Datasets:

paduraru2009

/

imdb-sample2

like 0

Without doubt Beat Street is the best film about the breakin scene. Everything about it is spot on,the clothes (puma),the music and most importantly the dancing! The storyline is basic,but hey whats there to tell a story about? The whole point of the film is to show what kids of that moment in time were doing,what mattered to them. It shows that teenagers in general are good,all that mattered to these everyday kids was music,dancing and friendship. Having watched the DVD recently i was plesantly surprised how well it had stood the test of time! The clothes didn't look dated (possibly because Puma is now having a massive comeback),the music still sounds fresh,and the dancing is still captivating to watch. A film anyone 10-25 years of age should see as part of their youth culture.

If there was a 0 stars rating i would gladly hand it out to this absolutely horrid pile of waste. The fact that the actual summary is perfectly fine and that if it had been made different it could have been brilliant only makes it worse. The basic task of locking up a group of people in an experiment chamber is fine, but WHERES THE EXPERIMENT? All i see is a bunch of unintelligent surfers and blondes chatting about music and culture i don't know or want to know about... The challenges are pathetic and silly. The whole point of reality TV is to show REALITY. If you set a 'challenge' don't make them play with exaggerated props of food and stereotypical cultural elements in 'friday night games'. make them do an actual challenge. And as for 'earning' prize money, thats fine, if they actually earnt it! These people are nuts. If only they would make the show better, the actual idea would be glorious. But that ain't gonna happen!

This films makes no pretentious efforts to hide its true genre -- a campy B movie. It will flat out tell you in the beginning the definition of campy. It should have also given the adjective meaning of cheese. But the two come together in this film in ways that make you go, "Hmmmmm... that's so stupid!" and then have you laughing. For example, there is a scene back in "16th Century Japan", which shows a couple of samurai walking in the foreground of a temple. In the background of the temple, there are several tourists looking off in the distance in slippers and shorts. Hmmmm... hahahah! I could not stop laughing. And the acting goes from decent, to bearable, to oh my Lord, but that's what makes it funny. You'll see some decent actors and then find others really terrible. I have to digress somewhat though because I have seen Stephanie Sanchez in several plays and she is awesome. Her air time in the film was pretty short though. I have also seen Bryan Yamasaki in several plays in the islands during my visits and he's also better in theatre than in this movie. Anyhow, it's an entertaining film, if you've got nothing to do on a weekday evening.

Normally, I don't like revenge films....PERIOD. But Double Impact has a little more than your typical revenge plot premise. You see, DI has action, accuracy, exotic locales(i.e. Hong Kong), awesome gun battles, and enough martial arts to satisfy your cravings for impressive unarmed combat. Like all revenge flicks, it has villains you'd love to throw out of a plate-glass window on the top floor of a 40-story building! However, Double Impact has none of the sensationalist crap that suffocates the plot and the elitist, racist, and venomous social stereotypes that invaded "Eye for an Eye" and "Death Wish 2".<br /><br />But in the plot department Double Impact is as transparent as saran wrap. Chad and Alex's parents were killed by a mob hit squad connected to a family friend with money problems or at least that's what I remembered. The explanation of why the boys were talking in French accents is a lousy one. It wasn't the watery plot that made this movie bad, but the use of clichéd lines and moves from other movies (from Lethal Weapon to The Princess Bride) really made it worse. But nonetheless Double Impact is still watchable. But why is that shitty movies like this have villains(for example,that greedy British guy that killed Chad and Alex's parents and that lethal lesbian redhead chick) you would love to hate with fiber of your being?

The movie starts out with a bunch of Dead Men Walking peeps sitting in individual cells, waiting for their inevitable meeting with death represented by the electrical chair.<br /><br /> Then our "hero", who is called Tenshu, is taken to the chair, he's zapped, and then....he's still "Alive". AHA ! He is given a choice by some creepy military guys who look really cool : Either we zap you until we've made sure you're actually dead OR you can walk through this door and take whatever destiny might lie ahead of you". Our hero says yes to option 2, and then the actual story commences.<br /><br /> He wakes up in a different sort of cell (very high-tech and very big), where he finds another cell-mate, who also managed to survive the electric boogie-ride. A voice in the speakers tells them that they are free to do whatever they wish, as long as it happens within that room. Sounds a little suspicious, but the two men accept : What else can they do ?<br /><br /> What these two men do not know is that they have been set together, so they can awaken an inner urge to kill within them. Basically the unknown scientists in the background p**s them off until they decide that they should kill each other. Sounds weird ? Indeed, but there's a greater purpose to all of this. THIS is the part which should not be revealed, and so it shall remain unrevealed.<br /><br /> But fear not, it is the unknown that lures the viewer to watch more of this pseudo-action movie, fore it has an entirely different approach to the question : How long time can you stand being with a man who's an S.O.B. and would you kill him to obtain freedom ?<br /><br /> The first hour is basically trying to awaken your interest, it sneaks up without you actually knowing it. Then it becomes a roller coaster ride with WILD Matrix-like action fight-scenes with a touch of individuality to honor the comic book from which the movie is based upon.<br /><br /> The movie is indeed very special, so special that normal cinemas won't view it under normal circumstances. However, the story is fascinating, the music is fantastic, and the actors do their bit (some more than others) to make the movie truly unique.<br /><br /> If you should be so fortunate that your cinema or video store has it, watch it, and enjoy the fact that not everyone is trying to make mainstream movies to earn huge bunches of cash.<br /><br />

Documentary about nomadic Persians making a treacherous traverse of massive mountains to get their herds to grass. Watching this silent, black and white feature, marred in part by a twink-twink-twink Oriental music score that could not have been used in the original exhibition, is even duller than it sounds. The spectacular scenery is lost on a small black and white screen, and there is an utter failure to establish any kind of plot line. I loved Nanook of the North and March of the Penguins, but despised this movie, notwithstanding the similarity of the theme. Physical hardships alone are just not that interesting.

the government that he fought to establish to recognize his loyalty with a promised and much needed pension. Ripstein's lyrical work is a sweet ode to all those who, like the Colonel, suffer under the abuses of a cynical and hardened society that strengthens itself by denying its citizens the means to live with dignity and purpose. Unlike the absurdity of WAITING FOR GODOT, the Colonel's wait for the arrival of his pension gives hope and significance to his otherwise miserable life. Two things in the film drive the Colonel who is masterfully played by Fernando Lujan; the hope that his military pension will one day arrive and the knowledge that his son, Agustin, died for a noble cause, a reason other than a drunken fracas at a rigged cockfight. Unable to realize the former, and forced to prove to the world the latter, the Colonel does the only thing he can do, set about training his son's fighting cock. The cock is now the warrior who can bring fortune and justice to the Colonel and his asthmatic wife, but his fighting ring is that of the killer of his former owner, Agustin. In a tense scene of confrontation between the Colonel and Nogales, his son's killer, the Colonel is offered by Nogales, a paid government agent, money enough to equal the Colonel's full pension. But, this is blood money; hush money designed to hide the fact that those in power have turned their backs on one who fought for their political ideals, and to conceal to the world that the warrior colonel's son was assassinated because he wrote for an underground paper that favored the rights of labor unions and the common man. With maximum dignity, the Colonel rejects Nogales' offer, picks up his fighting rooster and walks away as nobly as his old legs can carry him. Once he is at home, Dona Lola, his scolding wife, wants to know why the Colonel refused the money when both of them are starving. In response to her continued question, "What are we going to eat until November (when the cockfighting season begins)", the Colonel responds, "Shit." Excrement is what the poor and disenfranchised have been eating all of their lives, and excrement is a meal that the Colonel willingly chooses to eat with dignity, knowing that he could never sell his soul to those who oppress him. The Colonel waits as the only man of honor and valor in a world without principles.

I think this movie was probably a lot more powerful when it first debuted in 1943, though nowadays it seems a bit too preachy and static to elevate it to greatness. The film is set in 1940--just before the entry of the US into the war. Paul Lukas plays the very earnest and decent head of his family. He's a German who has spent seven years fighting the Nazis and avoiding capture. Bette Davis is his very understanding and long-suffering wife who has managed to educate and raise the children without him from time to time. As the film begins, they are crossing the border from Mexico to the USA and for the first time in years, they are going to relax and stop running.<br /><br />The problem for me was that the family was too perfect and too decent--making them seem like obvious positive propaganda instead of a real family suffering through real problems. While this had a very noble goal at the time, it just seems phony today. In particular, the incredibly odd and extremely scripted dialog used by the children just didn't ring true. It sounded more like anti-Fascism speeches than the voices of real children. They were as a result extremely annoying--particularly the littlest one who came off, at times, as a brat. About the only ones who sounded real were Bette Davis and her extended American family as well as the scumbag Romanian living with them (though he had no discernible accent).<br /><br />It's really tough to believe that the ultra-famous Dashiel Hammett wrote this dialog, as it just doesn't sound true to life. The story was based on the play by his lover, Lillian Hellman. And, the basic story idea and plot is good,...but the dialog is just bad at times. Overall, an interesting curio and a film with some excellent moments,...but that's really about all.

CLASS OF '61 <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.33:1<br /><br />Sound format: Stereo<br /><br />In 1861, class members from the West Point Academy are torn apart by the outbreak of the Civil War.<br /><br />Gregory Hoblit's OK historical drama makes an obvious point - virtuous men are rendered blind by conflict - though the production seems a little stilted, despite authentic period detail and a cast of talented newcomers (Clive Owen, Christien Anholt, Josh Lucas, Andre Braugher, Laura Linney, etc.), toplined by Dan Futterman as a conscientious Southerner who takes up arms in defence of slavery, pitting him in direct conflict with his former Northern friends. The movie's emphasis on such a misguided - though sympathetic - character is particularly brave, but the drama is otherwise flat and superficial, and Hoblit's direction is efficient rather than inspired.

Granted, this seems like a good idea. Steve Martin, Goldie Hawn, and John Cleese in a Neil Simon comedy. Where can you go wrong? Watch the movie, and you'll find out.<br /><br />In truth, Martin, the lead, is mis-cast. He's not doing the great slapstick he's known for, from movies like "The Jerk", but instead plays a sort of in-between character that doesn't work. Hawn, with no one to play off of, is terrible. Cleese is the only even partially funny member.<br /><br />To top it off, the plot is pretty stupid. I can't say how much of it may have been changed, but the characters seem to lack the slightest bit of common sense. They blunder through New York, not doing anything right, and unfortuneatly, nothing funny. Not only is the whole premise completely unbelievable, it seems to give the message that people who don't live in New York aren't very bright, a theme repeated throughout the movie.<br /><br />In summation, instead of seeing this, go rent the original "Odd Couple" again.

When I was a little girl (and my dad owned a video store), this was among my favorite movies. I hadn't heard much about it since then, nor did I really remember anything about it, it having been forgotten in the wake of Don Bluth's other, probably better films. I managed to track it down a few weeks ago, however, and was pleasantly surprised again. Set in New Orleans in the 1930s, the animation is delightful and the songs are memorable. There are a few goofs in continuity if you look hard enough, but they generally don't detract from the storyline, which leaves you smiling (and maybe even a little misty-eyed, if you are a lover of animals). The characters are believable (maybe even a little too grown-up for younger watchers), as well. Two paws up, and for those of you who haven't seen it in a while, definitely worth a re-watch.

Songwriter Robert Taylor (as Terry) is "dizzy, slap-happy" and can't see straight over otherworldly Norma Shearer (as Consuelo). "She makes the sun shine, even when it's raining," Mr. Taylor explains. But, Mr. Taylor gets a lump in his throat whenever he gets near Ms. Shearer. Finally, at the Palm Beach casino Shearer frequents, Taylor proclaims "I love you!" Shearer brushes him off, as she is engaged to George Sanders (as Tony). However, to settle a gambling debt, Shearer hires Taylor to pose as "Her Cardboard Lover", to make Mr. Sanders jealous.<br /><br />This film's title invites the obvious and appropriate three-word review: "Her Cardboard Movie". It is most notable as the last film appearance for Shearer, one of the biggest stars in the world from "He Who Gets Slapped" (1924, playing another Consuelo) to "The Women" (1939). To be fair, this was likely the kind of Shearer film MGM believed audiences wanted to see. However, the part is unflattering.<br /><br />Plucked and powered, Taylor and Shearer were better off in "The Escape" (1940). If Shearer had continued, she might have become a better actress than "leading lady"; apparently, she was no longer interested, and certainly didn't need the money. Taylor has a great scene, reciting Christina Rossetti's "When I am Dead, My Dearest" while threatening to jump from Shearer's balcony, as directed by George Cukor.<br /><br />**** Her Cardboard Lover (6/42) George Cukor ~ Norma Shearer, Robert Taylor, George Sanders

It all started with True Heart Bear & Noble Heart Horse get the club to safety. Noble Heart Horse meet Dawn & John & took them to see True Heart Bear. Later, The care meter went down more & True Heart Bear & Noble Heart Horse check to see if it Dark Heart but they can't go unless the club at care for so they ask Dawn & John to care for the club. After True Heart Bear & Noble Heart Horse Come back, They send Dawn & John back to camp. Than the club & cousin bears have grown up to get ready to fight Dark Heart. At the end, Dark Heart kidnap all the care bear & the kids (Dawn & John) have to tell Christy that Dark Heart is evil. Than they work to together to save the Care Bears. Later, True Heart Bear & Noble Heart Horse found out it Dark Heart shadow & return to care land to find that their gone. The Kids (Dawn, John, & Christy) come but they was not powerful to stop Dark Heart. True Heart Bear & Noble Heart Horse come to help Dawn, John, & Christy to free the other care bears but Christy got in the way & was hit by Dark Heart magic. Than Dark Heart saw Christy got hit & stop fighting the care bear in order to help her but he can't because Dark Heart (himself) don't have the power of caring to save Christy. The care bears & the kids help Dark Heart save Christy. Now Dark Heart starting to care & became a real boy to fall in love with Christy. Dark Heart is now a real boy & help out Christy to work out in camp.<br /><br />This is a great move ever & the best Care Bears Movie I ever seeing.<br /><br />I like all the care bears movies & I can't wait to see "Care Bears: Big Wish Movie (2005)".<br /><br />Who like this movie?

'P' (or Club-P) should really be called 'L' for lame. Every festival has a disappointment and this is the one that fails to live up to its much-hyped logline: "Thai lesbians fighting monsters." Rather, this is the tale of a Khmer country girl who's grandmother has taught her a little witchcraft along with a few odd (but specific) rules: "don't walk under a clothesline," "don't eat raw meat," and "don't accept money for your powers." Well, guess what folks, the girl moves to Bangkok to raise some money as a 'bar-girl' and manages to break all the rules granny taught her which subsequently releases an evil spirit that conveniently kills the 'foreign johns' who pay for her services.<br /><br />While this film can't even be released in Thailand due to it's controversial subject matter most American audiences will find this ho-hum horror pic a cross between "Showgirls" and "Interview with the Vampire" as directed by Walt Disney.<br /><br />If not for a few scenes with significant amounts of blood the MPAA could probably rate this for pre-teens only. There is literally broadcast TV adult fare, although you'd expect at least a sex scene considering the fact that the film is about a brothel and one of the actresses is a Thai porn star in real life.<br /><br />As for the 'lesbian' angle, there's one brief smooch and a couple of "I love you's" to prove that the two main stars really are a couple (on brother). And the P-bar has got to be the only exotic dance club on the planet where the girls keep their sarongs on and do carnival stunts (there's a swordsman who cuts cucumbers out of a girl's mouth ... ooh, phallic imagery).<br /><br />NO nudity, NO real monster (unless you count a five foot high Thai spirit with yellow eyes), and no way any ADULT should ever pay to see this kind of stupidity except on DVD. You've been warned!

This movie probably had some potential for something; my bewilderment is how these utterly prosaic unfunny themes keep making it to theaters, it's as if ideas are being recycled just because generations are. Truly the decerebrate oafs behind most films are like dogs, they return to ingest their own vomit. Well, they're 19 bucks richer now because of me. This was not at all imaginative, there was no redeeming moment, anything remotely funny was shown in the trailer (and nothing amusing was in the trailer), performances were strained (especially Molly's, totally unconvincing). What was theoretically supposed to be some comic relief was the homoerotic friend with a penchant for Disney films; none of his analogies hit home, his little moral speeches were flat, I was literally waiting for them to go on to say something meaningful, only to find out he was done. The so-called "hard 10" is the most insipid plastic creature there is (apart from having a horse-like face with a weird smile); I honestly found her friend Patty (referred to as the Hamburglar) to be much better looking than her. But then again, gentlemen prefer brunettes ;) Well, anyway, the whole premise is that society is superficial and if love is true it transcends all social facades; the way they showed this, with a dude shaving another's scrotum and the million-times-mutilated-and-beaten-to-death-horse premature ejaculation routine (with obvious allusions to American Pie and Happiness - the latter in the disgusting scene denouement involving the family dog). I feel as if the movie was like adjoining ridiculous jokes into an unformed wretched ball of raw sewage. Goes to show marketing can push anything out there, shine whatever fetid mass and call it gold, people will come (worked for me). Done with tirade.

That's not just my considered verdict on this film, but also on the bulk of what has been written about it. Now don't get me wrong here either, I'm not a total philistine, I didn't hate the movie because it wasn't enough like 'police academy 9' or whatever, I enjoy more than my fair share of high brow or arty stuff, I swear.<br /><br />'Magnolia' is poor, and I am honestly mystified as to why it is seemingly so acclaimed. Long winded, self indulgent, rambling nonsense from start to finish, there is just so little that could credibly be what people so love about the movie. There's some high calibre actors fair enough, and none turns in an average or worse performance. Furthermore, my wife (a self confessed Tom Cruise hater) tells me it's his career best performance by far. But the plot is so completely unengaging, meandering between the stories of several loosely connected characters at such a snail's pace that even when significant life changing events are depicted they seem so pointless and uninteresting you find yourself crying out for someone to get blown up or something.<br /><br />It doesn't help that none of the characters are very easy to identify or empathise with (well I didn't think so, but I don't like most people admittedly). They all play out their rather unentertaining life stories at great length, demonstrating their character flaws and emotions in ever-so intricate detail and playing out their deep and meaningful relationships to the nth degree with many a waffling soliloquy en route. Yadda yadda yadda. The soundtrack's dire as well, with that marrow-suckingly irritating quality that I had hitherto thought unique to the music of Alanis Morisette.<br /><br />All in all, it was about as enjoyable a three hours as being forced to repeatedly watch an episode of 'Friends' whilst being intermittently poked in the ribs by a disgruntled nanny goat. The bit with the frogs is good though.

I'm still trying to figure out if there was a point to this film.<br /><br />For content that's supposed to be so 'rebellious' and 'controversial' the things that Maddox distributes to the students are awfully lame. Students seem to be easily swayed by vague anti-authoritarian sentiments and snippets of words illegibly scrawled onto leaflets. Rebel, everybody.<br /><br />I suppose it would have been too much to ask to have a teenage rebellion film where a school fire alarm doesn't get set off.<br /><br />Apparently a 'huge fight up on the football fields' is a fight that consists of two people.<br /><br />Characters personalities seem to wildly vary at random. A football jock who Maddox was fighting (and who subsequently got a staple on the face) is all smiles and apologies the next day.<br /><br />The fact that it doesn't come to any real conclusion of the plot makes me feel that the whole thing could have been fitted into a half hour after school special. If they had cut most of the attempted pseudo-glitch soundtrack.

...is the only way to describe this movie about subjects that should be surefire: scandal, sex, celebrity, power. Kirsten Dunst grins her way through her role as silent movie star Marion Davies like she thinks she's in "Legally Blonde." The guy who plays William Randolph Hearst overacts to the point where you want to reach into the screen and slap him. Eddie Izzard is pretty good, except that he's playing Charlie Chaplin, and is about, oh, 125 lbs too heavy for the part? Hard to believe this hamfisted, uneven wreck was directed by Peter Bogdanovich, but then again, he hasn't made a watchable movie in, what? 30 years? Sometimes, there's just no coming back.

I saw this film (it's English title is "Who's Singing Over There?") at the 1980 Montreal International Film Festival. It won raves then... and disappeared. A terrible shame. It is brilliant. Sublime, ridiculous, sad, and extremely funny. The script is a work of art. It's been 19 years and I've seen only a handful of comedies (or any other genre, for that matter) that can match its originality.

This is blatantly a futuristic adaptation of Jules Verne's "Mysterious Island". The sound editing is pretty bad. You hear the dialogue on set and you hear the voices being recorded on a recording booth at the same time! This is an amateur film with actors from Boston and shot around New Hampshire. For those living in New Engalnd and who is reading this comment will be wowed with a capital W. This film is full of flaws. You get to hear the director's voice giving directions and giving out directions to the actress. "OK now stand up." As for the other characters. There is this guy who talks with his mind instead of his voice and this blue alien. The alien guy talks with a deep voice. When he is yawning or grunting when he is fighting you hear the actor's voice. As for the special effects, man! This was Brett Piper's early work for crying out loud! The creatures are good but the animation is jerky. Really jerky. Sort of like Karl Zeman animation in JOURNEY TO BEGINNING OF TIME (1955). The special effects are imaginative. Thge music is good. Bottom line, this film makes EQUINOX or PLANET OF THE DINOSAURS look like a Ray Harryhausen epic. Did you know MYSTERIOUS PLANET was a home movie and was on a shoes string budget? A must watch for aspiring film makers.

I've seen better teenage werewolf movies in my time, this one however, takes the cake. More comedy than horror, "Full Moon High" puts the "c" in cheese-fest. The star quality in this movie is not bad. Just the way it was made just sends in rolling downhill. Adam Arkin plays Tony, an all-American high school football player of the 50's who ends up not aging due to a werewolf bite in Transylvania. The most annoying part of the movie was the violin player. He drove everyone batty! Ed McMahon plays his ultra-conservative father who met his end of his own bullet. Adam's father Alan plays a shrink who seems to be not top of his game. After all these years Tony seems to be very out of place due to the attack, and then he'll get the chance to catch in his state. More laugh than blood shed, this movie is just a start in the 80's, "Teen Wolf" was an improvement from this! 1 out of 5 stars.

This foolish, implausible tale is redeemed only by the opening scene in which a hard-boiled police detective delivers some nearly-audible lines confirming our greatest fears: He is dead. Perhaps the film would have been saved had the director forgone the dazzling star power of A. Martinez in favor of this sadly-anonymous actor who filled the screen for a brief moment. That a no-name hack-tor off the street could salvage such a dishwater film is no less likely than a villain committing murder by dropping stones into a quarry for an unsuspecting diver. His moment is brief; his promise is immense. Perhaps we will be treated to more screen time by this obscure thespian if there is ever a sequel to this ill-advised film.

The Impossible Planet and The Satan Pit together comprise the two best episodes of the 'new' Doctor Who's second season. Having said that, it should be obvious that much of the story basically transposes the plot of Quatermass and the Pit (1967) to an outer space setting, with the history of the universe intertwined with that of the Beast 666. These episodes cement the emotional ties between Rose and the Doctor, whilst also highlighting Rose's increasing self-confidence, establishing her as a not-quite-equal-yet-but-getting-there partner with our beloved Time Lord. Also of note is Matt Jones elegant screenplay, which decreases the occasional over-reliance on one-liners for the Doctor, and the performances of the entire cast, most notably the excellent Shaun Parkes as acting Captain Zachary Cross Flane.

I am surprised that everyone (even the critics) seems to think this was a good movie. It was the most clichéd thriller ever made that I have seen. We have the 'bad guy' who wants to force the 'good guy' (or girls in this case) to do something or face the consequence. The 'good girl' in this movie must use her smarts and skills to defeat the 'bad guy' and save the day and her loved ones. Using charisma, bravery, and even luck to save the day. <br /><br />Where to begin? Well, a young woman by the name of Lisa Reisert meets a young man by the name of Jackson Rippner (nice name) at an airport. One coincidence leads to another and soon it seems as if fate is bringing these two together. Sharing drinks, sitting next to each other, seemingly getting along in every way... Is there more to this strangeness? Could these two be meant for each other? Does 'fate' have a reason for their strange and random encounter? <br /><br />Well, as it turns out, unfortunately yes. Jackson needs to Lisa to help him assassinate the Director of Homeland Security by moving him from one room to another so that his men can launch an attack on him. Oh, if she doesn't do this then her father is dead. Though we never learn the exact reasons why and who is really behind this madness, Jackson more then explains how this is going to happen and why its in Lisa's best interest to help him.<br /><br />Of course, Lisa defeats his evil plans with her smarts and in the process stabs him in the neck, makes him trip over chairs, and hitting him with a field hockey stick. Oh, and before that, she leads him on wild chase through Miami airport where she gets passed post 9 11 security and steals a car that she later uses to run over the man who was ordered to kill her father. <br /><br />Yeah, right.<br /><br />First of all, I find it strange that a man like Jackson who can get his hands on high tech weaponry needs the help of a hotel manager. Couldn't he just sneak a bomb into the building? Wouldn't that make it safer for him and his team by leaving out any third parties? And why do characters like Jackson also explain everything they are going to do to someone they are threatening? Doesn't that make it easier to stop them by the same people? <br /><br />The actors did their best considering the movie they were given. Racheal McAdams and Cillian Murphy are still actors to look out for. Also, I believe that Jayma Mays (who played the 'loveable' Cynthia) will be someone we will see more of. It's just too bad they all were stuck with this.<br /><br />2 out of 10

Rumour has it that around the time that ABBA – the multi-award winning Swedish disco favourites –'s star had reached its zenith, the band grew disillusioned with singing in English and yearned to perform in their native tongue. Soon after, problems began to emerge in the onetime-wed locked-watertight partnership and recordings became less and less frequent. The band dissolved, albeit unofficially, in 1982 and pop lost one of its most celebrated artists. Although they have never admitted that there's any truth in those rumours, the fact remains that ABBA would never have been so successful had they only recorded in their native tongue. If you want to appeal to the largest money-making media market in the entire world, then you must cater for English speaking audiences.<br /><br />It's amazing for me how such a small island that's located a stone-throw away from the European continent could have created perhaps the most recognised, although not most widely spoken, language in the world. Everyone speaks a little bit of English; whether it be simply 'hello' or a common swear word - you'll find an English speaker almost everywhere. Pedro Galindo obviously didn't agree, because Trampa Infernal was never subtitled for global consumption until it was released recently on budget DVD. That's a real shame, because it's actually a decent slasher movie that's a lot better than many of its English-speaking genre compatriots.<br /><br />The film launches in the somewhat unfamiliar territory of a pistol duel. Two unidentified characters are shown sneaking around a dilapidated complex searching out one another for the inevitable final showdown. After some suspense and a couple of near misses, one of the pistoleers emerges victoriously. Next we learn that they were only paintball guns and the two competitors are actually youngsters from the local town. Nacho and Mauricio are fiercest rivals and Mauricio is always trying to prove himself to be better than his soft-spoken opponent, but as of yet he hasn't succeeded.<br /><br />Later that night, whilst the victorious gunslinger celebrates his triumph with his girlfriend Alejandra and his buddy Charly, Mauricio enters the bar and says that he has one last challenge for his glorious nemesis. He says that this will be the competition that will prove to the town once and for all who deserves the uttermost respect. Nacho is at first reluctant because Alejandra warns him of the perils of continual competitiveness, but he eventually succumbs to the weight of peer pressure and agrees; much to the distaste of his morally superior partner.<br /><br />They plan to head out to the remote region of Filo de Caballo, because recent press coverage has reported that numerous people have been butchered by what locals believe to be a vicious bear. Mauricio proposes that whoever murders the animal can be regarded as the greatest and he also promises that it will be the last battle that he wages against his adversary.<br /><br />After visiting the armoury to stock up on weapons and ignoring the warnings of the elderly store-keeper, the group set out to the remoteness of the secluded woodland. Hunters become hunted as they learn that the 'bear' is actually a homicidal Vietnam vet who is still unaware that the war has ended and considers all humans as his enemy. What started as a competitive adventure suddenly becomes a battle for survival as they are stalked and slaughtered by the malevolent assassin.<br /><br />I picked up Trampa whilst studying in Madrid from a Mexican student who lived in the dorm room next-door to me. I remember that the copy I watched was faulty and the tape ended about 10 minutes before the final credits rolled, which meant I never got to see the final scenes. Thankfully I came across the budget DVD recently on Amazon and immediately added it to my collection. <br /><br />Gallindo's slasher is a surprisingly good effort that excels from its skillful direction and enthusiastic plot, which attempts to cover areas not usually approached by slasher movies. It is in fact so good that it reminded me on more than one occasion of the Arnold Schwarzenegger classic Predator. This is especially evident in the scenes that show the creepily-masked assassin jogging through the forest and stalking the panic-stricken troupe as they struggle to escape the maniac's playground.<br /><br />Despite Gallindo's obvious awareness of genre platitudes (the bogeyman even uses a claw-fingered glove a la Freddy Kruegar); Trampa also attempts to add something different to the standard template. Whilst the majority of the runtime plays by the concrete rules of the category, the final third heralds a significant step in individuality as the maniac arms himself with a machine gun and entices the hero to his lair for the final showdown. From here on, the film rapidly swaps genres and becomes almost an action film, which depending on your taste will either excite or disappoint you. The last slasher that tried to crossbreed the two styles was that shoddy eighties entry 'The Majorettes', which is not necessarily a good thing.<br /><br />As is the case with many Latin films (especially Spanish flicks by Almodovar and Amenabar), Trampa has a subtle undercurrent of a moral to its story, which is conveyed successfully without being rammed down the viewer's throat. Over indulge in the temptations of competitive masculinity and you may not always be the winner. It's a sugar-coated point, but it's handled delicately enough not to detract from the fun of the feature.<br /><br />Trampa may be cheesy, but it deserves to be seen and recognised as one of the better late slashers. The killer looks great in creepy army fatigues and white Valentine-style mask and the attempts at originality just about work. It may lack the gore that most sincere horror fans enjoy, but it has enough in terms of suspense and creativity to warrant at least one viewing.

Gunga Din (1939) is based on Rudyard Kipling's poem.The movie is directed by George Stevens.It's set in India during the 19th century where three British soldiers have to stop an evil guru and his murderous cult.Gunga Din is a marvelous adventure war comedy with plenty of thrilling moments.The three leading men are brilliant.Cary Grant is Sgt.Archibald Cutter, Victor McLaglen is Sgt.'Mac' MacChesney and Douglas Fairbanks Jr.(the son of the legendary you know who) is Sgt.Thomas Ballantine.Let's not forget the other fine players who include Sam Jaffe playing Gunga Din himself in a brilliant way.The beautiful and gifted Joan Fontaine is Emaline Stebbins.It's awfully fun to watch the difficulties of Tommy's and Emmy's wedding plans.Gunga Din is awfully lot of fun.It can be funny, it can be thrilling.It can be everything a good movie requires.

There are good ways to make a movie and bad ways and this very much the former. This short caper exacts nothing more than what it gives to the audience. It presents a simple story, told very plainly with enough wisecracks to keep you going, then just gets better and better. Clooney's cameo is funny and very welcome but the leads including Sam Rockwell and Luiz Guzman can easily make it on their own. Likeable and funny, hilariously so towards the end, Welcome to Collinwood is a welcome addition to the heist genre.

Kalifornia is a movie about lost ideals. A journey on the darkest road ever. The road of no return. The plot is about a couple that set out to find a better life in California. The man (David Duchovny in his best role up to now) wants to write a book about the famous crimes that have happened in America and his girl - who is a photographer - is going to take the pictures. So they set out on a trail of famous murders not knowing what awaits them on the way. To share the journey expenses they decide to find another couple and they put an ad. But the couple that answers it is not just ANY couple. It is one of the strangest couples ever. The girl is a naive, frail creature that dreams a lot and loves cactuses. The man is exactly the opposite. A cruel ruthless murderer. We learn that early in the film and we follow him along the journey to Kalifornia (not with C as usual, but with K, presumably symbolizing the word killer), along his journey of betrayal, murder and finally defeat. All the leads, Duchovny, Pitt, Lewis and Forbes give really good performances and you have to take into consideration that when this movie was filmed not even one of them was a star. The photography is amazing, with darkness covering the greatest parts of the movie, and the music suits the dark character of the film. On the whole this is a really good movie. Don't miss it. You'll think again before taking some stranger in your car to share the gas with!

The world is a terrible place. But this movie is farce and it's fun. And if you don't like it... you don't get it... and if you don't get... it doesn't matter. It's up to you if you want to play along. Every actor in this one had fun. It's only a joke. And that's good enough for me. Gabriel Byrne is priceless. Byrne and Paul Anka doing MY WAY is, as "Vic" puts it, "...the best version ever". Okay... it's no masterpiece, but it's not bad. I was warned against seeing it, but I'm sure glad I did...

Serge Farnel made a very precise critics of this film in the revue "The Rwandese night" (www.lanuitrwandaise.net)<br /><br />A critics which shows how France was behind all the situation undergone by the United Nations in Rwanda.<br /><br />The UN soldiers were in a dangerous situation while the french soldiers were warmly welcomed by the genocide forces.<br /><br />The day before, ten UN soldiers had been killed by the genocide forces.<br /><br />That is why the UN soldiers decided to protect their own lives by driving behind the french trucks.<br /><br />By doing so, they gave up the Tutsi which is unforgivable of course.<br /><br />But we must keep in mind that the french soldiers organized this situation.

"The Shooter" was a different type of film for Michael Dudikoff. Although normally associated with action flicks that incorporate martial arts, this film , because it was a western, enabled him to display that he is a far more capable actor than certain formula story lines have allowed.<br /><br />The major problem, of course, is that the film does not allow any solid character development. The fleshing in is really left to the viewer . We can only guess at the sadness that has made the Shooter, whose real name is Michael Atherton, the killer that he is- a killer, mind you, that a little town, terrorized by a local bully, welcomes as a hero who can release it from its misery.

Coonskin might be my favorite Ralph Bakshi film. Like the best of his work, it's in-your-face and not ashamed of it for a second, but unlike some of his other work (even when he's at his finest, which was before and after Coonskin with Heavy Traffic and Wizards), it's not much uneven, despite appearances to the contrary. Bakshi's taking on stereotypes and perceptions of race, of course, but moreover he's making what appears to be a freewheeling exploitation film; blaxploitation almost, though Bakshi doesn't stop just there. If it were just a blaxploitation flick with inventive animation it could be enough for a substantial feature. But Bakshi's aims are higher: throwing up these grotesque and exaggerated images of not just black people but Italians/mafioso, homosexuals, Jews, overall New York-types in the urban quarters of Manhattan in the 70s, he isn't out to make anything realistic. The most normal looking creation in looking drawn "real" is, in fact, a naked woman painted red, white and blue.<br /><br />In mocking these stereotypes and conventions and horrible forms of racism (i.e. the "tar-rabbit, baby" joke, yes joke, plus black-face), we're looking at abstraction to a grand degree. And best of all, Bakshi doesn't take himself too seriously, unlike Spike Lee with a film like Bamboozled, in delivering his message. This is why, for the most part, Coonskin is a hilarious piece of work, where some of the images and things done and sudden twists and, of course, scenes of awkward behavior (I loved the scene where the three animated characters are being talked at by the real-life white couple in tux and dress as looking "colorful" and the like), are just too much not to laugh at. It's not just the imagery, which is in and of itself incredibly "over"-stylized, but that the screenplay is sharp and, this is key for Bakshi this time considering, it's got a fairly cohesive narrative to string along the improvisations and madness.<br /><br />Using at first live-action, then animation, and then an extremely clever matching of the two (ironically, what Bakshi later went for in commercial form with Cool World is done here to a T with less money and a rougher edge), Pappy and Randy are waiting outside a prison wall for a buddy to escape, and Pappy tells of the story of Brother Rabbit, who with Brother Bear and Preacher Fox go to Harlem and become big-time hoodlums, with Rabbit in direct opposition to a Jabba-the-Hut-esquire Godfather character. This is obviously a take off on Song of the South with its intentionally happy-go-lucky plot and animation, here taken apart and shown for how rotten and offensive it really is.<br /><br />Yet Bakshi goes for broke in combining forms; animated characters stand behind and move along with live-action backgrounds; when violence and gunshots and fights occurs it's as bloody as it can get for 1975; when a dirty cop is at a bar and is drugged and put in black-face and a dress, he trips in a manner of which not even Disney could reach with Dumbo; a boxing match with Brother Bear and an opponent as the climax is filmed in wild slow-motion; archive footage comes on from time to time of old movies, some and some from the 20s that are just tasteless.<br /><br />Like Mel Brooks or Kubrick or, more recently, South Park, Bakshi's Coonskin functions as entertainment first and then thought-provocation second. It's also audacious film-making on an independent scale; everything from the long takes to the montage and the endlessly warped designs for the characters (however all based on the theme of the piece) all serve the thought in the script, where its B-movie plot opens up much more for interpretation. To call it racist misses the point; it's like calling Dr. Strangelove pro-atomic desolation or Confederate States of America pro slavery. And, for me, it's one of the best satires ever made.

Once again I have seen a movie made by people that know nothing. I just recently reviewed Baby Face Nelson. Now I've seen Dillinger and I've had it.<br /><br />This movie is garbage. I don't know how anyone in their right mind could compare this to a classic like Bonnie and Clyde. This movie is far from a classic. Someone called it brilliant. That's an insane thing to say. This movie can't get any facts straight and it has the worst casting I've ever seen. I don't know whose dumb idea it was to cast Warren Oates as John Dillinger. First of all he looks nothing like him. Second of all, by the time John Dillinger was killed he was 31. When Oates made this he was 45! You could even tell that he's older than the real Dillinger just by looking at him. Not only was he too old, but so was Ben Johnson as Melvin Purvis.<br /><br />They show Baby Face Nelson die, then Homer Van Meter, and finally John Dillinger. John Dillinger was killed before both of them. The last one to die out of the three was Baby Face Nelson. Not only do the writers not know when they died, but they also don't know how they died. Baby Face Nelson was not killed after he escaped from Little Bohemia in a robe. Homer Van Meter was not killed by farmers with shot guns. Homer Van Meter was cornered by the police in St. Paul and gunned down with machine guns. Another member of Dillinger's gang, Harry Pierpont is shown being shot by police in this movie. Pierpont wasn't shot. Harry Pierpont was captured and sentenced to die in the electric chair. I go into what happened to Baby Face Nelson on my Baby Face Nelson review so I'm not going to go into it again here. Let me also add that Richard Dreyfuss' portrayal of Baby Face Nelson is pathetic. There's a scene where he attacks Dillinger and then gets a bad beating. While Dillinger was beating him he was crying like a baby and screaming, "Leave me alone!" Baby Face Nelson and John Dillinger never fought. Maybe Dillinger didn't agree with Nelson's bank robbing methods, but they never fought. Nelson also never cried like a little girl while getting beaten. They keep calling him Lester "Baby Face" Nelson. He was never in his life known by that name. Nelson's real name was Lester Gillis and he changed his name to George Nelson. The black guy that escaped from jail with Dillinger was Herbert Youngblood, but in this movie he is known as Reed Youngblood. John Milius doesn't know anything. Where the hell did John Milius get his information? I could probably make a better movie than him.<br /><br />Finally the way they showed John Dillinger die is outrageous and inexcusable. The movie shows Dillinger walk out of the Biograph with the Lady in Red and his girlfriend Billie Frechette. By the way, Billie Frechette wasn't even there that night. But a girl named Polly Hamilton was. Melvin Purvis yells, 'Johnny!' Dillinger pulls out his gun and is blown to hell. It is a proved fact that Dillinger did not have a gun that night. The FBI gave him no chance to surrender and as soon as he was in sight they blew him away. They didn't even have to shoot him. They were so close that powder burns were found on his face. It was murder. They also say that the man killed that night was not John Dillinger. After killing tons of civilians in the Little Bohemia incident can you imagine the FBI reporting that they had just killed another innocent unarmed man? The gun they had on display that was supposedly on Dillinger was also proved not to have been manufactured until after Dillinger's death. I could go on and on how the man they killed wasn't John Dillinger, but I'll stop here. If you would like to know more check it out here<br /><br />See the Dillinger version with Lawrence Tierney if you want, but don't waste your time with this inaccurate piece of garbage movie.

Recap: Full moon. A creature, a huge werewolf, is on the hunt. Not for flesh, not for blood (not that it seem to mind to take a bite on the way though), but for a mate. He is on the hunt for a girl. Not any girl though. The Girl. The girl that is pure (and also a werewolf, although she doesn't know it yet). Three, well check that, two cops (after the first scene) and an old bag lady is all that can stop it, or even knows that the thing killing and eating a lot of folks around full moon is a werewolf. This particular powerful werewolf, Darkwolf, is closing in on the girl. If he gets her, mankind is doomed. Now the cops has to find the girl, convince her not only that there is someone, a werewolf nonetheless, that wants to rape her, and perhaps kill her, but that she is a werewolf herself. And then they got to stop him...<br /><br />Comments: This is one for the boys, the teenage boys. A lot of scenes with semi-nude girls more or less important for the plot. Mostly less. Well I guess you need something to fill some time because the plot is (expectedly) thin. And unfortunately there is little besides the girls to help the plot from breaking. One usually turns to two main themes. Nudity. Check. And then special effects. Hmm... Well there are some things that you might call effects. They're not very special though. In fact, to be blunt, they are very bad. The movie seems to be suffering of a lack of funds. They couldn't afford clothes for some of the girls ;), and the effects are cheap. Some of the transformations between werewolf and human form, obviously done by computer, are really bad. You might overlook such things. But the Darkwolf in itself is very crude too, and you never get to see any killings. Just some mutilated corpses afterwards. And there is surprisingly little blood about, in a movie that honestly should be drenched in blood.<br /><br />I'm not sure what to say about actors and characters. Most of the times they do well, but unfortunately there are lapses were the characters (or actors) just looses it. A few of these lapses could be connected with the problems mentioned above. Like the poor effects, or the poor budget(?). That could explain why there is precious little shooting, even if the characters are armed like a small army and the target is in plain sight (and not moving). But hey, when you're in real danger, there nothing that will save your life like a good one-liner...<br /><br />Unfortunately that can't explain moments when the Cop, Steve, the only one who knows how to maybe deal with the problem, the werewolf that is, runs away, when the only things he can be sure of, is that the werewolf is coming for the girl, who is just beside him now, and that he cannot let it have her. But sure, it let the makers stretch the ending a little more...<br /><br />But I wouldn't mind seeing none of the lead actors/actresses get another try in another movie.<br /><br />Well. To give a small conclusion: Not a movie that I recommend.<br /><br />3/10

I recently started watching this show, and I have to say that it really made me laugh. You have to appreciate the unrealistic aspects of it, along with everything else. Some other people said this show should have more realistic reactions of the dead, among other things. If you are going accept that Ned can bring the dead back to life, you have to accept that the other completely crazy bits of the show. I couldn't help smiling after every episode I watched. I really think it's great there is a show out there that can take a very strange subject and really make it great to watch. I absolutely love the narration, I think it adds that extra bit of wonder to the whole show. You can't always compare old shows by a writer to his new ones, you have to take everything as it's own entity. Definitely give it a chance, and just enjoy the ridiculous parts as they are.

I am a big fan of old horror movies, and since I am middle aged, old to me is a movie made before 1970 with most being made in the 1920's to 1960's period. I am not a big fan of more modern horror movies, with one exception being Creepshow 1, which I thought was great. I could reminisce about the stories there but I really really enjoyed the monster in the box story with Hal Holbrook, and also the one about the really clean guy was a great ending. All the stories were great though. So why did I like them so much? The characters had some decent development, the lines were very plain about who was good and who was bad, the horror bits were heightened with a close up of a face aghast with fear, and the funny bits were really funny! This sequel is either greatly lacking of these elements or they are totally absent! I am writing this only having watched it partially because the movie was a complete waste of time and I turned it off to do other things like write movie reviews on IMDb.com, lol. When George Kennedy and an old Dorothy Lamoure get top billing it's telling you something.....4 of 10. Also, Romero's expertise is hard to find here, they must had told him to tone it down to a PG standard (I don't know what this was rated at but it looks PG to me), and that's not a good thing for a movie with nothing else going on. It's shown on the Encore cable channel if your dieing (yuck yuck) to see it.

I have recently watched this movie twice, and I can't seem to understand why the h*ll the makers made this pile of crap. I mean, yes, It gives a great impression of Hitler's environment, and I mean the way they reproduced Austria in the late 1890's, WWI and the Inter-war period. What I can't understand is why they pictured Hitler as a 100% pure evil, mad, unreliable, mentally unstable freak. He was after all a very thoughtful, loving and intelligent man who of course had his dark sides, no doubt about that. But why in heaven's name portray him in this way? All of his positive aspects have been cut out of the scenario, leaving nothing but a very propaganda-like portrait of a man who had the biggest influence on modern civilization ever. Yes, he threw Germany into the devastating 2nd World War. Yes, he was racist, and yes he was at times menially unstable especially at the end of the war. All true. But again; why the hell did they plain LIE to the public? To warn us?<br /><br />I absolutely don't think this movie was a warning. The true danger of Hitler and the Nazi's was the fact they were able to rise to power at moments of severe global weakness. The fact this evil was so recognizable yet so embraced by almost every German alive (not to mention Austrians and a LOT of other people) makes it a warning to modern civilization, NOT the fact Hitler was such a 'weirdo'. If it would have been like the makers make us believe - I would have been convinced that the German people were retarded. A man like the one in this movie would have never gotten anywhere near party leader - not to mention ReichsKanzler. <br /><br />4/10

There are few movies that appear to provide enterntainment as well as realism. If you've ever wondered about the role of snipers in modern war, take a look at this one. <br /><br />I just loved the scene where hundred soldiers get shooting at the jungle, no-one quite sure where that shot came?<br /><br />And, they nicked one scene to Saving Private Ryan, so it has to have some merit in the scene.<br /><br />

If the term itself were not geographically and semantically meaningless, one might well refer to "Ned Kelly" as an "Australian Western." For the people Down Under, Ned Kelly was, apparently, a folk hero bandit akin to Robin Hood, Jesse James, Bonnie and Clyde, and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. The descendant of Irish immigrants, Kelly became a fugitive and an outlaw after he was falsely accused of shooting an Australian law officer, a crime for which his equally innocent mother was put into prison. To get back at the government for this mistreatment, Kelly, his brother Dan, and two other companions, became notorious bank robbers, winning over the hearts of many people in the countryside while striking a blow for justice in a land where Irish immigrants were often treated with disrespect and disdain by those who ran the country.<br /><br />Perhaps because we've encountered this "gentleman bandit" scenario so many times in the past, "Ned Kelly" feels awfully familiar and unoriginal as it pays homage to any number of the genre's stereotypes and clichés on its way to the inevitable showdown. Ned is the typical heart-of-gold lawbreaker who kills only when he is forced to and, even then, only with the deepest regret. He also has the pulse of the common folk, as when, in the middle of a bank robbery, he returns a valuable watch to one of the customers, after one of his gang has so inconsiderately pilfered it. What movie on this particular subject hasn't featured a scene like that? It's acts of selective generosity like this, of course, that earn him the love and respect of all the little people who come to secretly admire anyone who can get away with sticking it to the powers-that-be and the status quo. Geoffrey Rush plays the typical bedeviled law enforcer who feels a personal stake in bringing down this upstart troublemaker who keeps getting away with tweaking the establishment. There's even the inevitable episode in which one of the ladies being held up goes into the next room and has sex with one of the robbers, so turned on is she by the romantic derring-do of the criminal lifestyle. And the film is riddled with one hackneyed scene like this after another.<br /><br />Heath Ledger fails to distinguish himself in the title role, providing little in the way of substance to make his character either interesting or engaging. It doesn't help that he has been forced to provide a droning voice-over narration that underlines the sanctimoniousness and pretentiousness of both the character and the film.<br /><br />"Ned Kelly" might serve a function of sorts as a lesson in Australian history, but as an entertainment, it's just the same old story told with different accents.

Principally it is the story of two men who were part of the Portuguese revolution. It was easy to understand the contest, but usually directors starts from a historical fact to speak about something else, or they shows also the period before or after this fact, here everything happen during that couple of days when the revolution acts. It could also be seen as a kind of documentary. The movie focalize to these two people, showing as normal they were, not like common heroes, because the revolution come from people. Although it was made from military army from the title you can understand that they were just "capitaes" as the main characters. Nice colors and lights during the whole movie, excellent work for the director being her first movie, she doesn't fall to the banal way. Well shown emotions and passion of people and crowd. The character of Maia (main one)is well-made and there is also a good interpretation for Stefano Accorsi, able to show Maia's limits, this not-being an hero.

"54" is a film based on the infamous "Studio 54" of the 1970s - the hangout for the social elite and party clubbers. In the film, Ryan Phillippe is the main character, based on an actual employee of Studio from 1977 - 1982.<br /><br />The film's problem is that it's all glitter and style and no substance. It tries to be a really grimy and probing satire like "Boogie Nights" but ultimately comes across as an inferior wannabe. Mike Myers is given the thankless task of playing cocaine-snorting club owner Steve Rubell. It's only a slightly comedic role and if this was Myers' best attempts at sliding into drama like Lemmon and other comedic actors did in their time, it's a total failure.<br /><br />"54" could have been insightful and interesting but instead it's just another dumb teen flick that isn't entertaining or even remotely engaging. View at your own peril.

At first look of the plot tagline I figured it could have been a decent film. Could I have ever been more wrong? The beginning of the film makes it look like a bunch of freaks got together and decided to make a low budget film. For the first 10 minutes you don't notice the cheesy acting, horrible sound and god-awful special effects, but then it gets worse. Just about 20 minutes into it I was asking myself, "What was the plot again?" I could only ask that question when I wasn't busted out laughing from the sheer lameness of this film. The main actor has one setting for emotions and he sticks to it throughout the entire film, even though he was supposed to go through love and hate and everything in-between. The flashback scene almost made me vomit because it made me re-live one extra minute of footage from earlier in the movie. Now we hit the middle of the film where they are obviously trying to rip off Morpheus from "The Matrix," although he is doing just a horrible job. The actor's talking about "Star Wars" and fortune cookie phrases is almost unbearable. Now at the end of the movie you don't realize that it's the end of the movie because you actually think the plot is finally developing. The "Morpheus" character dies, the ONLY good thing about the movie. He utters a couple words and the credits roll. What is this? No plot, bad acting, cheesy everything, it couldn't get any worse. Please, if you value human decency, DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!

Pam Grier stars as Coffy. She's a nurse who seeks revenge, on the drug dealers who got her sister hooked on bad heroine. Like any 70s Blaxploitation flick, you can expect to see the racist bad guys get their just desserts. <br /><br />There were scores of these films made during the 70s, and they were really demeaning to both black and white audiences alike. This is mainly due to the vicious racial hostility in these films, and the degrading, stereotypical characters. Especially the female characters. <br /><br />Other common threads between Coffy, and other films of its type, include brutal violence, corrupt cops, car chases, a generous abundance of nudity, and sex-crazed gorgeous women. Not to mention urban ghettos populated by drug-dealers, pimps, mobsters, and other criminal scum.<br /><br />Pam Grier, was the undisputed queen of 70s Blaxploitation heroines. She was magnificent, being both tough-as-nails, and drop-dead gorgeous. Like in her other films, Pam outshines the other characters, in Coffy. In fact, Pam is so charismatic on screen, that these sorts of films are unwatchable, without her as the main character. <br /><br />If you like Pam Grier, you're better off seeing her other films, like Foxy Brown, or perhaps Friday Foster. These films have much less empty sleaze, than Coffy does. Pam's character in Coffy, degrades herself way too much to get the bad guys. Pam's characters in her other Blaxploitation films, don't stoop as low to get revenge, as Coffy did. <br /><br />I'd say, only watch Coffy, if you're unable to see any of Pam Grier's other films. Otherwise, Coffy is a waste of time. Only Pam's talent as an actress, makes viewing Coffy bearable.

And yet another run of South Park comes to an end. This wasn't as strong an episode as I'd hoped for, but Night of the Living Homeless was a stronger finisher then Stanley's Cup, Tsst, Bloody Mary, or Erection Day. It still can't hold a candle to Woodland Critter Christmas and Goobacks, but few episodes can.<br /><br />Night of the Living Homeless is a spoof of the zombie genre, done in a way only South Park would think of. Instead of flesh eating zombies, the entities are homeless that request change and seem to survive off of it.<br /><br />Randy and other residents are locked in the Community Center, though this time on the roof, where they can survey the scene. A particularly funny moment is when one member finds out his home is gone, and becomes homeless, leaving Randy no choice but to shoot him.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the four boys set out to solve the problem, with the whole story behind the homeless takeover trying to convey a message, but being seriously uninspired. South Park is at it's best a lot of the times when it is being ridiculous. Matt and Trey played it safe this week, and didn't really critique the homeless problem, just lampooned it.<br /><br />The shock moment of the episode comes when a scientist shoots himself in an attempt to avoid the homeless. This is the first time a suicide on South Park goes wrong, and we watch the poor man miss his brain and then attempt to shoot himself many times while he painfully dies. Another inspired South Park moment.<br /><br />Overall, the episode was funny, but it was kept from being great by withholding any real commentary on the homeless and sticking straight with the zombie shtick. The ending is somewhat funny, but nothing new.<br /><br />Now we must wait until October for the next batch of episodes. It's a long haul, but South Park must be applauded for it's run. The show seemed to be running out of steam last season, but now it's back in full form.

It is considered fashion to highlight every social evil as a result of patriarchy and male dominance, however moronic this illogical 'logic' may be. However within the story and theme of the film, there is no grey area and the woman who should be called the film's antagonist, is the ''villain of the story''. Under no circumstances can what she did be justified. Sexuality of women is just hype in this case and has nothing to do with the actuality. It is betrayal of the ultimate sort. The man ended up spending his resources and time in the wasteful raising of another man's offspring. To top it all, the most feeble of arguments raised by the 3 'liberated' female characters in the climax is pathetic. A woman's sexual needs are no excuse for her to commit adultery and continually betray her husband and worse, there are no other children. So in essence his life has been wasted. In some societies where justice still prevails, such situations result in the execution of the unjust.

Kol, space prisoner on space death row, manages to hijack a space shuttle and escape to the woods of America where he, along with some new found friend try to escape from the 'Alienator" a female cyborg killing machine. Made one year after the best movie of Fred Olen Ray's career, "Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers", this one can't help but feel like a bit of a letdown. Just as low-budget as that earlier film, but not nearly as fun as I had with it. None of the actors really stood out at me. The film is alright for the undiscriminating viewer during a rainy Saturday afternoon, but that's pretty much all it's good for.<br /><br />My Grade: D+ <br /><br />Where i saw it: Showtime Thriller

I am completely appalled to see that the average rating for this movie is 5.2/10 For what affects me, it is definitely one of the worst movies I have ever seen and I still keep wondering why I watched it until the end. First of all, the plot is totally hopeless, and the acting truly awful. I think that any totally unknown actress would have been better for the role than Susan Lucci; concerning Mr. Kamar Del's Reyes, I think it would have been a better choice for him to remain in his "Valley of the Dolls". To sum up, it is total waste of time(and i'm trying to stay polite...) to avoid at any cost. My rating is 1 and I still think it is well paid, but since we cannot give a O....

This movie is a Gem because it moves with soft, but firm resolution.<br /><br />I caution viewers that although it is billed as a Corporate Spy thriller and Ms Liu is there, it moves at a deftly purposeful yet sedate pace. It's NOT about explosions, car chases, or flying bullets. You must be patient and instead, note the details here. It's sedate because that's what the Main Character is. The viewer has to WATCH him and Think as this story unfolds.<br /><br />I will not give spoilers-- because that destroys the point of watching. The plot is what you've read from the other postings: an average white-collar guy, seeking change and adventure, signs on for a corporate spy job. Just go somewhere and secretly record and transmit inside data. <br /><br />Take it from there.<br /><br />This movie starts at a surreal walk-- with a background tang of corporate disillusionment that entwines itself with quintessential, underlying suburban paranoia.<br /><br />Then it begins to accelerate.<br /><br />The acting on all parts is superb-- and yes, some of the acts are caricature characters. But they all fit, and they entertain. And the light piano rhyme in the background is just perfect as the soft, soft key sinister theme: All is not right at the beginning.<br /><br />And at the end: All is not what it seems.<br /><br />Get comfortable and turn the lights down to watch this one-- and turn up the sound: This movie wants you to LISTEN.

I am probably one of the few who actually read Stephen King's book, the one this movie was based on. After reading this excellent work, I could not wait to see the movie version of it. After viewing the movie, I was TOTALLY disappointed. The only thing that this movie has in common with the book is the title and the names of the characters. In the book, Schwarzenegger's character is put on a game show. The main object is to survive. But he's not in an arena. He's set loose in the city and has to escape the game show's (I guess you'd call them) villians, who bear absolutely no resemblence to the movie characters. This premise built much tension and suspension and ended greatly with the climax. The movie was absolute garbage. There was no cinematic quality to it. I totally respect Arnold Schwarzenegger as an actor, but he messed up with this one.

First off I'd like to say that if I had to honestly rate this movie from a 1 to a 10, then I'd give it a -4. It's not that I'm a tough critic, it's just that this movie is THAT bad. Everything from the story, to the directing, to the editing is awful. The story is not even halfway decent to begin with (you can't expect much since it is based on a video game, something I was not aware of going into the movie) but the directing and editing made it even worse. The movie cuts at awkward points and goes to scenes that are completely unrelated to the previous ones; some, like a quick sex scene in the middle, don't even make sense being put into the story seeing as how the characters don't show any feelings toward each other. You could go into this movie expecting to see a pile of crap on the screen for an hour and a half and you'd still be disappointed. Honestly, if you pay to watch this movie then you are wasting your money, and if you don't pay anything then you are still wasting an hour and a half of your life. So do yourself a favor and don't watch it.

Antitrust falls right into that category of films that aspire to make some great point while being uplifting yet falls completely flat. I don't hate the film, but it is missing key elements, such as suspense. There have been other attempts to make an engaging film about computers, such as Hackers and The Net. They all fall short. The improbable ending of both The Net and Antirust seem to be nearly identical. These movie endings suffer from one huge error in perception: People in the PC business having this over-indulgent self ego that assumes the general population lives it's life waiting to hear the latest news about PC's and software. I have worked for many companies and industries, and they all seem to suffer from an expanded view of their own self-importance, as does this film.<br /><br />The way they introduced plot lines was pathetic. Showing Milo, who is deathly allergic to Sesame Seeds, almost ingest one from a restaurant breadbasket crossed the line of stupidity. Only his 'girlfriend' prevented him from sure death. This makes one wonder how Milo could have survived as long as he did, braving the perils of Big Mac buns and Sesame Seed breadsticks, as they cloak themselves as, well.... Sesame Seed breadsticks and Big Mac buns.<br /><br />Antitrust also doesn't provide much suspense. The patterned and predictable plot twists are easily figured out long before they are revealed (come on, was anyone REALLY stunned when Yee Jee Tso was killed?), thereby destroying any real shock value. And here again we have yet another film/story where at the end, the bad guys are chasing the good guys to 'get the disk'. We need to have a moratorium on this Simple Simon plot line for about 20 years. Still, I pressed on. Maybe the ending would be the payoff, but no. The completely ridiculous ending where we have the head of company security, another supposed evil guy, turn around and be the good guy that enables Milo to bring down N.U.R.V CEO Gary Winston was laughable. And of course, the news coverage of the arrest of Gary Winston is more fevered than when Hinckley or Oswald was brought into custody. Gary Winston, played by Tim Robbins, is a cardboard cutout of the same character Robbins played in Arlington Road. But that fits perfectly here in Antitrust, which should be called 'Anticlimactic' or 'Anti-Original'.<br /><br />In the years to come, this film will likely be banished, to be shown only on your local third rate UHF channel.

I have two good things to say about this film: the scenery is beautiful and Peter Falk gives a good performance (considering what he had to work with in terms of dialog and direction). However, that said, I found this film extremely tiresome. Watching paint dry would have been more entertaining. It seemed much longer than 97 minutes. Beginning with opening sequence, where everyone is talking over each other and Paul Reiser is repeating everything that's said to him on the phone, the movie is annoying. The film is filled with clichés and shtick, not to mention endless incidents of audible flatulence by Falk. Also, the director seems to have had difficulty deciding whether to aim for laughs or tears. There are some sequences that are touching, but they're all played for laughs. If schmaltzy, sentimental, and "cute" appeal to you, you'll love it. But if you were hoping for something with more substance, see a different movie.

Despite its flaws, I enjoyed "Cigarette Burns", John Carpenter's Season One episode in the Masters of Horror series. Yes, the story seemed like a cheap cross between IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS and 8MM, but it was still quite good for the budget and time constraints given to it. With "Pro-Life", however, the low budget and time constraints definitely show more than anything else. There is solid directing as always from Carpenter yet there is a quality to the writing and whole production itself that gives the feeling it was made in a total and complete rush. The script isn't always clear, the message fuzzy, and the story is full of plot holes once you look back on them. Maybe had Carpenter re-written the script, it could have been a worthwhile episode. Instead, it's a mess that only hardcore Carpenter fans will find the slightest enjoyment in. Definitely the worst Carpenter has ever done. 2/10

This movie is obviously low-budget & filmed in British Columbia,Canada. The obstacles that had to be overcome to make this movie convincing(set in California & late 60's-80's)were well conceived.I believe this is the best & most accurate version of the Zodiac killings that plagued the town of Vallejo & the Bay area from 1968-19? (he was never caught).Edward James Olmos(Det. Dave Toschi) & George Dzundza(Zodiac-at the time believed to be Arthur Leigh Allen, since cleared by DNA & fingerprints)play a game of cat & mouse re-visiting crime scenes together, each one trying to trigger the other into an emotional revelation.Olmos dying from some type of terminal disease & knowing Dzundza did it,still totally obsessed to the point of losing his family & becoming a full blown alcoholic along the way.Dzundza totally oblivious & self absorbed(like all serial killers) to the carnage left in his wake.The only disappointment was the"over the top" ending otherwise pretty accurate.If you tire of the typical Hollywood fluff or have an interest in the Zodiac case,check it out.

this a great Disney flick.it is the story of an aging high school baseball coach(Dennis Quaid),who was once on his way to the big leagues as a pitcher,but suffered a career ending injury.but through series of events,Jimmy Morris(Quaid)gets a try out with a major league team and even makes the roster.this is a great family film.it is inspirational,but doesn't pour it on too thick.it's fun and entertaining.adults will enjoy this movie as well as kids.it is based upon a true story,though i'm sure the filmmakers took some liberties in telling the story.Quaid is sensational as the title character,very convincing.if you're looking for a film the whole family can enjoy,look no further.9/10

At the time of writing this review it would seem that over 50% of IMDb voters had given this film a rating of either a 10 or a 1. I can only surmise then that those giving it a 10 were either cast or crew members. <br /><br />They say that given enough monkeys and enough time and enough typewriters, those monkeys, just by random proddings at the keyboard, would eventually type out the complete works of Shakespeare. However, I seriously doubt that given the same number of monkeys and time, you could find a single one to give this movie a rating of 10.<br /><br />I patiently watched the first half, foolishly assuming that the film would, on some level, develop either the plot or the characters, or maybe make some kind of social comment or provoke barely intellectual thought. Failing that, I was quite prepared to accept action, suspense, comedy, horror or even gratuitous sex as a way of holding my attention. Ultimately, I was disappointed and consequently, much of the second half was viewed at double speed as I searched in vain for some small snippet of cinematic redemption. Sadly, there was none.<br /><br />If "The Choke", was put up against an episode of Scooby Doo then I'm afraid the cartoon would win hands down in terms of mystery, intrigue and unpredictability. And speaking of cartoon characters, the acting abilities of the various cast members varied between acceptable (at best) and embarrassingly poor with Brooke Bailey's portrayal of the freaky, death obsessed pseudo goth, London, being so bad I almost felt sorry for her.<br /><br />I would have liked to have finished on a positive note but even the soundtrack, a second rate feast of contemporary punk rock, failed even to entertain, let alone serve to enhance a very poor flick.

OK, a slasher movie. a very, very stupid slasher movie.<br /><br />We got your stereotypical teenagers in a house thing going. We got a FBI agent that's seen Dirty Harry one time too many. "So what's the secret....punks?" We got about 4 different little camera shots and scene that make no sense at all. "Hey man, i'm fixing the sprinklers" ((that guy was my favorite part of the movie)) Suddenly there's a preacher tied up on a couch watching home movies, he gets killed.<br /><br />they follow the killer into the middle of nowhere, with no cops. suddenly she's in a church, wearing a wedding dress. i swear this is the stupidest slasher movie i've ever seen.

It was disgusting and painful. What a waste of a cast! I swear, the audience (1/2 full) laughed TWICE in 90 minutes. This is not a lie. Do not even rent it.<br /><br />Zeta Jones was just too mean to be believable.<br /><br />Cusack was OK. Just OK. I felt sorry for him (the actor) in case people remember this mess.<br /><br />Roberts was the same as she always is. Charming and sweet, but with no purpose. The "romance" with John was completely unbelievable.

I just saw this movie for the first time ever and I liked it. Her dancing was very entertaining. I read somewhere that she got the part in this movie because she knew how to dance. The scenery was great too. Yvonne is such a talented woman and beautiful. WE laughed at the silly kissing scenes, but that is what is great about old movies! I grew up with her on The Munsters and I am enjoying watching her in her earlier movies. They may not all be the best out there but still worth watching to see her act and sing. I am slowly purchasing all her movies and watching them as I receive them. I have a large collection of her memorabilia.

Like most of the festivals entries Hamiltons makes for an interesting watch a film thats all ideas and little execution. Although impressive for it's obvious low budget the film falters in it's final twist and becomes dreadfully long during it's drawn out and obvious conclusion. The film is about a family of murderous outcasts trying to survive after there parents have died. They kidnap people , drain the blood from them and feed something locked away in their basement. There's some nice darkly humorous performances from Mckellhar and Firgens and the rest are just so-so. The film never feels realistic or very disturbing for that matter. But for the first half taps into an oddly humorous and dark mixture which is a surprising accomplishment. The next half isn't so successful as it receeds into film oblivion with unrealistic twists into a ridiculously cocky finale that turns the entire film into utter crap. It's a shame though there is no doubt that some talent was involved with this production and although deeply flawed it remains original and creative. too bad that when it comes to the delivery it completely fails on every level.<br /><br />**/5

Okay, I know I shouldn't like this movie but I do. From Pat Morita's loveable interpretation of a Japanese stereotype to Jay Leno's annoying yell, I laughed throughout this movie.As long as you take into account that this is not the best movie in the world, it's a good mvie.<br /><br />My favorite part is Morita talking to his boss in Tokyo with the drinking a close second.

For months preceding the release of this movie you saw it advertised in all sorts of print media, so I patiently waited for its video release to see what all the hype was about. After it was over I had to apologize to my roommate for occupying the VCR for the last hour and a half to watch such a horrible movie. It essentially fails because it is a character based movie about unredeemable characters. With the possible exception of Amanda Peet (whose only redeemable quality is that she is Amanda Peet) you cannot stand any of them. The film relies on its dialogue which is sophomoric, moronic, and crude. The only slightly amusing character is Eric, whose portrayal of the sole married member of a group of friends is dead on. The final twist, designed to make you laugh at the three main characters, only instead inspires the same kind of resentment towards Peet. All in all, only rent if you are desperate or possess a dark sense of humor.

There's been a spate of recent surfing movies that I seem to haphazardly run across without advance warning. I caught this treasure on digital cable this week and what a pleasant surprise it was! The focus is on the pioneers of big wave surfing from the 60's Greg Noll to our current Laird Hamilton, from Waimea Bay to Mavericks to Jaws. Hell, I could watch a movie just about Laird Hamilton - one of this generation's great athletes - so the rest is just gravy. There's loads of good surfing mixed in with interviews of past and present surfing stars, in pleasant, relaxed and unpretentious fashion. Of all the surfing movies I've seen this tells the big-wave story the best, and I think it's my favorite. Enjoy!

Generally I don't do minus's and if this site could i would give this movie -3 out of 10 meaning I really hated this movie. I thought Uwe Boll's alone in the dark was the worst i've seen yet but at least i gave it a 2.5 out of 10 in my opinion(Stephen Dorff shooting at nothing made me laugh so i boosted the ratings a bit). Hell if it was if compared to bloodrayne, Bloodrayne would win a Oscar for best movie if they were competing.<br /><br />Now to the plot, this movie is about the BTK killer which is fine but they've could have done better. The start looked OK but that's it I had to fast forward most of it because the death's where boring. I like killer movies and even if they suck they could still get some cool deaths. I'm not a fancy movie expert but believe me he would have shot himself if did see this. Sorry for rambling but there's nothing good to say about it, because it looks like someone took a camcorder and film this.. this.. thing of disaster. Uwe Boll your movies are no longer on my list of worst movies ever this took the cake.<br /><br />Well sorry i couldn't explain the plot(if there was one) but that was the best i could. Now if you don't mind i'm going to crawl into a corner and move back and forth and reminding me of how bad this movie scared me for life.... OK not for life

Michael Jackson would have claimed a spot for the top-billed character in THE GOLDEN CHILD, and because he loves kids. That didn't work (and why should it?), so instead we have Eddie Murphy out to save the world by rescuing "Kid Midas". I would strongly suggest all future scriptwriters to please thoroughly study the actor's inane dialogue in this quirky fantasy - adventure - comedy that's a step closer to ISHTAR. Whatever Murphy says or does can be best liked, but don't get me wrong about his exquisite comical talent; he doesn't belong in this movie, and the same went for DR. DOLITTLE! The violence and visuals combined are reasons to stamp it as a cult camp classic, and that wouldn't have made any sense as Hollywood and movie fanatics kept cashing in on the guy. Speaking of visuals, they were pulled off amazingly well at the time of Ronald Reagan's presidential fame. Murphy is far better at COMING TO AMERICA and 48 HRS, but this stale movie isn't my touch of golden honey for a sweet crunchy taste.

It's a very good movie, not only for the fans of Lady Death comics, but also for those who like animated movies/series of adventure and fantasy.<br /><br />The film is about a innocent girl who is about killed for something she hadn't done, but for be who she is daughter of the ruler of hell, Lucifer himself.<br /><br />Then she seeks revenge...and the rest you better see it from the movie.<br /><br />I liked the movie a lot, the characters are like the original comics, form Chaos. I never had the chance of read the the first parts of the story in comics, only the last ones, after the passages in the movie, so I cannot tell you if the events are exactly like the comics, but...one way or another it's the story of Lady Death!

Fascinating I approached I Am Curious (Yellow) and it's companion piece with great trepidation. I'd read numerous reports on its widely touted controversy and explicit sex. What I got wasn't this, but a thoroughly thought provoking and engaging cinema experience unlike any other. I sincerely believe that the majority of the commenter who felt the film was `lame' or `boring' approached the film as if it were pornography. Perhaps this is pornography, assuming pornography is something intended to titillate the senses, but it is intentionally un-erotic. Lena, the protagonist, throws her all into her performance giving it a realistic and humanity that is simply convincing and enduring. Her breasts may be saggy, her nipples unusually large, her thighs fat, and her face, chubby. But by the end of the film, the audience comes to identify with her, and accept her faults as human. This touch gives her even more believability out necessity. Had the director cast a Briget Bardot bombshell the effect would have been nullified. I cannot more highly recommend this thought provoking piece. Be prepared to invest much thought in this deliberately paced film. The patient and unassuming viewer will be thoroughly rewarded in ways most other films could dream.

I saw this film at Amsterdam's International Documentary Film Festival and was privileged to meet both the directors and Tobias Schneebaum, all of whom are lively and outspoken New Yorkers. The film's title in Amsterdam was Keep the River on Your Right, making the sensational aspect of cannibalism somewhat less prominent. Equally important was the loving - and gay - relationship Tobias Schneebaum had with members of the groups he studied as an anthropologist. His reunion at nearly 80 years of age and inevitable leave-taking were very moving. I can only highly recommend this film to anyone looking for a moving story that is anything but pedestrian.

The opening scenes move as fluidly as frozen velveeta. The attempt at dramatic dialogue only makes me wish I had better control of the fast forward control. Vampires are usually portrayed as sexy and intelligent or mangy disgusting creatures. This vampire tries to seduce his prey by imitating a lost puppy. I usually tally a body count, so there was a cat (which doesn't count) a bum, a girl who fell out of the sky with a sword in her (whatever that was about) and then the plot. Foley artists are respected for using celery to create the sound of a broken arm, but using the sound of biting into an apple for a vampire biting a victim is just plain silly. I liked Warlock, but this movie just stunk so bad that we turned it off, and it was so forgettable we rented it a year later only to turn it off again.

The one sheets and newspaper campaign suggested (as often they did) a far more lurid and violent piece than showed up on the drive-in screens. Claude Brook is actually an Americanization of Claudio Brook, who worked in films for years. This one's quite hard to find anymore; I'd love to see it again to compare it to other international horrors of the day, but don't remember particularly impressed way back when. Chances are it was a chopped up version that made it to U.S. theatres and video. But oh, that one sheet...still a gem of my later horror collection.

What a pathetic movie.<br /><br />I won't waste much time commenting about it. I'm still trying to get back the couple hours I wasted on it.<br /><br />Let me leave it simply with - Shaq has NO BUSINESS being an actor or singer. He is utterly without talent at both discplines. It's a crying shame that substantially more talented people waste away in community theatres and karaoke bars while Shaq uses his name as a basketball player to undeservedly get cast in movies and cut CDs.<br /><br />Much of the failure of this movie was the pathetic no-talent that is Shaq.

These things have been floating around in my head for damn near 10 years now. Some pieces of this work were really memorable. - Id love to see another more current example of cg showy offy stuff. Actually I'd love to be part of it.<br /><br />If I'd would of had the chance to just say what i wanted and thats it, I wouldn't have to write all this extra in order to make "10 lines if text" as this website requires. I mean really? This almost discourages me, I mean luckily for the guys that made the movie I really liked the Minds Eye - and it took me 3 times to have enough lines, I hope you don't get me on the misspelling. - yup you did.

Gymkata is without a doubt one of the worst movies ever made. But not the bad kind of bad movies. This one is so awful it's fun to watch and laugh. Kurt Thomas clearly does not have a lucrative career in acting. He should go back to gymnastics. But who can forget such memorable scenes as the high bar with chalk, the stone pommel horse or the five minute chase scene through the village of the crazies in slow motion. I don't think it was meant to be this bad, but who can tell. It's not art, but if you want something lite and fluffy that will make a good conversation, rent gymakta. Makes for an evening of fun.

Despite some moments in heavy rain, an encounter with a drunk as well as an organ grinder with a gypsy and a monkey, and a stay in a sanitarium, this Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle silent comedy short with support from Buster Keaton and Al St. John is only fitfully amusing though there is a quite funny sequence of Arbuckle in drag flirting with Buster that's the ultimate in "meet cute" scenes especially since it's one of the few times we see The Great Stone Face smile and laugh in the movies! Also, many scenes seem to have been jump cut edited possibly because of overuse of the film stock. Still, if you're an Arbuckle or Keaton completist, Good Night, Nurse! is certainly worth a look.

and anyone who watches this film will agree. This film was directed in the days when plot, character believability and theme actually mattered.<br /><br />Jean Peters, Widmark, and Thelma Ritter steal the spotlight. Ritter is in top form as informer "Moe" she survives in the Bowery section of NY, acting as a stool pigeon for NYC police.<br /><br />The only other film in which I have seen Peters is "Niagara", and she certainly proves her acting ability here, complete with Brooklyn accent. Widmark is appropriately menacing, as the anti-hero who must discern what the right thing is, despite his need for cash.<br /><br />The photography is brilliant. The neon, the subway station (though it looks cleaner than the real thing!) the harbor shack where Widmark lives as a transient. Excellent use is made of the city, with "Lightning Louie" in Chinatown; the many flavors and appetites of the city are addressed here; the political climate of the time is a haunting backdrop. 10/10.

A group of people are invited to there high school reunion, but after they arrive they discover it to be a scam by an old classmate they played an almost fatal prank on. Now, he seeks to get revenge on all those that hurt him by sealing all the exits and cutting off all telephone lines.<br /><br />Dark slasher film with an unexceptional premise. Bringing it up a notch are a few good performances, some rather creative death scenes, plenty of excitement & scares, some humor and an original ending.<br /><br />Unrated for Extreme Violence, Graphic Nudity, Sexual Situations, Profanity and Drug Use.

Kurosawa, fresh into color, losses sight of his usual themes of truth and perception of reality and opts for a depressing take on Tokyo's slums. Kurosawa stretches for a style that was, in my opinion, his antithesis- that is to say, I feel as if Kurosawa wanted to make an Ozu picture. Poorly paced, poorly conceived, this movie is a rare dud in this auteur body of excellent work. While Ikiru, while being mundane and depressing, was still interesting and well paced, and while Stray Dog depicted the slums and social poverty of Japan without being too heavy handed or boring, do desu ka den has all the somberness that one could expect with its content, with none of the redeeming qualities of earlier Kurosawa pictures.<br /><br />Be warned, this is not a movie that Kurosawa should be judged by.

Faces are slashed, throats are cut, blood squirts, and in end the three main characters are either depressed or they die. They even blow up Kevin Costner's dog with a shotgun. Why would anyone want to see a movie like this? Violence is valid only when the good guys kill the bad guys, not the other way around. Take for instance Underworld and Underworld Evolution where you can enjoy seeing justice done when the demons are slain. In this movie, the good guys are cut up. See the difference? Why would anyone want to MAKE a movie that depresses the audience? Beautiful photography and skilled editing in a motion picture like this is a waste of talent. Let's put this one into the category of the exquisite corpse.

I had a lot of hopes for this movie and so watched it with a lot of expectations; basically because of Kamal Hassan. He is an amazing actor who has marked his foot steps in the sands of time forever. But this movie proved to be one of the worst movies i have ever seen. After watching this the movie the brutality and violence in tenebra and clockwork orange looks far better. <br /><br />The Protagonist, Raghavan, is a very daring police officer. Who is assigned to a investigate brutal serial murders. Raghavan efficiently finds the connecting thread in this case and is close to solve the murders and put the psycho killers, two psychologically disturbed but brilliant medical students, behind bars but they escape and again get into a killing spree. Finally Raghavan kills them both after sparing many innocent lives.<br /><br />THese two psycho-killers are the ones who are going to keep the audiences from going to the theaters. The murders and sexual harassments and rapes are shown very explicitly, which the movie could have survived without. <br /><br />To even imagine that teenagers and kids are going to be watching this movie in the theater and kind of picture it is bound to paint in their minds are certainly not pretty. The director, Gautham, should realize that he also has some obligation to the society and his audience.Certainly i am never going to the movies looking like Gautham's name on the production list.

"Xizao", is the tale about the clash of modern life and ancient traditions, and its effects on a family in China. Da Ming (Quanxiu Pu), is a businessman who returns home when a letter sent by his brother Er Ming (Wu Jiang) makes him believe that his father Liu (Xu Zhu), has died. He founds that his father is still alive, as well as his old neighborhood and his father old business, the public bathroom.<br /><br />The movie centers around Da Ming's family, and how he has to learn the importance of his father's job, something he always had considered an old tradition that had to die soon. Also, the movie explores his relationship with Er Ming, who is mentally challenged, and the problems of the small community and how the bathroom is a place that purifies not only their bodies, but also their souls.<br /><br />The two main themes of the movie, the family and the problems of progress, are incredibly well handled, and the movie never loses the point it is trying to make, both themes are very good developed and we get a glimpse of Chinese society and customs.<br /><br />The director, Yang Zhang, tells his tale in a simple way, letting the characters characters do the job. It is a very simple approach, but it fits the movie perfectly, and I highly doubt that another style would fit the movie this good. Zhang has enormous potential, as he can tell a story without the aid of visual flare or camera tricks.<br /><br />The acting is outstanding in its naturalistic approach, everyone acts in a very natural way and it almost looks as if they were real persons being filmed. The three lead characters give remarkable performances, and Wu Jiang as Er Ming surely steals the show.<br /><br />Even when the movie could had sticked to a patronizing "old days were much better" message, instead it takes an attitude of equilibrium, like saying that progress is good, and we must move on, but we must not forget where we came from, and keep an equilibrium between modern life and the traditions of old.<br /><br />An awesome, and touching film. 8/10

I have no idea what the other reviewer is talking about- this was a wonderful movie, and created a sense of the era that feels like time travel. The characters are truly young, Mary is a strong match for Byron, Claire is juvenile and a tad annoying, Polidori is a convincing beaten-down sycophant... all are beautiful, curious, and decadent... not the frightening wrecks they are in Gothic.<br /><br />Gothic works as an independent piece of shock film, and I loved it for different reasons, but this works like a Merchant and Ivory film, and was from my readings the best capture of what the summer must have felt like. Romantic, yes, but completely rekindles my interest in the lives of Shelley and Byron every time I think about the film. One of my all-time favorites.

The first noticeable problem about this awkwardly titled film is its casting. Ann Nelson plays the grandma here. Three years after this, she would star in "Airplane!" as the woman who hangs herself while listening to Robert Hays pine for Julie Hagerty. I could not get that image out of my head.<br /><br />Matt Boston is a fifteen year old with problems. He has headaches. His mother had a nervous breakdown. His grandfather had a massive heart attack. A chain smoking psychiatrist decides to find out what the devil is going on with this family. First she hypnotizes Grandma Nelson. Nelson tells a tale in flashback that fills the entire first half of the film.<br /><br />She and Grandpa bought an RV, cheap, and drive it around to all the tourist traps in desert California. The RV soon has a mind of its own, going off the road and such. Then, large boulders begin hurling themselves at it. The elderly couple are appropriately afraid, but stay in the vehicle in order to move the plot along.<br /><br />Eventually, Grandpa has a heart attack after being stranded on the RV roof when it goes for another unplanned ride.<br /><br />Boston's mom begins talking to some Native American mummies she has lying around the house. She fancies herself an author, and makes copious notes about the musty corpses. The psychiatrist reads the detailed notes, and uses her imagination to fill in the blanks. We see the mother semi-flip out, but her mental breakdown occurs offscreen, much like Gramps' heart attack.<br /><br />Finally, the patient de resistance, little Matt. Matt goes under the hypnosis gun and tells his own tale. He thinks mom is wigging out (this was made in 1977). Apparently, mom is making the astral bodies of the Native American mummies sort of fly through the air. One hits Matt like a bee hits a windshield, and Matt begins acting all crazy.<br /><br />The psychiatrist takes Grandma and Matt into the desert. Matt is inexplicably in a wheelchair now, and the trio confront the unseen (and unexplained) forces.<br /><br />Flocker has no sense of scene construction. The one pro here involves the RV stranded in a salt flat in the desert. In the distance, the couple notice some boulders rolling toward the RV. This is a pretty creepy little scene that is eventually overplayed. As the boulders begin hurling themselves toward the vehicle, the special effects become obvious.<br /><br />The scenes where the RV runs off the highway, then back on again, take forever. The scenes where Grandpa is trapped on the RV roof as it careens down a dirt road takes forever. Mom's conversations with the mummy take forever. Matt's out of body experiences take forever. This film takes forever.<br /><br />I was tempted to hit the fast forward button at least a dozen times. As scenes dragged on, it was obvious Flocker was padding. Cut the fat here, and this would have clocked in at an hour. The final "explanation," that the mummies' spirits were trying to kill those close to Matt never holds water. Did they inhabit the RV? The film maker never brings up the fact that the spirits are no good at their murderous ways, they never kill anybody!<br /><br />As I kept thinking of Nelson in "Airplane!," I also thought of other movies. Anything to keep me from falling asleep during this one. Boston is terrible as the kid, playing a fifteen year old as a cute ten year old who has a smart alecky line for all these adults who fall over themselves loving him.<br /><br />In the end, Flocker has written and directed a mess. The title is just the beginning of this exercise in making the audience feel ill at ease. This is not scary, and like the ghosts, you too can still walk...away from this tape at the video store.<br /><br />This is unrated, and contains some physical violence and mild profanity.

Okay...so i've seen a lot of really odd/unusual movies in my day. Fear and loathing in Las Vegas comes to mind when I think of that. Well not anymore...from here on out, whenever someone asks me, "hey, what's the most unusual movie you've ever seen?" Slipstream is what i'll say! And I do not mean "unusual" in a good way.<br /><br />From the very beginning of the movie, it was obvious that this was going to be one of those "trippy camera effect" movies. By that I mean, little things like flashing images on the screen, rewinding and fast-forwarding people's words and scenes, messing with the color on the screen, flash forwards and flash backs constantly...then you have the actual acting itself. People randomly get violent, shoot things/people, say the weirdest things that just don't make much, if any sense.<br /><br />The movie is about a writer who starts to intermingle real life with the book he's writing and for a lack of a better way to explain it, you basically see this "trip" he goes on throughout the movie. The thing is, Johnny Depp went on a similar trip in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas but the only difference is that his trip was entertaining to watch, not painful! Honestly, I had a real hard time even finishing Slipstream. It kind of hurt my brain a bit.<br /><br />I can see some film buff making a claim as to this movie having certain cinematic nuances that make it not only unique but add to the feeling of dementia...blah, blah, blah. Point is, this movie hurts your brain when you watch it....it makes very little sense, it takes all of your concentration to even remotely try and understand what is going on and even at the end, the only thing you can be happy about is that it's over...and you can say you actually sat through it! So in closing, if you want to see a movie that will have you saying "what the heck" over and over again both out loud and in your head, go ahead and waste an hour and 30 minutes and check this out.<br /><br />Mr Hopkins, while I applaud you as an actor and commend your choice to take a stab at directing....please, do not ever make a movie like this again. Next time, try something that relies a little more on great storytelling than camera techniques that tend to leave the viewer with a headache.

I love movies, and I'll watch any movie all the way through, just to give it a chance. I can finally say that I found a movie I can't watch all the way through. The acting is terribly stale and monotone, the CGI looks like a computer geek did it in his mother's basement with minimal software, and.....the long scenes of just...walking!!!! And this movie is THREE HOURS LONG!!! I didn't even make it 15 minutes until I fast forwarded the DVD. The scenes with the aliens are very short. Ummm, instead of naming this "War of the Worlds", lets name this "War of the Walking Long Distances". This cost 5 million dollars to make! What they spend the money on, the dramatic opening song?<br /><br />Oh, but on a positive note, one scene you need to watch is when the aliens first begin killing people. That's hilarious, not because people are dying, but because when they turn to skeletons, they still squirm for 20 seconds afterward.<br /><br />So....like I said, if you are a fan of boring, stale, action-less movies, here is one for you DVD collection. But I didn't write this for you, I wrote this for the billions upon billions of other people who will HATE this movie. It is not worth your time or money<br /><br />I know this is by the book, but the book isn't that long, and I'm a complete book worm/nerd/geek/whatever, but why? Just get the Steven Spielberg version, it's not all that good, but it's 10 times better than this!! <br /><br />I give this a BIG, FAT ZERO out of 10.

I have seen Slaughter High several times over the years, and always found it was an enjoyable slasher flick with an odd sense of humor, but I never knew that it was filmed in the UK, and I never knew that the actor that plays Marty Rantzen (Simon Scuddamore) committed suicide after the film was released. I guess I did notice while watching it last night that the actors phrasing seems rather odd for Americans, and a few of them aren't very good at hiding their English accents.<br /><br />All that aside though, this is the tale of the class nerd, Marty, who is the butt of jokes from his classmates, and on one particular day, April Fools Day, he's lured into the girl's locker room by one Caroline Munro (yes, playing a teenager) and humiliated big time on film. Of course, the coach catches the gang at work & they're all given a vigorous workout to punish them, but not before a couple of the guys slip Marty a joint, which he tries to smoke in the chemistry lab, but it's full of something that makes him sick & when he runs to the restroom, one of his classmates slips in and puts a chemical that reacts with something Marty is mixing, which results in a fire and the spill of a bottle of nitric acid, which leaves poor Marty burned & horribly scarred.<br /><br />Ten years later, this same gang is headed for their class reunion at good old Doddsville High, which seems oddly boarded up and inaccessible, but thanks to ingenuity they manage to get in and find the place seemingly derelict...except there's a room where a banquet and liquor is laid out and so of course, they eat, drink, and be merry. For soon, they will die, of course.<br /><br />The gang is stalked one-by-one by a figure in a jester's mask, but could it be Marty? They don't know, they figure he's either in a loony bin or working for IBM, they're not sure which. But whoever it is, he's making quick work of them. Particularly nasty is the girl that takes a bath to wash blood off her from one of her classmates whose innards popped all over her when he drank poisoned beer. She is victim to an acid bath which I believe may have been one of the parts originally cut in the tape version, because it seemed extra nasty when I watched it this time. I could be wrong but I believe that wasn't on the tape.<br /><br />At any rate, there's somewhat of a twist ending, and that also contains footage not on the tape, I believe. There's also a bit of frontal nudity early on that was also excised, but apart from that I didn't really notice if there were other bits on this uncut version, probably so but it's been a while since I've last seen it.<br /><br />At any rate, if you're a fan of 80's slasher flicks then snap up the new release DVD, because it's a fun little slasher with a good atmosphere & feel to it. 7 out of 10.

I saw most of the episodes of RMFTM as a teenager on "Cliffhanger Theater" running after midnight on a local station some years ago, and then again when Mystery Science Theatre riffed on it in the early 90's. Time has not been kind to it. <br /><br />I can certainly make allowances for the special effects, which were quite impressive for a low budget 50's serial (IMO Commando Cody's flying scenes were better than George Reeves/Superman's in his TV show). And I can also make allowances for the ahem, "acting", and fight choreography -. except for the guy who plays the ruler of the Moon Men. He is incredibly miscast. He looks and acts like the fellow who comes to fix your plumbing, not the despotic ruler of an alien race. Even the corny dialog works all right - everyone rattles off their lines like strings of firecrackers, with no wasted time or pauses for things like "thought" or "introspection". Since everyone does this, the viewer finds it immersive after awhile, and even to my modern sensibilities, it doesn't bother much. <br /><br />What really irritates me is the writing and the plotting. I'm not talking about the sunny weather on the moon, or baking soda powered rocket ships, or a flying suit that has controls labeled "up/down" and "fast/slow". I'm not even bothered by the cheesiness of the resolutions to the cliffhangers that end each chapter. I'm talking about the fact that our supposed heroes are dumber than fence posts and have no cumulative memory. And by the fact that although that the dialog clips along like an express train, the plot goes through the same motions again and again. <br /><br />Dig it: Commando Cody and his pal are the spearhead of a top secret hi tech science lab charged with protecting Earth (or at least the USA) against an insidious alien invasion. But his office has no guards or security checkpoints. They don't even have locks on the front doors. So the bad guys walk RIGHT IN and beat the crap out of the Cody and his staff ...not once (perhaps understandable) but SEVERAL times. They even kidnap his female assistant on the second try. And they never get any smarter. To further prove my point, allow me to point out the way that Cody jumps in his flying suit and flies around getting into trouble and never actually seems to succeed in catching anyone. He does this over and over and over. Cody also flies his ship to the Moon (the woman assistant comes along to cook), stays for about 30 seconds and immediately turns around and comes back. Cody captures one of the Atomic Ray guns...and immediately loses it again to the bad guys because he couldn't be bothered to lock it up. And so on.<br /><br />And you would think that if Cody's efforts were so vital to saving the USA from the Moon Men, that he might ask for a few soldiers with carbines, a few helicopters and a tank or two to back him up, instead of just working with the local police all the time. This was supposed to be a military operation, but they act like it's another episode of "Gangbusters". <br /><br />It's all rather hard to stomach. I appreciate that the creators were severely limited in the scope of their story by budget and time constraints...and I appreciate that Cody is actually a reasonably tough hombre (even though he loses half of his fistfights). But I just can't help yelling "DOOR! LOCK THE DOOOOR!!" when the gangsters simply walk into his lab, or try to blow up the ship and there are NO security measures at the landing site in place...not even a fence (!). <br /><br />Still, it's OK. Of the three Republic serials I've watched, "Phantom Creeps" had a better plot, and "Undersea Kingdom" had more atmosphere (hah!) and a better hero than "Radar Men", but it's an OK time-waster. <br /><br />BTW...why "Radar" men? They didn't use radar, they used Atomic Ray Guns. Shouldn't the title have been "Atomic Ray Gun Men From The Moon?"

Nagra comes from conservative Indian family that isn't exactly into girls playing competitive soccer. But our attractive young star CAN play some serious soccer. Rhys-Meyers coaches Nagra and encourages her to perform, while Knightley is supportive teammate and friend. When sis' wedding is scheduled for the same day as the ultimate soccer match, what's a girl to do? Similar in its own unique way to BFGW as Nagra tries to push the envelope on traditional family ways. Here it's dad (well-played by Kher) who can see both sides of the issue. Docked an entire point for a hokey late sexual preference non-crisis, if they needed filler they could have gone elsewhere. Nice final wrap up to the whole deal.

I am a current A.S.L. Student & was forced to watch this movie in class, and what I got out of it was the blatant bias involved in the film. The film is obviously leaning towards to P.O.V. of the "common deaf perception" their is no middle ground. Also, the film didn't make mention or take into account other situations that are also under debate in this topic. I.E. Deaf People who were born hearing and later went deaf. Is it right or wrong in that instance? The film is biased and virtually all in the opinion of the Deaf w/ a capital "D". Not that this is bad, but for it to be a true documentary film is should attempt to be slightly unbiased.

About the only thing I liked about this film is that there was JUST enough in it to keep me in my seat to the end... I kept thinking that maybe in the NEXT scene things would gel... Alas...<br /><br />Those who like Gus Van Sant's films - especially his later ones - will probably like this. Personally, I find van Sant's films to be dull, pretentious and facile. Well, he was an executive producer for this film, so it is no surprise that the film could almost have been made by him - although personally I actually liked this better than van Sant's latest efforts (e.g. Elephant).<br /><br />Contrary to many here, I did not think the film was difficult to understand or disjointed, I thought that above all it is a film that wishes to portray a certain mood - the mood of an adolescent moving slowly into the adult world - but so slowly that the changes are barely visible if at all. But I feel that the problem with the film is that "mood" is not enough... and not only that, but that the mood painted here is, to my mind, incorrectly chosen for the story that is supposedly happening. The dream-like quality, so closely linked to nature, is beautifully captured here, but it is a mood which belongs much more to a much younger child, one who really still does get totally caught up in watching nature unfold (waves on a beach, grasses and flowers, spiders etc). The rhythm of the film reminds me of my summers when I was about eight or nine. There is a LANGUOR to the film that is in opposition to what SHOULD be a very tense time in an adolescent life. When you are caught up in a crush on someone - or being the object of bullying at school - you are anything BUT languorous! There are only two moments that truly worked for me in the film...SPOILERS HERE - first when Logan drops the groceries and his mother throws a bit of a fit. The frustrations of an adult dealing with a klutzy kid - especially with no father present - seemed real to me.<br /><br />The second, and ONLY part of the film with any tension to it, were the scenes where "Leah" (Logan's re-creation of himself) phones Rodeo and tries to seduce him into phone-sex. The first reason I liked it is because the person who did the voice-over of "Leah" was the most convincing actor in the entire film. (It made me think of Claire Danes from My So-Called Life ...the voice even sounded like Claire.) She and Rodeo had the only scenes that seemed totally believable between the kids. And what I especially liked was the fact that Rodeo only pretended to play along... it was perhaps the best moment in the film as - finally! - we got some character development.<br /><br />All in all, a somewhat misplaced effort... we will have to see what he does in his next film before we can really say much about the director's possible talents. In the meantime, if he can get away from van Sant's influence, it might do him a world of good. Who is this director anyhow - one of van Sant's boy toys?

John Heder was absolutely horrendous in this movie. I felt like I was watching a bad college kid act for the first time in a student film. Anna Farris was par for the course, not good, but not horrible (plus she's cute). Dianne Keaton should have known better. Jeff Daniels was the only saving grace in this movie (even though it was poor judgement on his part as well). <br /><br />All in all, I would avoid this at all costs. I'm just glad I didn't pay to see it! <br /><br />John Heder will forever be stuck in the typecast role of' the dorky kid,' unless he does some SERIOUS work on his acting chops.

Yes, this is one of the great musical movies I grew up with with such great entertainers as Frank Sinatra and Gene Kelly, not to mention the petite and glorious voice of Kathryn Grayson. The music and dancing is superb. I understand Frank took lessons from Kelly; and there is Kelly dancing with Jerry Mouse, which is quite unique for the time. Betty Garrett plays the waitress who falls in love with Sinatra. She is one of Hollywood's great underrated stars. I saw this again on A&E TV and as well have it in my old VCR tapes. Never get tired of these old musicals. Whatever happened to Hollywood??

Just a note to add to the above comment. Fear of a Black Hat doesn't have the criminal who's image has been ripped off by the band, that's in CB4. Easily confused as the two films are so similar, but Black Hat is vastly the superior of the two..... yeah.

I'm a fan of arty movies, but regretfully I have to report this movie to be pretentious drivel. Agonisingly slow to develop a non-existent plot based on a promising premise, the experience is, shall we say, trying. Even after bad movies I feel that I learn something, or enjoyed some aspect, but there there was nothing to appreciate. The premise was not uninteresting, but the movie starts and ends there. The acting was OK, though the characters were utterly boring. For the protagonist to aim at such an audacious goal, she is mightily empty. Pity. I usually enjoy movies that are unformulaic, but lack of formula should not be confused with zero content.

This film tells the story of a romance between Albert Einstien niece and a gas station attendant. In order to get the two together, Einstien agrees to help Ed(Hudsucker Proxy's Tim Robbins) learn to act more intelligent. This impresses Catherine (Meg Ryan). Unfortunately Einstien goes too far and Ed is considered to be a genius. Hilarity ensues. Not to be missed. Filmed in Mercer county New Jersey at Princeton University, Lawrenceville Prep School (doubling for Princeton University) as well as a beautiful vintage gas station in Hopewell.

"Yokai Daisenso" is a children's film by Takashi Miike, but as you might expect, it's probably a bit too dark & scary for younger ones. However, older children may well eat this up, that is, if you play it dubbed in English.<br /><br />The story is that of a young boy, who has moved with his mother to the country, to live with his grandfather, after a divorce. During a village festival the boy is chosen as a "Kirin rider", a great honor, but with that honor comes much danger and adventure, of course.<br /><br />Meanwhile, evil doings are at hand as a woman in a white mini skirt, go-go boots & a beehive hair-do, teams up with an evil Yokai to turn people's resentments and discarded items against them. And this evil has manifested itself as a flying city in the form of a monster that heads for the City of Rage itself, Tokyo. One quite funny scene has two derelicts watching the monster fly over the city...says one, "Oh, it's only Gamera". <br /><br />The young boy has befriended Yokai, which are monsters of a kind, mostly benign, that have isolated themselves away from humans, and all the Yokai in Japan band together to fight the evil.<br /><br />In many ways Miike & crew have taken the late 60's/early 70's Yokai films and turned them into a modern action adventure film for (older) kids that also combines some strange mechanical monsters that made me think of "Transformers". The look and feel of the film is great, the effects are entertaining, and some of the humor will just sail right over kid's heads, but still, older ones might enjoy it. As for adults, there's not much here not to like, if you're a fan of Japanese monster movies you'll enjoy the heck out of this.<br /><br />Cool & fun stuff, kind of dark at times but perhaps that's just Miike..and what a wild ride. 8 out of 10.

I have always been a fan of the show so I'll admit that I am biased. When the show's run ended, I felt like too many questions remained unanswered. This movie to me felt like closure. To see all the people I'd followed over the past few years together at last was most rewarding. I have heard that this is probably the only Homicide movie that we can expect. If that is so, this is the appropriate way to go out. This movie is sometimes poignant, sometimes upsetting, but always satisfying. If you are or ever have been a fan of the show, watch this movie.

I researched this film a little and discovered a web site that claims it was actually an inside joke about the Post WWII Greenwich Village world of gays and lesbians. With the exception of Stewart and Novak, the warlocks and witches represented that alternative lifestyle. John Van Druten who wrote the stage play was apparently gay and very familiar with this Greenwich Village. I thought this was ironic because I first saw Bell, Book and Candle in the theater when I was in 5th or 6th grade just because my parents took me. It was hard to get me to a movie that didn't include horses, machine guns, or alien monsters and I planned on being bored. But, I remember the moment when Jimmy Stewart embraced Kim Novak on the top of the Flatiron building and flung his hat away while the camera followed it fluttering to the ground. As the glorious George Duning love theme soared, I suddenly got a sense of what it felt like to fall in love. The first stirrings of romantic/sexual love left me dazed as I left the theater. I am sure I'm not the only pre-adolescent boy who was seduced by Kim Novak's startling, direct gaze. It's ironic that a gay parable was able to jump-start heterosexual puberty in so many of us. I am in my late 50's now and re-watched the film yesterday evening and those same feelings stirred as I watched that hat touch down fifty years later . . .

So, this movie has been hailed, glorified, and carried to incredible heights. But in the end what is it really? Many of the ways in which it has been made to work for a hearing audience on the screen do not work. The fairly academic camera work keeps the signing obfuscated, and scenes that are in ASL are hard to follow as a result even for someone who is relatively fluent. The voice interpretation of Matlin's dialogue, under the excuse that Hurt's character "likes the sound of his voice", turns her more and more into a weird distant object as the film goes on. Matlin does shine in the few scenes where her signing is not partially hidden from view. But nonetheless, most of the movie, when this is a love story, is only showed from a single point of view, that of the man. As Ebert said, "If a story is about the battle of two people over the common ground on which they will communicate, it's not fair to make the whole movie on the terms of only one of them."<br /><br />The idea that an oralist teacher who uses methods that have been imposed in many deaf schools for decades would be presented as "revolutionary" is fairly insulting in itself. His character becomes weakened as a credible teacher as the movie goes on. Drawing comedy from a deaf accent is, quite honestly, rather low. And his attitude towards the male students of his class is pretty symptomatic of how he seems to act with women: as an entitled man. A party scene involving a number of deaf people including a few academics meeting together leaves him seemingly isolated, in a way that's fairly inconsistent with his credentials: I have seen interpreters spontaneously switch to asl between each other even when they weren't aware of a deaf person being in the area, and yet somehow he feels like a fish out of the water in an environment his education should have made him perfectly used to. As a lover, he seems like a typical dogged nice guy, including his tendency to act possessively afterwards. And yet the movie is, indeed, only really seen through him, as everything his lover says is filtered through his voice. <br /><br />The scenes involving the other deaf kids are, in general, wallbangers. The broken symbolism fails, the dance scene, the pool scene, even the initial sleep scene which is supposed to carry some of it - all these scenes that try to hint at the isolation of the deaf main character are broken metaphors, at best: many hearing people I know do dance on the bass beats that deaf people feel (instead of squirming like copulating chihuahuas), and going to take an evening dive for a hearing person is rarely an excuse to make a deep statement on the isolation of deafness (no, seriously, when I go swim, I go swim)...<br /><br />It also fails at carrying the end of the play, instead making it a story of a deaf woman who submits to a strong man. Even though the original play ended with a more equal ground, where both have to accept each other as they are, and where he has to finally recognize her real voice is the movement of her hands, not the vibrations in her throat.<br /><br />And for all the breakthrough that it may have seemed to be, Marlee Matlin remains Hollywood's token deaf woman to this day.

This movie was promising: my favorite actor in a historical drama during the Independence war. It had memories from "Dances With Wolves" for the big prairies, Indians, military fights & from "Barry Lyndon" for the British & candles lights atmospheres...<br /><br />Unfortunately, the script is awful: the continuity of the story is lacking (cuts with "5 months later"; "3 years later") & the romance is so ridiculous that it's hard to believe in it: America is a big country but the characters kept bumping at each other; Above all, wait for the ending & you understand how to kill a story (imagine the same in "Titanic").<br /><br />Sometimes, a bad script is saved by a brilliant filmmaker. Unfortunately bis, Hudson is a poor one. He has already committed "Greystoke" and i find again the same flaws: no dynamic in scenes, in editing, in scoring: it is long, dull, flat....<br /><br />I knew that this movie was a disaster for Pacino's career: now i understand. Finally, this last movie for 2006 is in the vein of this year for me: A painful one...

I'd heard about this movie a while ago from a friend and she recently got it on DVD. There was a lot of anticipation and excitement as we'd both heard that this was a terrifying film, really scary. How disappointed was I?? VERY!!!! Apart from that one scene (we all know which bit) NOTHING happened!!! I was expecting to see the woman in black a few times and for her to do a few more jumpy scenes, like appear at the window or walk across the hall or something.<br /><br />Nearly all the reviews here say what a scary, gripping, atmospheric movie this is. I just didn't see it I'm afraid. Maybe there's a difference in what people find scary in the US to here in Britain.<br /><br />A big let down after all the hyped reviews :(