Q: Stunning. Absolutely stunning. This is a movie about two kids who's father suddenly has a vision. He claims an angel visits him, and tells him that they need to kill "demons". He gets instructions later, and they start rounding up the demons, which are, to the naked eye, ordinary people. They kill these so-called demons with an ax to the head, and chop them up, burying them in the rose-garden. Their father claims he can see their sins when he touches them. The movie continues, with a twist at the end.

The thing that I love about this movie, is that it perfectly captures the frailty of human perception. Is their father completely mad? Or, is he telling the truth? The audience is left to decide. Go make the judgment for yourself, and see the movie. Now.
A: positive
Q:

I saw once No Man's Land (1987) - IMDB link http://us.imdb.com/Title?0093638 - and found it ok. The film is about a guy who steals only Porsches. Gone in Sixty Seconds comes 13 years after and adds nothing to it. In fact, it has a lot of scenes that are worthless. And the ending is very, very bad.

The Sphinx has a magnetic screen presence that should have been better used...
A: positive
Q: This is one of the worse movies that I have ever seen in my entire life. I wish I could travel back in time and do the following:

1) Find out where the "movie" "War Games- The Dead Code" was filmed 2) Watch the original WAR GAMES with my current computer knowledge AND the eyes of a 1983 preteen. 3) Break into the pentagon computer in the 80's with the knowledge and perspective learned and remembered. 4) Reprogram the WHOPPER to NUKE the location of THE DEAD CODE minutes prior to its first day of filming 5) Come back to the present, have a beer and get Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones to "flash" my memory blank of the whole event, especially my original viewing of "The Dead Code" 6) Have another beer and watch WARS GAMES 7) Be happy until the next bad remake of a GOOD 80's movie.

8) Did I forget the have Jar Jar killed. I am not sure if I would have to travel into the future for that. Maybe I need access to a wormhole.
A: negative
Q: I turned this on to see the incredible Ethel Waters, whose autobiography I am now reading. I'll admit my jaw dropped when the pork chops and watermelon references started rolling in, but people cannot look at this movie as a stereotypical or racist piece. It's pretty much a short film made by blacks, for blacks at a time when the entertainment industry was quite segregated and the stereotypes to the people involved were the jokes of their time, old trends exaggerated for humor. We see modern black movies do the same thing, but with the new trends (stereotypes), "ho's" and the "hood" and such. I think if you look back in eighty years, you would find today's movies will look just as racist. What viewers should appreciate about this film is the talent of Waters and the pint-sized Sammy Davis Jr., who out taps his contemporary, Shirley Temple, and looks remarkably the same facially as he did as an adult. Everyone involved in this film clearly had a lot of fun making it. Why not enjoy it for what it is, instead of what you think it should have been?
A: positive