Q: Based on the average short story by horror writer Stephen King about so called 'Sleepwalkers' ancient and immortal cat-like creatures that suck the life out of virgins in order that this energy may sustain them They have supernatural abilities- they can make themselves 'dim' which means they become invisible and can create subliminal mirages to fool people.They have been fleeing humans for century's we are told and have one by one been picked off till there are only two left.The film starts when a beautiful mother and her son arrive in a sleepy town, they are the last of the sleepwalkers and they are on the prowl for virgins to feed on. The mother sends her son out to enrol at the local high school so he can find a virgin, he does (Madchen Amick) and proceeds to try to get her alone so he can suck her dry. It is not made clear why the mother cannot seek out virgins herself- it would make things easier one would imagine as teenage boys are much more apt to follow a older beautiful woman to a secluded area than a teen girl follow a teen boy. However his plans are thwarted as the girl fights back, jabbing a pencil in to his ear. The police are called and the hunt is on!. The son is sick from his injuries and so the mother goes on the rampage killing cops left and right in her hunt for the girl who hurt her son and spouting some painfully unfunny one liners amidst the gore. Finally the girl kills the mother- end of movie. This movie is rubbish!. The acting is variable, from the average Brian Krause to the excellent Alice Krige. The special effects are average,and showcase some early computer effects which is mildly interesting as it shows how far such things have progressed in such a short time. The direction is muddled and the film falls in to camp in places. The director seems unsure whether we are supposed to fear the sleepwalkers or sympathise with them and when in doubt allows the film to become hysterical. Stephen King makes a mildly amusing cameo as an annoying gardener as does Mark Hamill, as a puzzled cop. Alice Krige seems to shoulder the film, her character is given depth and she gives an indication of what the film could have been with a better screenplay and better direction.
A: negative
Q: when you add up all the aspects from the movie---the dancing, singing, acting---the only one who stands out as the best in the cast is Vanessa Williams...her dedication, energy and timeless beauty make Rosie the perfect role for her. Never have i ever seen someone portray Rose with such vibrancy! Vanessa's singing talent shows beautifully with all the songs she performs as Rose and her acting skills never cease to amaze me! Her dancing is so incredible, even if as some people say the choreography was bad---her dancing skills were displayed better than ever before! I'd recommend this version over the '63 just because i find that although lengthy the acting by Vanessa is superb-----not to mention the fact that Jason Alexander and the rest of the cast are very impressive as well (with the exception of Chynna Philips...what in hell were they thinking when they cast her?)

All in all I'd say this version is wonderful and I recommend that everyone see this version!
A: positive
Q: With a movie called "Gayniggers from Outer Space" how could you go wrong? Just throw in some over the top stereotypes for the characters, use the Village People as the main suppliers for the soundtrack, and throw in tons of gay-gags. Plot is unimportant. Too bad, this film doesn't contain any of this and every joke misses the spot. The characters all look alike apart from the german gaynigger, one or two jokes work, the rest fails.

The title made me laugh and I was prepared to laugh even more about the film. My expectation were to high apparently.
A: negative
Q: I decided to watch this one because it's been nominated for Oscar this year. I guess as many folks here I really wanted to like this movie, but ended up bored and disappointed. First scene was OK but the whole rest of the movie in "shaky hands" camera mode is really annoying.

i guess the main reason for making such a movie and nominating it for Oscar is this:

American "military machine" (people, who makes money on war) urgently need an excuse or justification of war in Iraq by bungling up something (sort of) patriotic.

why these "heroic" efforts of director and the main character to _inspire_ the audience with an idea of "loving-war-like-a-drug"?.. Oh, please, come on! what a bore!

watch this to get an idea of how low the movie academy can fall...
A: negative