lost track of how many terrible jokes in the movie that not only sucked but weren't exactly kid appropriate. Oh and by the way the way the cat in the hat talked was annoying...as for the plot I completely forgot. Who cares it sucked anyway. i'm not sure why Mike Myers joined but I think the writers were trying to make it sound like him in Austin powers without the swinger talk and it overly succeeded- but so what it was annoying. don't see it-it belongs in the bottom 100.............................. the jokes are so unkiddy it's funny

I'm disappointed that Reiser (who wrote the film) felt the need to use so much profanity for no reason whatsoever. Maybe that's his idea of "adult" films, plenty of nasty words with bathroom humor thrown in? I thought better of him and think less of him for this movie.<br /><br />Falk's acting and some moments of humor as well as some possibly important themes are what made me give it such a high rating.<br /><br />This might be a good movie for adult children to watch and laugh over about their own folks and their foibles. But the lack of consideration for audience families seriously detriments what could have been a family film but fails. Certainly not worth spending money on, though it might be worth a watch for free on television.

Is this film a joke? Is it a comedy? Surely it isn't a serious thriller? There is no suggestion that there is any intended humor, but on quite a few occasions the poor acting, poor directing, and appalling script had the audience laughing out loud in the cinema. The plot is acceptable - a promising young artist just reaching his peak shot dead by an assassin he walks in on by mistake. The killer sees the young artists work portfolio he is carrying and decides to attend an exhibition of his work. At the exhibition the assassin meets the dead artists sister and they end up falling in love. It is all very predictable stuff and the end will not have anyone guessing as it is so poorly scripted. The film takes place mainly in and around Vienna, Austria, and shows what a beautiful city it is. Do not waste your time on this film though, unless you are studying how NOT to act, direct or script a film!

The most agile fat guy in martial arts does it again. An early Sammo film that has him imitating his character's hero, Bruce Lee, Sammo is amazingly Lee like in his actions and fighting. The way he slips into Bruce's style and then back to his own, more familiar kung fu is a joy to watch and shows how accomplished and adaptable he is at his art. Throw in a bit of slapstick humour so beloved of this type of flick and this a movie that has it all - comedy (some unintentional, like the fake black guy), action and some incredible fight scenes.<br /><br />A great beer and buddies movie that is worth an hour and a half of anyone's time.

I bought this a while ago but somehow neglected to watch it until last night. I do like Juliette Lewis although I'm indifferent to Brad Pitt. After this viewing I have to admit he's a perfectly fine actor - his character was entirely believable, and I didn't think "Brad Pitt" at all.<br /><br />Unfortunately I can't say the same for David Duchovny. I'm an X-Files fan and I had to look twice to confirm the date of this movie, as I'd thought it was made a few years later. I like Duchovny but found his character a little two-dimensional here, except where he's doing voice-overs. That part was strong, seemed in character, good intonation, etc. Otherwise I kept thinking "Agent Mulder", which is a pity.<br /><br />Michelle Forbes was a treat. Why haven't I noticed her before? (I'll be looking up to see what other roles she's done and seeing those asap) I am slightly concerned about stereotyping re Lewis, this film, and "Natural Born Killers" (a firm favourite). Interesting though to see a contrast of characters - in NBK she's a willing accomplice, whereas here she abhors the violence and tries very hard not to acknowledge Early's dark side until it's thrust in her face.<br /><br />I enjoyed this film almost unreservedly. Apart from Duchovny's character not seeming fully-formed (and perhaps being "washed out" somewhat by Pitt's), it was perfect. I was also pleased with the ending - glad that the innocent heroes did not die, yet they had to suffer first. It was realistic, tense, disturbing.<br /><br />If you like NBK you may well like this movie, and vice-versa.

The majority of Stephen King's short stories are little gems, with original ideas that don't take a long time to develop; basically lean and mean--he sets them up quickly in a scarce number of pages, you read 'em, and you're finished before you know you've begun. They're like the equivalent of a carton of McDonald's fries--they taste Really good and you know there's not much nutritional value in them (re: from a literary standpoint, they don't say much about the universal human condition), but you're still gonna scarf 'em down, just don't be a pig and go for the extra-super-sized portion and fill up on too much grease ("too much grease" is a metaphor for the prose in King's novels when find yourself reading one of them and saying come on--enough with the pop-cultural observations or clever Yankee asides--get on with the story already!) He has compiled four books of short story collections. I've read them all--from NightShift to the latest, Everything's Eventual, and they all display an efficiency of getting-to-the-point which is sometimes sorely lacking in his tome-sized novels.<br /><br />But his short stories never overstay their welcome...which brings us to the TV adaptations of Nightmares And Dreamscapes...<br /><br />How in the hell did they (the series' producers) get a green-light to turn stories that usually averaged 15 pages into 50 minute episodes? I'll tell you how--two words--"Stephen King." Stories with his name on them probably didn't come cheap, and one hour shows enable more advertising than half hour ones, so...what should have been an anthology of mostly 23 or 24 minute episodes is turned into double that length, and double the commercial time...Ka-Ching!<br /><br />I'm not going to waste time synopsizing the plots of these stories--this review supposes you have already read the stories and/or seen the show; what follows is merely my gut reactions to what TNT presented... Of the four installments so far, here's my ten cent assessment (from first to worst): <br /><br />Battleground-- Not a classic by any means, but hey, how could anyone argue with keeping William Hurt from opening his trap by filming this episode without a single line of dialog? And the tongue-in-cheek reference and destruction of the killer Zuni doll from Trilogy Of Terror proved to me the producers (and the writer of the teleplay, who is Richard Matheson's son--the writer of TOT) knew their mission with this one was to make the action deadly, yet at the same time, fun. It took longer to get to Hurt's apartment than it should have, but I think it fulfilled it's objective. 8/10<br /><br />Umney's Last Case-- Liked this one primarily because of William H. Macy's performance. I think the writer/Umney should have appeared in the story sooner into the private eye/Umney beginning because he was the actual reality of the story, and anyone familiar with the King short story (probably half, if not more of the audience) knew the Chandleresque set-up was due to get interrupted by the writer's reality, so let's get on with it already, and cut-out the cute and clever hard-boiled repartee' Private Dick banter already. Once the writer/Umney's family tragedy began to reveal though, I thought the show developed an emotional connection that made the viewer (me, at least), feel sympathy for the real-life Macy's attempt to escape his sorrows by usurping his fictional creation's exciting life. 6/10 <br /><br />The End Of The Whole Mess-- Uh, this title is how I felt about this episode when it was over. After twenty minutes, I was ready to scream at the TV--OK, we get it already, the younger brother is a Mega Mensa Genius Prodigy Extraordinaire! We know from Ron Livingston talking to the camera ("time is running out for me"--not fast enough, I thought) that the young whiz kid is going to discover something really bad for humanity--we know this because he's already built an airplane but almost died because he couldn't steer it out of the path of a tree; and, he blew up his chemistry lab while teaching himself chemistry (to think the end of the world could have been prevented if only this kid had some more parental supervision). So much time was wasted on establishing the uber-genius of Henry Thomas, when we finally get to the resolution of his discovery--the end of the world through unintended idiocy--how much do we get to see of the world "ending?"--a cheap video shot of a reporter starting to forget what she's reporting on, and brief radio broadcasts announcing the day of judgement is at hand. Oh, and the brother's parents drooling and singing old songs. My point is, if your story is really about the "end of the whole mess (world)", I wanna see the "mess" as it goes up in flames and crashes and burns. Talk about ending with a whimper, indeed. 2/10 <br /><br />Crouch End-- This episode just ticked me off totally. I could have lived with the taking-forever exposition of the happy couple arriving at their hotel, playing slap-and-tickle, having lunch, and getting a taxi (that was half the episode right there), if once they finally crossed-over into Crouch End the episode delivered the chills, but it failed miserabley. Not only wasn't it scary, it was practically laughable. Ooh, look--a kitty...wait, it turns...oh my god! Look at it's scary eye! Uh-huh. They could have gone a long way towards filming the Crouch End sequence at night instead of in daylight, too. Things you might unintentionally find funny can become scarier when you see them in the night shadows. But I guess the budget wasn't high enough to shoot at night on the fake London sets they slapped together for this one. On the page, this is a very scary story about tourists wandering into places they shouldn't and the terrible things that might lurk just around a corner there. The only terror in this adaptation was the directing and acting--those were truly horrifying. 1/10 <br /><br />Overall Series Average (so far): 4/10

I began riding horses fairly recently, and, as anyone who has ever ridden should know, I fell in love with horses and their world. I rented Spirit on a whim, just trying to pack my life full of as much horse related material as I could, and I was surprised by the results.<br /><br />What I expected was a feel-good Disneyesque movie with talking animals and stereotypes every five minutes.<br /><br />What I got was an amazing film, filled with beautiful scenery and animation, and an amazing storyline that has the great potential to warm one's heart.<br /><br />Spirit is a wild mustang in the Old West, whose entire world is brought crumbling down around him when he discovers the humans slowly taking over his homeland. The story unfolds with a wide array of characters, some human, some animals, all are well written and most are pleasant to watch on screen.<br /><br />I would recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys a good story, and who has an appreciation for history and animals.<br /><br />One thing I forgot to mention, but that I feel is important, is that the animals in this film do not talk. This was a really nice vacation from the Lady And The Tramp animated movies that everyone today is used to.

Inventor Wayne Szalinsky (Rick Moranis) is preparing to donate his problematic shrinking/expanding machine to the Smithsonian Institution as he and his wife Diane (Eve Gordon) get ready for a long weekend away from their son Adam (Bug Hall). Wayne's brother Gordon (Stuart Pankin), his wife Patty (Robin Bartlett), and his kids Jenny (Allison Mack) and Mitch (Jake Richardson) volunteer to look after Adam while his parents are away, but as luck would have it (and the title would lead you to expect), the grown-ups are accidentally zapped by Wayne's shrinking ray. As the kids run amok, their miniaturized folks must contend with monstrously huge insects, wrinkles in the carpet that look like canyons, and other threats to them. This was bad, like most straight to video sequels are, Honey, We Shrunk Ourselves was sort of laughable. I had to laugh at that movie "roach" Stuart Pankin and the party bullies were even more ridiculous, view at own risk!

I wasn't sure at first if I was watching a documentary, propaganda film or dramatic presentation. I guess given the time of production it was a mix of all three.<br /><br />Admittedly the dramatic plot was somewhat predictable. But you had a sense that there would be some interesting scenes as the movie went on. We were able to witness what appeared to be realistic training regimens and equipment.<br /><br />Where this movie came together for me was closer to the end. The scenes had a realism (at least as I perceived it) that I haven't encountered often before. You could place yourself in the action and imagine the thoughts of the young combatants. This was mixed in with the usual problems of portraying passable Japanese soldiers at a time when you might think real Japanese actors would be somewhat scarce.<br /><br />The movie is excellent as a source of the state of the American mindset in 1943 as the war waged with Japan. Also of interest was a dig at the Japanese with respect to the help the USA gave Japan in past years.

A good Korean film about not just Taekwondo but what its takes to be good, like a thugs way of fighting cannot beat a taekwondo guy in his sport because there are rules, just as there are to life and school and this film has undertones of this notion.<br /><br />The martial arts in the film isn't that good but it is passable and enjoyable. Friends who go on to achieve something they once would mock become stronger through the mind and heart. This film isn't meant to be taken too seriously as it does have slapstick, but it also carries a message.<br /><br />A good film again from Korea.

Just a warning... This is the worst movie I have seen in years... I couldn't watch it to the end... It is a pure waste of time... I really feel sorry for Snipes that he ended up in such a movie. There really is not much to say about it. Horrible acting, incredibly bad lines, story, everything. The only reason I would advise you to watch this movie is if you really want to see how a movie shouldn't be. Just to tell you one scene: the police are searching for Snipes, and they are surrounding the building with helicopters and cars, they are shooting around inside the building, but still they are whispering so that Snipes doesn't suspect a thing.

And thats about all that is. This thing is slow. The actors have ability, they just don't seem motivated to put forth the effort. The plot isn't that great and is hampered further by the aforementioned slowness of it all. The accents, when there are any, are British. Uh, lots of these folks are supposed to be Danes. OK, OK, accents aren't that important. But language is. I don't think they used words like "yeah" and "OK" in Beowulf's day. And that supposedly way cool weapon his king gave him? Did he ever reload that thing? Did he ever sight it in? Or was Beowulf just that bad an aim? Well, his aim did at least match the computer graphics used in generating the monsters. Those were rather off too. Bad special effects. Bright spot? Just one that I can think of. Marina Sirtis has held up well over the years.

This movie made me feel as if I had missed some important scenes from the very beginning. There were continuity errors and plots that stopped as abruptly as they started. I was very disappointed because I love Whoopi Goldberg & Danny Glover, in addition to that have always trusted & respected Danny Glovers taste in his choice of roles, "Grand Canyon" for example. I just could not finish this movie, after what seemed an eternity, but was probably just a little over an hour; we had to turn it off. There was no comedy, there was nothing about the characters to make you empathize or sympathize with them, there was no evoking of emotion at all regarding this movie and the clips of their past were poorly edited, confusing, and unnecessary. What could have been a great idea for a movie, even as a drama & not a comedy (although I think a comedy in this situation would have been better, because I love to watch white people freak out & start acting like complete idiots, it makes me laugh) became a waste of my $1 credit at the video store.

Best animated movie ever made. This film explores not only the vast world of modern animation with absolutely boggling effects, but the branches of the human mind, soul, and philosophy. The story features a family of cats, where in the big sister dies, the younger brother sees this and rescues her body, but when she awakens she is left without a soul. So, the two sibling cats embark on a journey to find it. I have related this journey to many things. The history of the world, the bible, the cycle of life, and every time I watch it I discover more and more hidden themes and metaphors. If you aren't so into the physiological aspect of it then, you will still adore it. The animation is superb, and the creative scenes will have you attached to the screen. For example, the ocean freezing in time, god eating soup out of the earth, a strange and slightly SNM retelling of Hansel and Gretel. To conclude, Cat Soup is an absolute treat for anyone.<br /><br />PS- Not for kids, gratuitous violence included.

Blank check is one of those kids movies that could have been a great suspense thriller for the kids but instead it's a tired lame home alone ripoff that isn't worth a dime. Quigley is a criminal who just escaped from jail and gets his hidden million dollars from a big score and then we meet Preston a frustrated kid whose room is taken over by his brothers to start a business and obviously dad treats his brothers better because they make money the same day he goes to a kid's birthday party and since his dad is a cheapo he goes on little kids rides while the other kids go on roller coasters then he receives a birthday card and a check of 11 bucks how cheap is this family? So he goes to the bank to open an account and meets the gorgeous Shea Stanley were her parents mets fans? he finds out he needs 200 to open a account meanwhile quigley gives his million to his banker friend and finds out the bills are marked so he will send a lackey named juice to get the unmarked ones when Preston leaves his bike gets run over by quigley he's about to write a check when he spots the cops and bolts back home his parents scolded him about his busted up bike and gets grounded what? their kid got almost run over and they worried about a bike? So Preston forges a million dollar check via his computer and comes back only to be escorted to the banker thinking that he's juice he gives Preston the money but the real juice came and realized they been duped by a kid! So Preston buys a mansion under the name Macintosh gets a limo driver who says unfunny jokes and goes on a epic shopping spree then he spots Shea and talks about opening his account kid you're loaded and you're talking about opening an account? We soon realized Shea is actually an FBI agent tracking down quigley and his two other accomplice's then he told his cheapy dad he's got a job working for Mr Macintosh and spends the day riding go karts playng vr games and hanging out with his limo driver buddy then he goes out on a date with Shea in a fancy restaurant what a 10 year old wining and dining a 20 something FBI agent? Afterwards he takes her to a street geyser and playing around in the water messing up Shea's 300 dollar dress yet she takes it well if this was a bit realistic she would slap him for messing up her expensive dress so quigley and the others still mad interrogates a little kid and quickly spills the beans and Preston is being chased by quigley in a scene taken from the original script and afterwords he is hosting Mr Macintoshs birthday which is really his birthday when he discovers he couldn't pay for the party he sits in his chair and dad talks to MacIntosh which he doesn't know it's his son he's talking to and talks about Preston should be a real kid and has his whole childhood ahead of him and wants Preston to go home early what? an hour ago you were grilling him about his finances! so Preston asks everyone to leave and sits alone pondering when quigley and the others break in to the house to make Preston pay and so he faces then in a finale that rips off home alone quigley gets spun around in a ball while Preston is driving a go kart juice gets hit in the groin and more antics ensue until the trio get Preston cornered and when it seem all hope is lost Shea and a bunch of SWAT guys come to save the day and so quigley and his crew get sent to jail but is there any hope for Preston and Shea? there is and she kisses him in the lips what? what? what? A grown woman kissed a kid in the lips. come on is she mentally disabled? I mean an FBI agent who knows the country's laws would risk her career to kiss a kid? she could get arrested on the spot! and the most creepiest part of all is that isn't goodbye and she'll see him in 6 or 7 years! oh dear and so he comes home to his family celebrating his birthday so the moral of the story is love and respect can be bought? What are they smoking? The bottom line is that is a waste of time the morals are whacked it's flat as a tortilla the kid is annoying the villains are lame the comic relief isn't funny the brothers are unlikable the dad is even worse the romantic subplot is creepy the plot's shallow and the only saving grace is the cinematography from bill pope which went on to shoot the matrix trilogy and two of the spider-man films so people don't waste your money and go watch home alone instead. <br /><br />This has been a Samuel Franco review.

There are people claiming this is another "bad language" ultra violence Mexican movie. They are right, but more than that this film is a call to create awareness of what we have become. The awful truth hurts, or bores when you already have accepted the paradigm of living the third world as the only possible goal. One of the most important things of "Cero y van cuatro" is the open invitation to profound reflexion over our current identity. Is that what we all are? Is that all that we want to be? I am abroad and I realized how spoiled is the Mexican society when the Tlahuac Incident came to light. I still cannot understand viewers witnessing a mass broadcasted murder. I nearly puked when I saw some of the images. It was not Irak or Rwanda, just a tiny village near Mexico City when rampage was carried out with the indulgence of media and government. The recreation of a similar situation in this film shocked me deeply. The other stories were good portraying other situations of corruption, dishonesty, betrayal and violence, but I consider "Tamales de Chivo" the best one.<br /><br />The movie is deeper than some "cabrón" and "pendejo" screams. Those are meaningless compared with the actions of the people. With a few exceptions they are all perfect examples of human rubbish. Just like in real life honesty is becoming more the exception than the rule in our country. Moreover, honesty is only rewarded miraculously.

Culled from the real life exploits of Chuck Connors and Steve Brodie in 1890s New York, "The Bowery" is high energy and good natured.<br /><br />But be warned: Casual racial epithets flow off the tongues of Wallace Beery and little Jackie Cooper. The very first shot might be startling. This is true to the time it was set and the time it was made. And it also speaks to the diversity of population in that neck of the woods. It certainly adds to the gritty flavor of the atmosphere.<br /><br />Beery as Connors is the blustering thunder at the center of the action, a loud-mouth saloon keeper with his own fire brigade. And he has a soft spot for ornery orphan Cooper. Raft as Brodie is Connors' slicker, better looking rival in almost every endeavor. Brodie could never turn down a dare and loved attention, leading up to a jump off the Brooklyn Bridge (it is still debated whether he actually jumped or used a dummy).<br /><br />Beery is as bombastic as ever with a put-on Irish-American accent. He is just the gruff sort of character to draw children, cats and ladies in distress. This is possibly the most boisterous character Raft ever played, and he even gets to throw in a little dancing (as well as a show of leg). And again he mistakes the leading lady (lovely Fay Wray) for a prostitute. Cooper is as tough as either of them, though he gets a chance to turn on the tears.<br /><br />The highlight isn't the jump off the bridge but a no-holds-barred fistfight between Connors and Brodie that in closeup looks like a real brawl between the principals. It's sure someone bruised more than an ego.

The movie is about Anton Newcombe. The music and careers of the two bands are simply backdrop. It's only fair that Newcombe have the last word about the film, which at this writing you can find in the "news" section at the brianjonestownmassacre website. I'd link it here but IMDb won't permit it.<br /><br />Documentarians are limited by what the camera captures, as well as by the need to assemble a cohesive narrative from the somewhat-random occasions when chance has put the camera lens on a sight-line with relevant happenstance. In Dig!, fortune smiled on the Dandy Warhols, capturing their rise to the status of pop-idol candidates, as they formed slickly-produced pop confections for mass consumption, most notably "Bohemian Like You," a song that made them global darlings thanks to a Euro cell phone ad. <br /><br />No such luck for Brian Jonestown Massacre. The film captures little of what made the original BJM lineup great, with the sole exception of a single montage, lasting a minute or so, showing Newcombe creating/recording a number of brief instrumental parts, unremarkable in themselves, and concluding the sequence with a playback of the lush, shimmering sounds that had to have been in Newcombe's mind and soul before they could enter the world.<br /><br />Three commentaries accompany the film; one by the filmmakers, and two by the members of the bands (the BJM track is solely former members, and without Newcombe). Both the Warhols and BJM alumni point up this montage sequence as the "best" bit in the film, and I'd agree that, given the film's focus on Anton Newcombe, it is the only part of the film that sheds proper light on his gift, and seems too brief to lend proper balance to this attempted portrait of the "tortured artist."<br /><br />Interesting thing about commentaries is that, unlike film, they are recorded in real time -- one long take -- which can be more honestly revelatory than a documentary that takes shape primarily through editing.<br /><br />The Dandies do not come off well in their comments. If the rock and roll world extends the experience of high school life for its denizens -- as I believe it does -- the Dandies are the popularity-obsessed preppy types, the ones who listen to rock because it's what their peers do, while the BJM crew come off as the half-rejected, half-self-exiled outsiders (to insiders like the Dandies, "losers") that are the real rock spirit. BJM's Joel Gion, who talks a LOT, nails the film's message for me when he says (paraphrasing): "You can't forget that Anton has been able to do the only thing he ever said he wanted to do. Make a lot of great music."<br /><br />The Dandies, meanwhile, laugh too easily at every outrageous display in the course of Newcombe's meltdown (all the BJM footage here ends at 1997, before Newcombe quit heroin). Courtney Taylor-Taylor's discounting of Newcombe's commitment to his vision is summed up as follows: "He's 37 and still living in his car. You can download all his work at his website. He was so tired of being ripped off by everyone else, he's giving it all away. He could be making a mint." You can practically hear him shaking his head in disbelief.<br /><br />The film's shortcomings can't be blamed on the filmmakers; rather it's the difficulties of the documentary form, and the loss of cooperation by the film's subject, that makes this portrait of Newcombe so fragmentary. But it's likely the best we will get, outside of his music.<br /><br />I only rented disc one, which has the feature. Most of the extras are on disc two. Not renting that, as I've put in my order to buy the set.

Come on, let's get real. The Knights of Christ, Ordo Templi, or the Knights Templar as they are more commonly called did not even exist until the early 12th century. The story is so laughable that it's pathetic. Dolph Lundgren just looked positively bored. And besides, if you wanted to have a real-life Templar, why not just use the Knights of Christ, who are still in existence in Portugal. At least they should have taken history into account. The only redeeming quality I could find in this movie was that the artifacts looked authentic enough to pass for medieval or Gothic period pieces. The acting was bad, the storyline appalling, the action horrible, and the props were okay.

Popular radio storyteller Gabriel No one(Robin Williams,scraggy and speaking in hushed,hypnotic tones) becomes acquainted and friends with a fourteen-year-old boy from Wisconsin named Pete Logand(Rory Culkin),who has written a book detailing sexual abuse from his parents. To boot,Pete has AIDS and this compels Gabriel further still,since his partner Jess(Bobby Cannavale,good)happens to be a survivor of HIV himself. <br /><br />He also acquaints himself with Pete's guardian,a woman named Donna(Toni Collette,brilliant!)and when Gabriel decides he wants to meet and talk to the two of them in person and goes to Wisconsin,he discovers some secrets he was(naturally)not prepared to find.<br /><br />Based on real events that happened to Armistead Maupin(who co-wrote the screenplay with Terry Anderson)and directed by Patrick Stetner,this film moves a lot faster(90 min.,maybe a few minutes longer)than one might think a movie of this genre would run. That's good in that it keeps the action and storyline lean and clear. It's bad in that it leaves various holes in the plot and doesn't sew-up any of the plot openings or back-story. I'd rather not go into any great detail except to say that,if you are not familiar with Mr.Maupin's works or his personal story,you feel a little bit out of the loop here. Still,the performances by Williams( I would've loved to heard more of his narration,personally),Collette,Cannavale,Culkin and much of the supporting cast(the Waitress at the restaurant Collete's Donna frequents does a great job with what small part she has!)are top-notch and the mood established here--namely,the chilly,lonely dark exteriors of Wisconsin and New York--give a terrific framing for this story. It may have ends that don't tie together particularly well,but it's still a compelling enough story to stick with.

Dana Andrews stands "Where the Sidewalk Ends" in this 1950 film that also stars Gene Tierney, Gary Merrill, Karl Malden and Neville Brand. Andrews plays New York City Detective Sgt. Mark Dixon, a cop with a bad temper who has gotten into trouble in the past for beating suspects. When a man is murdered at a gambling club owned by a mobster, Scalise (Merrill), Dixon and his partner go to investigate. Scalise blames the murder on Ken Paine (Stevens), who has now left the club after fighting not only with his wife, Morgan (Tierney) but the victim. Dixon thinks the victim won a lot of money and was killed as a result by the mobster's men. He goes to see Paine and, not realizing he has a plate in his head from the war, knocks him to the floor and inadvertently kills him. Now he must cover up the murder. As a further complication, he falls for Morgan; her father (Ken Tully), who went to Paine's apartment after he saw that Paine had hit his daughter, is arrested for the crime.<br /><br />This is a really terrific, gritty noir with some good performances. The ruggedly handsome and weathered Andrews is convincing as a tough yet nervous detective who has to stay one step ahead of his colleagues. The movie reunites him with his fabulous "Laura" costar, Gene Tierney, and she looks lovely as a model with bad taste in men who apparently is used to being roughed up. Little does she know, she's got another one on her hands. Ken Tully does a terrific job as her father, who protests his innocence despite some damning evidence. Karl Malden is very tough as Dixon's boss.<br /><br />My only problem with this well-directed, fast-moving and absorbing film is the ending. Pure Hollywood and, putting myself in Tierney's place, I doubt I would react the same way. A minor criticism for a film written by Ben Hecht and directed by Otto Preminger. I didn't find it as awe-inspiring as "Laura," but few things in this world are. If you like film noir, this is a must-see.

You all know the story of "Hamlet". I do. <br /><br /> Well, the "To Be Or Not To Be" phrase (not the speech itself) has been beaten into the ground so many times that it's not very interesting (in fact, it wasn't that great to begin with). In FACT, I find "Hamlet" a good but vastly overrated play. It's not even Shakespeare's best: "Julius Caesar" and "Romeo & Juliet" are ten times better, with "A Midsummer Night's Dream" and "Othello" not too far behind. "Macbeth (knock your table, off his drawers, puck will make amends, OW!)" isn't that bad either. There are lots of others that are better than this by Shakespeare.<br /><br /> I won't really comment too much on the movie, rather I will dissect the utterly horrible MST3K episode.<br /><br /> Okay . . . Mike and the Bots win a card game, get to pick the movie . . . they ask for "Hamlet", Pearl sends them this, yadda yadda yadda . . . and prepare for the most boring Sci-Fi episode of MST3K ever (admittedly, I haven't seen any of the CC Ones).<br /><br /> While "Blood Waters of Dr. Z" makes the viewing of that episode horrible, since it is not really a movie, rather random, spliced-together scenes (I'm reminded of Mike's line from "Future War": "Maybe this is an anthology of short, plotless movies"), the SOL Crew a lot got off a good many good cracks. Can't say the same for here.<br /><br /> The riffs fall flat, the host segments (par usual) are at best mediocre, and when the movie itself (which isn't that bad) is actually BETTER (I mean, as a quality movie, not as camp, like "Prince of Space") than the MST3K version of it, you know the show must be bad. I laughed (the last time I saw it was several months ago), oh, maybe eight or nine times throughout. I tried and tried AND TRIED to be entertained - but I just couldn't. Only the occasional line, like "Hail Queen Dilbert's boss!" (and when that's the funniest line of the episode, well, ahem) - and by occasional, I mean every ten minutes or so - maybe me even chuckle. The second time I tried to watch it, I didn't even laugh at the few jokes I'd found funny before, and simply gave up forty minutes before.<br /><br /> The movie isn't horrible; it's just a German version of Hamlet. The actors are good enough, and though the dubbing isn't the greatest, that's not in itself a reason to hate this film. <br /><br /> Four stars for "Hamlet"; THREE, yes THREE for the MST3K version.<br /><br /> PS: WHY WHY WHY, MST3K!

Once upon a time some evil people made a movie about a guy that got shot into space, supposedly to go to Saturn, but really only to some stock footage of solar flares, and then he gets a nose bleed, and before you know it, he's laying in a hospital bandaged head to foot, and then an overweight nurse with an ill-fitting uniform comes in and gets eaten by the guy, whose supposed to be melting all over the place but never seems to lose any mass, and then NASA, or at least one guy at NASA, gets upset about it and calls one other guy in to hunt him down, but the guy they sent to hunt the melting guy has to go home and have soup first, and his oddly-shaped wife forgot the crackers, so he can't have crackers, and then he has to go out and look for the melting guy with a geiger counter, and that doesn't really work, so he really only follows the trail of half-eaten corpses, and then there's something about a sheriff, and two ugly old people in a lemon grove, and a women with a meat cleaver, and some kind of industrial plant with trigger-happy security guards, and since I can't tell you how the movies ends, all I can say is Jonathan Demme is in it somewhere with some guy with the stupid name of Burr DeBenning, and if there's any justice in the world everyone connected with this movie died a hideous, violent death and was unable to make more movies, and the world lived HAPPILY EVER AFTER - THE END!

For those who are too young to know this or for those who have forgotten, the Disney company went almost down the tubes by the end of the 1980s. People were NOT seeing their movies anymore and the company was not producing the usual wholesome material....at least no what people expected. A major problem: profanity.<br /><br />Yes, the idiots running the Disney movies during that decade would produce films with swear words - including the Lord's name in vain, if you can believe that - interspersed in these "family films." In fact that happens twice here in the first 20 minutes! <br /><br />This movie, in addition to the language problems, has a nasty tone to it, too, which made it unlikeable almost right from the beginning. Thankfully, Disney woke up and has produced a lot of great material since these decadent '80s movies. ("Touchstone" is Disney, just under another name.)

Five across the eyes ain't worth one off the wrist, I must admit at one point i was really worried, for about 30 seconds nobody made a noise and i thought my speakers had blown or that i had gone deaf with the constant screaming and high pitch yelling, me and the speakers are OK now thanks for asking, funnily enough that was the best bit of the film.<br /><br />I won't waste your time telling you the plot, read the other comments for that.<br /><br />If you have bought this DVD but not yet unwrapped it Don't, take it back and demand your money back, i've wasted mine don't do the same.<br /><br />I was actually shouting at the telly " they're over here in the car, look for the camera lights, and get the camera man first ", i have left the swear words out but you can guess where they go.<br /><br />If anybody would like to buy this film (it's really good) it's yours for a ten quid.

Within the first 17 minutes of director Bradford May's "Darkman III: Die Darkman Die", we have already been subjected to a silly recap and accompanying voice-over on the first two films, hilarious over-acting, about three minutes of footage simply ripped from the second film and re-edited slightly to seem like new footage, and a lengthy advertisement the scarred and tormented title character watches about Universal Theme Parks- Universal being the company that distributed this film. Yes, "Darkman III: Die Darkman Die" is quite the handful when it comes to cheap cash-ins on the success of a previous film.<br /><br />This time around, the disfigured anti-hero Peyton Westlake (aka, "Darkman"; portrayed by "Mummy" actor Arnold Vosloo) locks horns with evil crime-lord and lousy husband Peter Rooker (played in a brilliantly over-the-top performance by Jeff Fahey), and over the course of the 87 minute film grows to develop an affection for Rooker's wife and daughter, once again learning to care for another person.<br /><br />Blah. Blah. Blah.<br /><br />This film is basically just a silly way for the studio to make some more money off of Sam Raimi's original film, which I consider to be a great action-suspense film.<br /><br />Oh yeah, and there are also a number of silly sub-plots, including a villainess who supposedly was one of the original doctors to save Darkman following his scarring, and her seducing our hero into thinking she is an ally before revealing her nefarious plot to help Rooker create more super-human powered thugs like Darkman. Apparently, she can't just do the same procedure on the thugs that she performed on Darkman. Why? I can't really explain it, because the movie certainly doesn't.<br /><br />There's also an assassination sub-plot involving a District Attourney who is threatening to bring down Rooker's organization, and some other very silly things going on.<br /><br />But it doesn't really add up. This film feels like two or three episodes of a television show edited together more than an actual film. The direction alternates between pretty good and downright sloppy (a scene where Darkman rides his train-like vehicle and dodges a rocket-launcher is just plain silly), and the editing is a mixed-bag. The film just moves too quickly for anyone to really care what's going on. And without spoiling it, the final 15 minutes of this movie, and indeed, the entire series is just kinda... I dunno... Another 15 minutes of mixed-bag footage.<br /><br />In fact, commenting on the editing, one of my favorite things in this film is watching for footage re-used from the previous films, and then looking for footage within this film that is repeated multiple times. Yes, it's that cheap. It's one thing to do a re-cap at the beginning of the film, and maybe repeat a shot or two, but in the sheer volume they do it (minutes of footage repeated from previous films), it's just sloppy and amateurish.<br /><br />Also, I have to say that Darkman's psychedelic montage freak-outs are a bit overdone in this film. They are so stylized and overdone that they do work, but only in light doses and in proper context, as Raimi did in the original film. Here, there are at least four or five, and they feel very abrupt and out-of-place.<br /><br />That being said, the film is not without some good points. A few action scenes are well-done. The cliché story of Darkman yearning for a real life works suitably for a direct-to-DVD feature. Some of the acting is nice, particularly from Rooker's wife, portrayed by the beautiful Roxann Dawson. Also, while no Danny Elfman, composer Randy Miller composes some nice music that builds off of Elfman's original themes.<br /><br />But overall, the film is too quick, cheap and silly to be taken seriously. Arnold Vosloo seems alternatively bored and exuberant from scene to scene, and Fahey, while a joy to watch as an over-the-top villain, just doesn't quite fit in with the series.<br /><br />Like "Darkman II", I would recommend this to fans of the original, who will surely get a laugh. Otherwise, you need not apply. A four out of ten.

13 days to Glory tells the traditional tale with sympathy toward the Mexican viewpoint. The major problem in this movie was that while cowboy actor James Arness played the part of Jim Bowie persuasively, the rest of the name actors in the cast Brian Keith (Davy Crocket) and Lorne Greene (Sam Houston) were too old.<br /><br />Raul Julia played General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna with grace and dignity owed to the professional soldier who after all won the battle. The scene where he upbraids his officers for failing to mount a guard and prevent a sortee is one the scriptwriters did not understand. Failing to keep watch is a major remiss in the military. Santa Anna was within his prerogatives to be angry. Raul Julia magnificently carried poor writing through the scene.<br /><br />Kathleen York was an impressive Susannah Dickinson, a woman who deserves to be remembered for her courage. However, Kathleen York might have been reminded that as Dickinsons hailed from Pennsylvania they probable dis not sound very Southron.

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

As you may know, the subject here was to ask eleven directors from all over the world to make each a short movie of 11 minutes, 9 seconds and one frame. We have here : - Samira Makhmalbaf (Iran) : what afghan refugee kids can understand to the towers collapsing ? Well, nothing. A great lesson. - Claude Lelouch (France) : a weak plot with a great cinematography... Just imagine a deaf woman living by the WTC who sees without understanding it that her dog barks... Well just see it. - Youssef Chahine (Egypt) : the greatest oriental movie maker has compassion... For everyone : for an us soldier who died ten years ago, for the people in the Wtc but also for a palestinian suicide-terrorist. Maybe the less tender movie towards the us. - Danis Tanovic (bosnia hrzgovia) : good images, makes us travel, for sure... Not a very good plot. Idrissa Oudraogo (Burkina Faso) : from one of the poorest country in the world, a tender and funny story about five boys who want to capture Osama Bin Laden... And they could have done it but nobody believes them when they tell they know where he is. Ken Loach (uk) : September 11, 1973, The Chile entered in a twenty-years long bloody dictature. Thousands of death, tortures : all that was offered to Chile by Henry Kissinger and the CIA, and knowing this changes very much your point of view ! I guess that is because of that particular short that no american movie distribution company accepted to release the movie in us theaters ! Loach forgot to point that 1973 is also the year when the WTC was built ! - Alejandro Gonzalez inarritu (Mexico) : impressing images that we all know too well, and a lot of black screens. I didn't get this one very much, it is more an artist video (to show in an exhibition) than a movie. - Amos Gitaï (Israël) : an absurd ballet of policemen, journalists, etc., around a burning car in Jerusalem. Very well done. - Mira Nair (India) : about the anti-islamic feeling that followed september the 11th. Very good actualy. - Sean Penn (us) : a funny little story that reminds us a fact usualy forgotten, the WTC did have a huge shadow, and some places now have a daylight they never had. - Shohei Imamura (Japan) : a different one. Here there is not even one word about the WTC, and the action takes place at the end of WWII. It has only one message : no war is holy. This short movie gives very deep feelings, but the director aparently would have done better with more than 11 minutes. --- so --- A great movie, a great attempt to take the world's temperature. I love it.

I rated Basic instinct 2 high, yet that movie got less than a 4 rating. This film only got a 4 from me, but it has 7.3 from over 600 people. I don't see a reason why they like this film so much.<br /><br />This film is boring, because it hardly ever leaves those rooms in that broken big house. And it only has a total of 5 people in this film. It is almost two hours long which is totally unnecessary. Many of dialogues are slow and meaningless. The film tone is also dark blue which is depressing to watch. The film can just be shorten to a few sentences.<br /><br />This film reminds me of "Three times" directed by Hou Hsiao hsien, that one is equally boring, the dialogues are also equally boring. It also has a high rating! I had to stop watching that one after the first story finished.<br /><br />This film lacks of passion or excitement.

I saw this film when I was a young child on television (thank-you Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) and had nightmares about it for years afterwards.<br /><br />Trnka was one of the mentors for Bratislav Pojar, one of Canada's National Film Board's best animators. Pojar was, in turn a mentor and collaborator for the great Drouin. If you like Trnka you should see "Night Angel".<br /><br />The symbolism is obvious, but deftly used. The oppositions of beauty and life (the plant) are placed in opposition with the anonymity of the gloved hand. The poor puppet hero is condemned despite a lack of political agenda.<br /><br />What I most remembered was the feeling of oppression in the decor. The small room where the action takes place is the character's entire world. The invasion by the hand is a complete violation of that world.<br /><br />Beautiful and haunting film. I found a copy of this and other wonderful shorts by Trnka at the public library and showed it to my own kids. A must see.

Perhaps it's because I am so in love with the William Holden - Kim Novak version, or because I'm not a Gen-X'er, but this was absolutely the worst remake I have ever seen. Without the original's soundtrack, it just seemed like another typical TV movie...yes, about as bland as Kraft cheese.

you can tell they spent 5$ making this.it is a waste of your time... ugh.. there is not anything remotely good about this movie... .. i don't know why i kept watching it.. the chick is not hot. horrid acting.. you could do anything and its a better use of your time.. like watching TV playing shitty video games.. i feel robbed. simply robbed.. of my time . i have never made a review for a movie before as you can probably tell but this movie i felt like i needed to save the poor souls that are about to watch it and looking on IMDb before to see if its decent and looking at the comments. -there was no action- -no hot chicks- -no budget- -shittttttttttttttty acting- it screams bad movie. ****the WHOLE movie is in a room.***

Brides are dying at the altar, and their corpses are disappearing. Everybody is concerned, but nobody seems to be able to figure out why and how this is happening, nor can they prevent it from happening. Bear with me. Bela Lugosi is responsible for this, as he is extracting spinal fluid from these young women to transfuse his ancient wife and keep her alive. Continue to bear with me. Finally, the authorities figure out that somebody must be engineering the deaths and disappearances, but of course, they can't figure out the improbable motive. Let's just ignore the ludicrous pseudoscience and move on... If you can get through the first twenty minutes of this mess, you will be treated to Lugosi whipping his lab assistant for disrespecting one of the brides he has murdered, explaining that he finds sleeping in a coffin much more comfortable than a bed, and other vague parodies of real horror films (the kind with budgets and plots). Anyhoo - a female journalist follows her nose to the culprit (and remarkably the inept police are nowhere to be seen!), and then the fun really starts.<br /><br />The cinematography and acting are OK. There are a lot of well dressed, very good looking people in this film. The directing is fair, and the script is a little better than the material deserved. Nevertheless, this film fails to sustain the interest of all but the most hardened b-film fan. The best thing about it.... It does eventually end, but not soon enough.

There is a lot of obvious hype associated with this film. Let's just face it, though, the main reasons why anyone would watch it would be for Leo and Cate, who are not necessarily the best actors in this film. I'm not saying they're not good actors, I'm saying they stunk in this film. The special effects were decent (and I will say the film makers did a good job making the ship eye-pleasing), but IT even has several major flaws. For instance, right before the ship goes under, you can see an unfinished blue-screen image behind your main characters.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the story of the REAL Titanic, but I find this movie an insult to that story. Editing was atrocious--there's no reason for any film to be over 2 1/2 hours (with the exception of MAYBE a biographical movie), and the writing and screenplay was horribly stilted.<br /><br />I will say that the music was perhaps better than I could have predicted (and not just the "My Heart Will Go On" song either). There is one scene that stands out to me when the ship is sinking and pounding bass music is heard. That could very well be the highlight of the film. As for the mood throughout, it was extremely dull. I was more relieved than sad when Jack died, which I know cannot be what the director intended.<br /><br />In a nut shell, I find it horrible that they turned the beautiful story of the Titanic into an over-hyped chick flick.

One more of those brilliant young men who went all out and dared to make a teen romance film( can i actually call it that?- it would invoke the devil out of its fans)on a micro budget but packed with such taste, sensitiveness and maturity. Peter Sollett- you deserve more admiration and respect.Thanks once again for demonstrating to the powers that be in the "industry" that stereotypes can be flushed down the toilet. One location,a handful of rich characters, low budget,good acting(and that too amateurs),decent lighting - worshippers of true indie cinema should watch more of this and STOP watching...well...you know what.

A group of us watched this film are were really disgusted. We were willing to forgive the fact that our favorite character Jo wasn't on (it's not like the writers/producers could do anything about that). The writing was poor, the script was sub-par. What REALLY annoyed us: 1. When the two guys realized they were both dating Natalie, they didn't just leave they put up with that stupid (and ultimately degrading) contest - but only because they were macho competing guys, not because they really wanted Natalie. 2. Despite being unable to choose between the two guys before the reunion, Natalie suddenly decides that she really loves one of the guys and is now ready to marry him? (and there was no foreshadowing that he was really a better guy, it's as if the writers flipped a coin and then just had her spit it out at some convenient point in the film). 3. Blair makes a point of talking about how she does not want children and then all of a sudden when her husband says he wants to have children, she blissfully agrees with him.

This movie was absolute torture. First of all, it's a whopping 4+ hours long! True, the Kargil war may have had several points that were captured and fought for, but every single one of those battles need not have been shown. So maybe this is a documentary, not a commercial film as advertised. Sure didn't seem like it, as enough background information was not given and there were some flaws. The battle sequences were so poorly executed. I am terribly disappointed from the man who gave well done sequences in Border. Each battle was the exact same as the previous. It was so predictable. (This might be a spoiler.) The whole army marches uphill, five or so soldiers curse five thousand times each (they also use the same cussword every time), one of the lead actors is shot, someone yells for a stretcher, the actor says, "No, don't get a stretcher. That will take 6 men from the battalion," and then an actor dies. That exact same thing happens over and over and over again. Oh, and the songs are so bad and so long. The cast of the movie is too big for its own good. Despite such a long movie, none of the characters were well developed. The actresses had the most miniscule roles. They all are dressed and portrayed to be the same. Two of them were weeping synchronized. It was so comical. They moved their hands and heads at the exact same time and then bit their dupatta together.<br /><br />The list just goes on and on. I know I'm still forgetting something . Anyways, I think I have bashed the film enough that you get the picture.

Picture Bride paints a realistic and moving portrait of what it must have been like for Japanese men brought to Hawaii at the turn of the 19th Century to work in the sugar cane fields. Most came planning to return to their homeland, but few were ever able to do so. Equally movingly portrayed is the fate of Japanese women, some as young as fifteen or sixteen, who were sent as promised brides to men they knew only through photographs that often were 10 or 15-years out of date, or were of some other younger man. They too worked long hard hours in the fields, while fighting homesickness and to preserve their dignity.<br /><br />Director Hatta's portrayal of one picture bride's courage and perseverance struggling to survive in a strange land and alien society under great physical duress, is, ultimately, inspirational and uplifting--a story of moral and cultural survival. There is a grandness and magnificence of sweep of character and landscape in Picture Bride that captures the alluring beauty as well as violent harshness of colonial Hawaii. This is a film that is emotionally, intellectually and artistically rewarding.