Datasets:

sgavela

/

sample_imdb

like 0

Finally i thought someone is going to do justice to H.G. Wells's classic , not another version set in the wrong locale or era , but one based firmly on the book . Well it definitely follows the book pretty closely , and that is the only plus to this mess.<br /><br />This is 180 Min's (yes 3 hours) long , the book is only around 150 pages .<br /><br />If Timothy Hines had the nerve to come on here and say "if you can do any better ..." i would say "yes , i could" and i have never used a video camera or been to any sort or drama school in my life.<br /><br />I paid good money to get this crap over to the UK from the USA , do not make the same mistake as me .

I saw this at the premiere in Melbourne<br /><br />It is shallow, two-dimensional, unaffecting and, hard to believe given the subject matter, boring. The actors are passable, but they didn't have much to work with given the very plodding and unimpressive script. For those who might have worried that Ned Kelly would be over-intellectualised, you can take comfort in the fact that this telling of the story is utterly without any literary depth at all, told entirely on the surface and full of central casting standards. However, it doesn't work as a popcorn film either. Its pacing is too off-kilter and its craft is too lacking to satisfy even on the level of a mundane actioner.<br /><br />I very much doubt Gregor Jordan could sit back and say to himself "this is the best I could have done with the material".<br /><br />Ned Kelly is a fascinating figure, and equally so is the national response to him. Possibly folk genius, possibly class warrior, possibly psychopath and probably all these things, he has dominated Australian true mythology for over 120 years. Once again, his story has failed miserably on the big screen.<br /><br />Such is life.

I caught this stink bomb of a movie recently on a cable channel, and was reminded of how terrible I thought it was in 1980 when first released. Many reviewers out there aren't old enough to remember the enormous hype that surrounded this movie and the struggle between Stanley Kubrick and Steven King. The enormously popular novel had legions of fans eager to see a supposed "master" director put this multi-layered supernatural story on the screen. "Salem's Lot" had already been ruined in the late 1970s as a TV mini-series, directed by Tobe Hooper (he of "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" fame) and was badly handled, turning the major villain of the book into a "Chiller Theatre" vampire with no real menace at all thus destroying the entire premise. Fans hoped that a director of Kubrick's stature would succeed where Hooper had failed. It didn't happen.<br /><br />Sure, this movie looks great and has a terrific opening sequence but after those few accomplishments, it's all downhill. Jack Nicholson cannot be anything but Jack Nicholson. He's always crazy and didn't bring anything to his role here. I don't care that many reviewers here think he's all that in this clinker, the "Here's Johnny!" bit notwithstanding...he's just awful in this movie. So is everyone else, for that matter. Scatman Crothers' character, Dick Halloran, was essential to the plot of the book, yet Kubrick kills him off in one of the lamest "shock" sequences ever put on film. I remember the audience in the theater I saw this at booing repeatedly during the last 45 minutes of this wretched flick, those that stayed that is...many left. King's books really never translate well to film since so much of the narratives occur internally to his characters, and often metaphysically. Kubrick jettisoned the tension between the living and the dead in favor of style here and the resulting mess ends so far from the original material that we ultimately don't really care what happens to whom.<br /><br />This movie still stinks and why so many think it's a horror masterpiece is beyond me.

In 1988, Paperhouse was hailed as a "thinking man's horror film." Wow, you might say, sign me up. This thing is a mess. It features a one time young actress who has a range of like 1 to 2. G. Headley with a bad British (dubbed) accent, and a story with no chills, thrills or spills.<br /><br />It isn't even interesting psycho-babble. One will only laugh at its cheap effects and long for a showing of Leprechaun 5.<br /><br />The story involves a girl with glandular fever who escapes in her dreams. WHat you get isn't good horror, art house or even a decent after-school special. I found myself after the two hour point saying..where did my two hours go.<br /><br />The direction is uninspired and I wished it could even be pretentious...something interesting..it seems like the producers were on lithium.<br /><br />Even in the dream world things are boring.<br /><br />A short no on this one.

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.

This film is predictable; it is more predictable then a Vinnie Testaverdi pass, when he huts the ball for the Jets. One saw the ending coming up halfway through the film. The politics reminds me when I was back east. Many people know when the fix is in. I gave this four because of the acting, but the story is lame.

The last reviewer was very generous. I quiet like the first movie, but can't say I enjoy this one very much. The beginning is bearable, but it goes downhill pretty quickly. I just don't see Jon Bon Jovi as a "bad-ass vampire hunter" and the vampire princess is neither sexy nor scary. A lot of the scenes just do not make sense. I mean any normal person would suspect something is up when a strange woman suddenly appearing out of nowhere to seduce you, let alone an experienced hunter. Why Una is able to communicate with Jovi? Nothing was ever explain in this movie, you wouldn't mind if it was entertaining, but that was too much to ask. This has to be one of worst vampire movie I have seen.

I was thrilled to watch this movie expecting it to be the sequel to the cult classic "Private Lessons" which portrays the dream of any male teenager.<br /><br />"Private Lessons II" has NOTHING to do with the title I mention. It's just a regular soft-core Cinemax flick that won't make a change in your life. There's just one hot sex scene in a rooftop but that's it. I watched this a long time ago but believe me, this is just a regular boring soft core flick.<br /><br />The women are hot but that's not enough to rent or buy the movie. My advice is to watch this only if it airs on cable.

This movie was just plain bad. Just about every cop movie cliché is present and accounted for. Bad guy gets away? check. Partner? check. Wacky personality clash with partner? check. Rookie with something to prove? check. Rookie shows up grizzled veteran. check. About the only ones it didn't touch on were idiot shoot themselves in the foot and retirony but I guess they're saving those old chestnuts for Dooley's next outing. Add in the battle of the sexes with Girl Power along with tired old sight gags and banal overdone material like Dooley's prize car getting trashed all the time and you have the recipe for one really bad movie. Avoid this one at all costs.

As a great admirer of Marlene Dietrich, I had to (finally) watch this very, very dull picture. It is Miss Dietrich's first color film, and the world's most beautiful blond is a redhead! Bad start. The story is a tremendous bore, involving a subject which itself bores bores me stiff: religious guilt. (Who needs it???) Suffice it to say, perhaps, that of all Dietrich's films (and I have seen most, including "Pittsburgh") this is the only one where even her performance is barely worth watching. The color photography is OK (this is a very early Technicolor release), but to no purpose. Ridiculous casting: C. Aubrey Smith, Basil Rathbone (enough said?). The only thing of any interest at all is John Carradine's outlandish caricature of a performance as "The Sand Diviner," who foretells all that will happen. The supposed "happy ending" is one of the most depressing ever conceived. Yet another example of David O. Selznick's highly inflated reputation (did he ever make a really good film? -- other than That One?) And, for one final annoyance, the soundtrack of the MGM DVD is a mess, with volume levels seemingly randomized. Highly unrecommended.

What made the original Killer Tomatoes fun was it was made by people with no budget who were just being wacky for a couple of days...<br /><br />This was something with a budget, but it just wasn't as much fun. John Astin of Adams Family fame is actually making an effort here to be comedic, but he is supported by lame actors, cheap special effects and unfunny gags.<br /><br />The plot. Dr. Gangrene (Astin) escapes from a French prison and decides he is going to put a pretender on the throne of France... The hero, his French girlfriend and the Gizmo-like "Fuzzy Tomato" decide they are going to stop him...<br /><br />Forgettable Direct to Video nonsense...

This movie is not in anyway funny, it tries to be funny with it's lame humor, which is so dry and boring that the movie is just 2 hours of torture. Throughout the whole movie i was thinking one thing, "when is this gonna end". One thing you have to hand to them, is that they do have a very few mildly funny moments, which is also why i gave it a whole 2 stars. It is unoriginal and uses up almost every old blonde joke in the book, even the ones that wasn't funny the first time. It basically is a movie to belittle blondes and to record the whole repetoir of blonde jokes.<br /><br />To sum it all up, this movie is blonde humor gone bad, it is not worth paying any amount of money to watch, it is just that bad.

I basically skimmed through the movie but just enough to catch watch the plot was about. To tell you the truth it was kind of boring to me and at some spots it didn't make sense. The only reason I watched this movie in the first place was to see CHACE CRAWFORD!!! He is so hot, but in this movie his hair was kind of weird. But still hot.<br /><br />However, despite how hot CHACE is, it really did not make up for the film. I guess the plot isn't that bad but what really threw me over was the fact that they cuss in like every sentence. Is it that hard to express your anger without saying the F word every time?The cussing was annoying and the whole flashy, camera shaking thing gave me a headache.<br /><br />All in all, although the plot was OK, I found the film to be a bore and over dramatic. That's why I only cut to scenes with CHACE in it. LOL Anyways, not worth renting unless your a die-hard fan of a specific cast member like I was. Oh yeah the cast was Hot. The girls were HOT!!! But CHACE IS THE BEST!!

"Fever Pitch" isn't a bad film; it's a terrible film.<br /><br />Is it possible American movie audiences and critics are so numbed and lobotomized by the excrement that Hollywood churns out that they'll praise to the skies even a mediocre film with barely any laughs? That's the only reason I can think of why this horrible romantic comedy (and I use that term loosely because there's nothing funny in this film) is getting good reviews.<br /><br />I sat through this film stunned that screenwriters Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandel would even for an instant think their script was funny.<br /><br />The brilliant Nick Hornby usually translates well to film. He adapted "Fever Pitch" for a British film starring Colin Firth and Ruth Gemmell in 1997; Peter Hedges found Hornby's voice for "About a Boy" (2002) and when "High Fidelity" was Americanized for a movie in 2000, writers D.V. DeVincentis, Steve Pink, John Cusack and Scott Rosenberg didn't go wrong because they kept the essence of Hornby's wit and humor. They made one of the best films of that year.<br /><br />So why does the American version of "Fever Pitch" go so painfully awry? The British version wasn't a masterpiece, but it was charming, funny, unexpected and gave us two characters we could like, respect and understand.<br /><br />But Ganz and Mandel have excised everything funny in Hornby's work. In Americanizing the story, they've butchered it, removing all that was good and unique about Hornby's work and replacing it with conventional drivel.<br /><br />They've transformed a funny story into a formulaic romantic comedy, never once veering from the wretched formula. Lindsey (Drew Barrymore) has three girlfriends, each of whom has a distinct function. One's overweight, the second's cynical and ambitious, and the third's a romantic. Want to guess how many male friends Ben (Jimmy Fallon) has?<br /><br />What made "High Fidelity" such fun was not only a good leading man and lady, but engaging supporting characters. In this "Fever Pitch," the six supporting friends do or say nothing especially funny. They're so insignificant, they're not even decorative. The only reason they're in the film is because the formula demands it. Poor Ione Skye winds up as one Lindsey's pals in a thankless role. The lovely Skye must have been wishing Lloyd Dobler would swoop in and take her away. Come to think of it, Cusack would've made an excellent Ben. Of course, Cusack is too smart to attach himself to such an utterly tedious script.<br /><br />There isn't a single, solitary moment in this film that seems original or unforced. Every plot turn is predictable, every lame joke telegraphed. Ganz and Mandel labor for laughs. The first 45 minutes are so excruciatingly slow, you wonder if these chaps realized they were writing a comedy. You can mark the plot turns in this film by your watch. It's almost as if Ganz and Mandel penned this with some screen writing guru's formula pasted on the wall. When they got to a certain page, they looked up at the formula and said, "OK, the guru says this has to happen now." And, presto!<br /><br />Directors Bobby and Peter Farrelly don't help the film any. They have no concept how to introduce their story and characters (they hand over the V.O. narration not to the protagonist, but to another guy who sits behind Ben at Fenway Park). Thanks to some extremely clunky writing, we have to watch Barrymore and Fallon stumble through their unfunny initial meetings.<br /><br />Barrymore does cute and adorable better than most. She's as good at it as Goldie Hawn in her heyday. But even her cuteness can't save this extraordinarily awful film. She tries hard to wring some energy and humor out of this story. About 30 minutes into the film, Lindsey tells Ben, "You're funny." The only explanation for her remark is that it was in the script. For Fallon's Ben never says anything even remotely funny. Fallon is neither witty nor funny; when he does comedy, he overacts.<br /><br />Fallon was never any good on "Saturday Night Live." He was quite possibly the least funny person on that show. Remember that lame sketch about a radio DJ who did all the voices? The only reason "Weekend Update" worked occasionally was because Fallon's cohort, Tina Fey, knows a thing or two about comedy.<br /><br />Actors who think they're funny and behave that way rarely, if ever, are actually funny. That's true of Fallon. He thinks he's hysterically funny when he barely raises a chuckle. His stuttering, unsure-of-himself shtick didn't work on the small screen; it's lousier on the big screen.<br /><br />Unfortunately for Fallon, his role in this picture also requires a few dramatic moments. If you thought his comedy was bad, wait till you get a load of his dramatic stuff. Two scenes in particular - the first in a park, the second in front of Ben's school - are painful to watch. The scenes require an actor with a smidgen of dramatic ability, but Fallon has neither the knowledge nor the ability to make them work. His range of emotions doesn't even run the gamut from A to B.<br /><br />Ben has no personality or depth. Often, he comes across as an oaf. And not a lovable one at that. It boggles the mind what Lindsey would find attractive about him. Compare Fallon's performance to Firth's in the British version, and you'll understand how terribly flat, unfunny and forced Fallon's Ben is and how wrong he is for this role. Watching Fallon in "Fever Pitch" makes one long for the dramatic depth and comedic nuance of Ashton Kutcher!<br /><br />Just as "High Fidelity" did, an Americanized "Fever Pitch" could've worked brilliantly. It just needed better writers, more competent directors and, most definitely, a stronger, funnier, smarter leading man. Do yourself a huge favor: Avoid this rotten film; rent the 1997 British version and read Hornby's book, instead.

I read the book and really enjoyed it from beginning to end. However, when I saw the movie I was very disappointed. First of all, no disrespect to Deborah Raffin but she was too mature to play a woman of 24/25. The late Christopher Reeve was also miscast-same reason. Will, according to the book,was around 30. I would have love to see a little more exploration of his military life, his friend Red, Elly's trip to see him as that was an important part of the characters' storyline development. Also Miss Beasley was miscast as the book mentioned her being a Plus Size lady. I know the movie didn't have the budget of the "Bridges Of Madison County" which I believe was released around the same time. <br /><br />But to me this was a very poorly made, low budget, miscast movie. As someone mentioned, I wish that Miss Spenser would come out of retirement and write screenplays for her books as they ought to be. She knows her characters better than anyone, I hope that she would consider doing the casting too. The movie let me down!

I wonder if there is any sense of sense in this movie. Its a big joke. Good.. Its entertaining .. You get to see the most stupid plot played very seriously in the form of a film .. I wonder which audience group this movie is basically targeted to.<br /><br />Priety (a pros) plays a surrogate mom for a happy couple Salman/Rani who want a child but can't. I wonder how it would be if this drama was a real-life take-off from a real couple's life.<br /><br />Rani appears happy with another pretty lady in her house who has been brought in to make a child for her & Salman. She cares for Priety and tries pushing her husband Salman to Preity so they may have some romance. When will the audience get fed up of Salman's nakhras.<br /><br />Though a good past-time, this movie is unbearable. Absurd.

This movie sucked plain and simple. Okay so it's basically about a girl that gets raped, and to get revenge she gets another guy to rape the rapist. The rapist is a douche, but the girl victim is partly to blame. I mean they both get in the mood and start kissing and stuff, but when the rapist tries to have sex with her, she doesn't allow it so the rapist rapes her. And the thing is the rape scene for the girl is very short and it doesn't really expose or show anything, but when it comes to the rapist getting raped, it's a pretty long rape scene. There is basically nothing in the story that is worth watching.<br /><br />3.2/10

What did producer/director Stanley Kramer see in Adam Kennedy's novel and Kennedy's very puzzling screenplay? Were there a few pieces left out on purpose? And what about Gene Hackman, Richard Widmark, Edward Albert, Eli Wallach and Mickey Rooney? What did they see in this very muddled story?<br /><br />And why did Candice Bergen, who gave a horrible performance, accept such a thankless role?<br /><br />The Domino Principle wants to be on the same footing as The Parallax View or The Manchurian Candidate and misses the mark by a very wide margin. A major misfire by Stanley Kramer.

Just Cause is one of those films that at first makes you wonder quite why it was so heavily slated when it came out - nothing special but competent enough and with an excellent supporting performance from Ed Harris. Then you hit the last third and everything starts to get increasingly silly until you've got a killer with a flashlight strapped to his forehead threatening to fillet Sean Connery's wife (a typically mannered and unconvincing Kate Capshaw) and kid (a very young Scarlet Johannsen) in an alligator skinner's shack. <br /><br />The kind of movie that's probably best seen on a plane, and even then only once.

Wow-this one sucks. I'm gonna sum it up as quickly as possible. <br /><br />A count invites 4 naive sluts back to his castle. A bunch of nothing happens for a long time. Some lame and un-erotic soft-core sex scenes happen. Some girls get their heads cut off (off-screen)-The End.<br /><br />The only things going for this one are the decent looking sets and costumes, some bad dubbing which leads to some unintentionally funny dialogue, and a few brief nudie shots. And believe me-those things are not enough to redeem the 90-minutes of tedium that this film is. In fact-the best part is the tacked on beginning from the distributor that features some slutty goth chicks covered in blood and showing their tits-and again-this is definitely not worth the price of admission for this garbage. As everyone else has noted- the title of the film is completely nonsensical-as there's absolutely no bloodsucking, nor dancing of any sort in the film at all. It may as well have been called 'The Goat-Raper Leads the Circle-Jerk'-and at least then it would have had a better title that also pertains to nothing in the film. An accurate title would have been '90 Minutes of Torture'-another alluring title that would have at least been truthful...for the viewer. Honestly-the trailer that's on the disc shows all the best parts (and i use the term 'best' extremely loosely...) so I highly suggest watching that instead if you're still curious.  I can't imagine anyone liking this wreck of a film-please take my advice and leave this one on the shelf. 2/10 

This movie was very very mediocre and very very gory. everyone left their acting lessons at home and totally forgot how to act I mean it was so bad and had no real plot and kindergarteners could have written a better story plot wait what story plot. not at all scary!

One thing that astonished me about this film (and not in a good way) was that Nathan Stoltzfus, who seems to pride himself on being the major historian on the topic of the Rosenstrasse, was one of the historians working on this film, considering how much of the actual events were altered or disregarded. <br /><br />Another reviewer said that von Trotta said she never meant for Lena to bed Goebbels, but in that case, why did she give every impression that that was what had happened? Why not show other possible reasons for the mens' release, such as the disaster that was Stalingrad, or the Nazis' fear that the international press, based in Berlin, would find out about the protest.<br /><br />Also, why did the whole storyline play second fiddle to a weak family bonding storyline that has been done over and over again? Surely something as awesome as this could carry its own history! In places, it was as if the film had two story lines that really seemed to have little in common.<br /><br />Overall, this film failed in its aim, which was to draw attention to a little-known act of resistance, which is a shame, because done better, it could have had a major impact.

It as absolutely incredible to me that anyone could make the comment that this film is not preachy. It is not only oppressively preachy, but absurd, stagebound, dramatically straight-jacketed, and painfully overwrought. Watching it, one feels like an 8 year old child being punished by having to write "I will not become a fascist" on the blackboard 100 times.<br /><br />Now I understand that it was made during the height of WW2, and was intended to be a brave condemnation of Hitler and the terrible suffering he brought about, (which anyone would whole-heartedly applaud) and I'm sure it accurately captured the mood of the day. But it is presented in such an immature, over-obvious, sledgehammer way, it fails abysmally as a work of art.<br /><br />The only good performances here are from Paul Lukas, who brings sincerity and intensity to his role as a quietly heroic anti-fascist; and Lucile Watson as the amusingly ill-mannered rich grandmother who slowly comes to realize how dangerous the world has become. Though their rootless upbringing has subjected them to all kinds of hardships, the children are ridiculously shown as robotically well-behaved little snips. They do not even remotely resemble real human beings. And Bette Davis, a great actress, here is so one dimensionally noble I cringed every time she was on screen. Her every word, her every gesture is meant to convey how SUPPORTIVE and UNDERSTANDING she is of the SACRIFICES her husband has to make and the great CAUSE he is fighting for, that she must've been wired to receive a painful electric shock if she dared allowed any hint of doubt or shading to surface in her portrayal.<br /><br />So yes, this is a very IMPORTANT film, just not a very good one.

The real star of this ridiculous story is glorious technicolor. A visual treat to the eye, the film fails to stimulate the mind and heart. I was intrigued, at first, by the idea of Dietrich and Boyer leaving religion in order to "find" their capacity for love. What follows is a huge disappointment. Boyer is the only real actor in the production and one feels his torment. Dietrich's amazing wardrobe outshines her performance -- at times her face is frightening to look at -- a unfeeling mask. As a monk, Boyer held the formula for the monastery's liquer (which reminds me of the true story of Chartreuse) -- when he leaves his "marriage to god" the reaction by his fellow monks holds the shock and fear that perpetuate organized religion. The viewer feels Boyer was well rid of his past. However, the journey that follows is all too predictable.

Casting bone to pick: David Jannsen was 38 playing the father of Robert Drivas, who was then, 31 (yeah, I realize he's supposed to be just out of college, but clues in the script have him being a loafer and so he's probably 24-25 in the script--- that still puts Jannsen in parenting classes in Junior High). I assume the AMA wrote medical miracle up in their 1938 Year in Medicine. This movie hasn't aged very well at all and now it's main appeal is just to see a snap shot of Sin City, circa 1969 and all the incessant smoking, the weird hair (Drivas has an atomic comb over that makes him resemble a well-groomed hip Cousin It) and trendy fashions that went along with it. If anyone remembers, LV wasn't exactly London... the city coddled the mob and codger gamblers in those days. Drivas comes off as sexually ambiguous; his dad thinks he might be gay (in a sad irony, Drivas himself died of AIDS at 47) and the soapy conflict is from the generation gap issue (ahem, as if one may call 7 years a gap). Sonny boy wants to be his own man and dad wants to pull him into the casino (Caesar's Palace!), and plies him with girls (including the horny-for-money Edy Williams). Interestingly enough, the son doesn't seem to mind being thought of as gay--- unusual for the time and a cute Brenda Vaccarro is nearby to swoon platonically over him. What nudity there is is awfully lame--- just what was needed to pull the audience in for an 'R' rating in the early days of the MPAA rating system (which then was G-M-R[16]- and X). The editing is HORRIBLE and there's stupid-silly overdubs by The Committee (a late 60's neo-avante-garde comedy troupe that mercifully faded off the map within a couple of years). Don Rickles is on board as a blackjack dealer... seemingly preparing him for a role as a floor manager in the much better CASINO two decades later. Not to give anything away, but they would've dealt with Mr. Rickles' character with power tools and a hole in the desert back then. A curiosity at best, far from Joshua Logan's usual caliber of work. Dos/Dias. Now go watch CASINO again...

While being a great James Arness western, this film has gone down as the worst Alamo film ever made. The story was terrible, inaccuracy all through it, and just downright untruths to boot! Continuity was cast to the four winds. Anybody catch the cannon sequence? The Mexicans were dumb enough to fire cannons that obviously had mud and ramrods still sticking out of the tubes. Come on! Then there is Brian Keith's ridiculous hat! Costumer must of been away or something. Or just out of their mind!

"Spielberg loves the smell of sentiment in the morning. But sentiment at the expense of narrative honesty? Nobody should love that." - Lucius Shepard<br /><br />"The Color Purple" takes place in the Deep South during the early 1900s, and tells the story of Celie and Nettie, two African American sisters. The film opens with the girls playing in a field of purple flowers, an idyllic haven which is promptly shattered by the appearance of their stepfather. This motif – innocence interrupted by men – permeates the entire film.<br /><br />The film then launches into a series of short sequences. Celie is revealed to have been twice impregnated by her stepfather, gives birth in a dirty barn, has her newborn child taken away and is forced to marry a local widow named Albert Johnson, a violent oaf who rapes her repeatedly, forcing her to cook, clean and look after his children.<br /><br />All these horrific scenes are given little screen time, and are instead surrounded by moments of pixie-dust cinematography, a meddlesome symphonic score, incongruous comedy and overly exuberant camera work. The cumulative effect is like the merging of a Disney cartoon and a rape movie, a jarring aesthetic which caused Stanley Kubrick to remark that "The Color Purple" made him so nauseated that he had to turn it off after ten minutes. Ten minutes? He lasted a long time.<br /><br />The film is often said to deal which "racism", "sexism" and "black culture", but this is not true. Alice Walker, the author of the novel upon which the film is based, claims to be a bisexual but is actually a closet lesbian. Her book is a lesbian fantasy, a story of female liberation and self-discovery, which paints men as violent brutes who stymie women. For Walker, the only way out of this maze is for women to bond together in a kind of lesbian utopia, black sisterhood and female independence celebrated.<br /><br />Spielberg's film, however, re-frames Walker's story through the lens of comforting American mythologies. This is a film in which the salvific power of Christianity overcomes the natural cruelty of men. A film in which Albert finds himself in various ridiculous situations, moments of misplaced comedy inserted to make him look like a bumbling fool. A film in which all the characters are derived from racist minstrel shows, the cast comprised of lecherous men (always beaming with devilish smiles and toothy grins), stereotypical fat mammies, jazz bands and gospel choirs. <br /><br />This is a film in which black people are naturally childlike, readily and happily accepting their social conditions. A film in which black people are over-sexed, carnal sensualists dominated by violent passions. A film in which poverty and class issues are entirely invisible (Albert lives in a huge house) and black men are completely inept. This is not the Old South, this is the Old South as derived from "Gone With The Wind", MGM Muscals, "Song of the South", Warner Cartoons, "Halleluha!" and banned Disney movies. In other words, it's the South as seen by a child raised on 50s TV. It's all so cartoonish, so racist in the way it reduces these human beings to one dimensional ethnic stereotypes, that black novelist Ishmael Reed famously likened it to a Nazi conspiracy.<br /><br />Of course, in typical Spielberg fashion the film ends with family bonds being healed. This reconciliation was in Walker's novel, but Spielberg goes further by having every character in the story reconcile with their kin.<br /><br />Beyond Walker's hate letter to black men and Spielberg's bizarre caricaturing of black life, we are shown nothing of the black community. We have only the vaguest ideas as to how any of these characters make a living and no insight into how they interact with others in their community. Instead, Spielberg's camera jumps about, desperately fighting for our attention (one of Celie's kitchen contraptions seems like it belongs in a "Home Alone" movie), every emotion over played, the director never stopping to just observe something or to allow a little bit of life to simply pass by. Couple this with Quincy Jones' ridiculously "white" music, and you have one of the strangest films in cinema history: an angry feminist tract filmed by a white Jew in the style of Disney and Griffith, scored by a black man trying to emulate John Williams.<br /><br />Problematic too is the lack of white characters. Consider this: the men in this film aren't portrayed as being rough to each other, nor do they dominate women because they are brutalised by a racist society which reduces their manhood. No, they are cruel by nature. And the women, whether quietly suffering like Celie or rebellious and tough like her sister, persevere and survive only because the men are too stupid to destroy them. A better film would not have focused solely on the oppression of women as it occurs among the oppressed, rather, it would have shown that it is societal abuse which has led to spousal abuse, that enslaved black women are forced to perform the very same tasks as their male counterparts (whilst still fulfilling traditional female roles) and that African American domestic violence occurs largely because of economic factors, women unable to support themselves and their children alone.<br /><br />And so there's a hidden ideology at work here. Late in the film one character tells another that since he didn't respect his wife, she wound up getting severely beaten and imprisoned by whites. The implication is that blacks need to return to their African roots to restore their own dignity and that it is their fault that whites unjustly crush them. ie- Respect one another in your poor minority community and you won't run afoul of the dominant white culture. <br /><br />3/10 - A failure to confront sex and lesbianism, inappropriate musical numbers, countless sequence loaded with extraneous visual pizazz, incongruous comic business, emphatic music cues, and wildly hyped emotionality, all contribute to rendering "The Color Purple" worthless.

I have been looking for this film for ages because it is quite rare to find as it was one of the video nasties. I finally found it on DVD at the end of last year it is a very low budget movie The story is set around amazon jungle tribes that are living in fear of the devil. Laura Crawford is a model who is kidnapped by a gang of thugs while she is working in South America. They take her into the jungle Laura is guarded by some ridiculous native who calls himself "The Devil" she has to go though all unpleasant things until they are happy. Maidens are Chained up. The devil demonstrates eating flesh in a horrible manner. Peter Weston, is the devil hunter, who goes into the jungle to try and rescue her,

Some kids are hiking in the mountains, and one of them goes into a large tunnel and discovers some old mummified gladiator. He puts on the gladiator's helmet and spends the rest of the movie killing all the other hikers.<br /><br />This thing is just so utterly senseless it's maddening. Here's a short list of things that don't make any sense:<br /><br />1) A guy and a girl are in their tent and they think they hear something outside. The guy goes out to investigate and finds another hiker outside. Then he hears his girlfriend scream so they head back to the tent - arriving the next morning?!? He was only 50 feet away!<br /><br />2) These two dunderheads then hear another girl scream (What, 100 feet away?), but don't investigate because they're afraid they'll get lost.<br /><br />3) Another guy and a girl are walking around, and in about their 10th scene together the girl informs the guy that due to the circumstances, protocol no longer requires him to address her as professor. I mean, what the...? First off, that's just a really stupid thing to say, secondly he never called her professor in the first nine scenes they were in together.<br /><br />4) A wounded girl attacks Demonicus and he stops her, telling her that part of his gladiator training taught him how to wound without killing. Um, yeah, we kinda noticed she's wounded and not dead because she's up and walking around. But, thanks for that tidbit of information.<br /><br />5) One girl is tied up in Demonicus' lair, and when someone attempts to free her, she instead instructs this person to go and get help. Um, look, idiot, if she set you free, which would take about 5 seconds, there would be no need to get help.<br /><br />And it just goes on and on. The whole middle part of the movie is spent with the two idiots getting lost in the woods, then they fight, then they pitch a tent and ignore the screams of their friends, then they wander around some more. It's just so damned boring and pointless that I turned the DVD off halfway through. <br /><br />None of these characters are sympathetic, especially the ones that get the majority of the screen time. Demonicus himself made me laugh out loud every time I saw him - he looks like a kid in a Halloween costume, scrunching his face up to look evil. He runs, or should I say scampers around like he's gay. The special effects are comedic, the acting is for the most part awful, and nothing makes any sense.<br /><br />Overall, maybe this concept could have produced an enjoyably campy film if they put some more time and effort into it, getting rid of the ludicrous dialogue, creating characters with actual likable personalities, having some sort of logical flow to the action, and maybe even making Demonicus a female character in a sexy gladiator outfit. But no, instead we get this senseless pile of nonsense that will bore you to death.

what ends up killing this movie is its self-consciousness, among other things. here's a short list: 1. irreverent behavior. when the beatles came over and injected their brand of "quirky, irreverent" behavior/humor, it was greeted as fresh. that was over 4 decades ago. get over it.<br /><br />2. false sophistication. spewing out base, quasi-socio-political-isms is hard ground to make work comically. ask woody allen.<br /><br />3. the post-modern "i'm hard on this phony world and yes, i recognize it in myself" snake eating itself - used as illustration with another animal in the film itself! - is such a retread.<br /><br />4. smarmy, smug drollness.<br /><br />5. amateurish writing, acting, direction... ever seen student films? a victim of itself, about the only thing i can say positive is that it at least has a sense of itself, and sheesh, now i'm getting caught up in the self-reflexive thing that it posits as worthwhile, of value.<br /><br />but towards... what? ultimately, it just rings as hollow as any other pretentious piece - hey, ever see woody allen's take on bergman, ie: "Interiors"??? well, this just does it more amateurishly.

Can I please say first of all, that I felt so strongly about this movie that I signed up to IMDb specifically to review it. And my review? This is easily the worst movie I have ever seen.<br /><br />The synopsis of the movie sounded interesting- Nazis, occult, time travel, etc., but the movies plot failed to properly bring all these elements together. Remember the episode of South Park that featured manatees writing Family Guy using 'idea balls'? Did these manatees also write Unholy? Its like the writer wanted to include all these different ideas, but had no idea how to link them all together, and then to make things make even less sense, included a Donnie Darko-esquire time travel theme to the ending, messing up the chronology.<br /><br />I could tell from early on that this was a bad movie. Special effects were too low budget for anything better than straight to DVD. The acting wasn't great, but in fairness I've seen worse. I will praise the Nazi paintings, they were creepy, but the evil Nazi butcher guy was just comic.<br /><br />I don't have a vendetta against this movie or anything, but to be honest, I'm not even into the horror genre. But this movie cannot be described as a thriller or a drama. If this story had been well told, this would have been a good movie. But it has been over hyped. Waaaaay over hyped.

This sounded like a really interesting movie from the blurb. Nazis, occult , government conspiracies. I was expecting a low budget Nazi version of the DaVinci code or the Boys from Brazil or even Shockwaves. Instead you get something quite different, more psychological, more something like from David Lynch. That was actually a plus. But the way the story is told is just awful.<br /><br />Part of the trouble is the casting. Andrienne Barbeau's character starts off the moving being somewhat timid and afraid. She just doesn't do that well, even at her age, though she certainly tried. The actor cast as the son apparently thought this was a comedy. Most of the other actors also seemed to have thought this was a campy movie, or at least acted like it, rather than simply being quirky. The only one that I thought did really well was the daughter, Siri Baruc.<br /><br />Another big part is the pacing. It starts off very slowly. So slowly you might be tempted to turn it off. But then it gets compelling for a while when you get to the daughter's suicide and the aftermath. But shortly afterward, it all becomes a jumbled mess. Some of this was on purpose, but much of it was just needlessly confusing, monotonous, and poorly focused.<br /><br />The real problem, is it's simply not a pleasant movie to watch. It's slow, dull, none of the characters are likable. Overuse of imagery and sets. Some movies you see characters get tortured. In this, it's the viewer that does. It does have a few creepy moments, most notably the creepy Nazi paintings and the credits, but the rest of the movie is mostly just tiresome.

The director states in the Behind-the-Scenes feature that he loves horror movies. He loves them so much that he dedicated the movie to Dario Argento, as well as other notable directors such as George A. Romero and Tobe Hooper. Basically dedicating this movie to those great directors is like giving your mother a piece of sh*t for Mother's Day. The first thing they did wrong was the casting. CAST PEOPLE THAT CAN ACT. Also, don't cast a person that is 40 years old for the role of a misunderstood, 18 year old recluse. That's right, he's been in high school for 22 years. The reactions made by people as they watch their boyfriends get their hearts ripped out is amusing. Or like one part when a guy gets stabbed in the ear with an ear of corn (haha get it), and his girlfriend just goes, "Oh..my.. God?" The scarecrow himself is quite a character. Doing flips off cars and calling people losers.<br /><br />The movie does have one redeeming factor... oh wait, no it doesn't.<br /><br />If you absolutely MUST see this movie, than just watch the Rock and Roll trailer on the DVD. It covers about everything and has a really gnarly song dude.

I had quite high hopes for this film, even though it got a bad review in the paper. I was extremely tolerant, and sat through the entire film. I felt quite sick by the end.<br /><br />Although I am not in the least prude or particularly sensitive to tasteless cinema--I thouroughly enjoyed both Woody Allen's 'Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Sex,...' and Michael Hanneke's 'Funny Games'--I found the directors' obsession with this ten-year-old wanting to drink women's milk totally sickening. And when the film climaxed in an "orgy" where the boy drinks both his mother's milk, as well as that of the woman he has been lusting after for the whole film, I almost vomited with disgust for the total perversion and sentimental pap that it is.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the vast majority of European cinema, as well as independently made films, so this flick should have pleased me enormously. Avoid this film at all costs, it should be relegated to the annals of History as a lesson in bad cinema.

This film was probably inspired by Godard's Masculin, féminin and I urge you to see that film instead.<br /><br />The film has two strong elements and those are, (1) the realistic acting (2) the impressive, undeservedly good, photo. Apart from that, what strikes me most is the endless stream of silliness. Lena Nyman has to be most annoying actress in the world. She acts so stupid and with all the nudity in this film,...it's unattractive. Comparing to Godard's film, intellectuality has been replaced with stupidity. Without going too far on this subject, I would say that follows from the difference in ideals between the French and the Swedish society.<br /><br />A movie of its time, and place. 2/10.

For anyone craving a remake of 1989's Slaves of New York. What are there, seven of you? Here it is... was.<br /><br />This undercooked movie has studiously vapid characters (Well they're club-kids, ya big jerk!) that are in holding patterns. The big question seems to be, just how long can a young adult remain juvenile? It took three people to write this 'story'? Good god, it was easier to come up with Citizen Kane. Rather than take viewers back, this movie should just embarrass anyone who was a scene-ster in the early 90s.<br /><br />The idea that a fifty year old woman envies a bunch of self-absorbed kids from a different era is the world as only self-absorbed, twenty-somethings could imagine it. The odd sidebar about library work is not the sub-plot one expects from the equivalent of Parker Posey's Breakin 2: Electric Bugaloo. Her "I'm serious about graduate school!" while a stripper grinds on her is hysterical. Posey's shtick is always amusing, but there are projects that are beneath her. I was asleep before it crossed the 40 minute mark.

I won't say this movie was bad, but it wasn't good either. I expected something good but I guess Hum Aapke Hain Kaun was much better than this. This was completely old fashioned. At every stage of this movie, I hoped for some twist and what do I get? The girl gets burned and wins her aunt's love. <br /><br />Despite of being engaged, they have to take permission for every little move they make. They are so darn shy even after so many meetings. I expected the aunt to be much more brutal than that. All she did was crib madly. <br /><br />Hey, we have kids too, but we don't watch them and have tears in our eyes always. This movie is a dream. Happy family, one cruel woman, good in-laws and a man who loves her to death. In HAHK Anupam Kher was the poor bride's father and now it's vice versa. And I somehow knew that Mohnish Behl would be in this movie. Anyway I believe I wasted my time. I give it a 2/10.

This film has got several key flaws. The first and most significant of which is the clear lack of a good plot! This sadly makes the film not only difficult to watch but also sends the watcher certain feelings of hopelessness, as if he or she is wasting valuable time of their short life. This means that the film cannot captivate it's audience, instead it encourages the viewing public to grow contempt for the film and everything associated with it! In short, it really is very very very very very very very BAD! Do yourself a favour and chew on a large rubber shoe, you'll find it far more interesting and enjoyable than watching Terminator Woman.

'Chances Are' a big mistake to see. You could know director Emile Ardolino from 'Dirty Dancing' and 'Sister Act' and should expect something amusing from him. But I guess I have to disillusion you. He made a really, really bad movie.<br /><br />According to the story Christopher McDonald dies to reburn as a baby. The baby grows up Robert Downey Jr, and Jr returns his former home town where she meets his former daughter, Mary Stuart Masterson (complicated, huh?).<br /><br />They fall in love with each other. Then appears Jr former wife, Cybill Shepherd, and Jr falls in love with her too. I guess I don't even have to mention that she loves Ryan O'Neil.<br /><br />In one of his first roles Robert Downey Jr's on his worst. He copies Michael J Fox.<br /><br />After the 'Moonlighting' Shepherd proves that she's not suitable for acting in movies.<br /><br />Anyway, there's one thing this unfunny comedy can be used: as antidote to insomnia.

Return to Cabin by the Lake just.... was lacking. It must have had a very low budget because a fair amount of the movie must have been filmed with a regular video camera. So, within the same scene - you'll have some movie-quality camera shots AND simple video camera shots. It makes for a very odd blend! I think they should have found SOME way to not do the "home video" type effect! <br /><br />I think it's worthwhile to see it IF you have seen the original CBTL because then you can compare and see the differences. But if you haven't seen the original CBTL.... you'll never want to see it if you see this one first! It will probably seem way too cheesy and turn you off from even caring about the original one.

Anyone who has a remote interest in science fiction should start at the basics. Everyone says STAR WARS and STAR TREK are the best science fiction films to begin at, which is fine but the truth is THE TERMINATOR and this movie, SOYLENT GREEN, are far better choices than those series. SOYLENT is probably science fiction 's best kept secret. It remains one of the biggest, yet most forgotten films but the impact of its setting is becoming more a reality with each passing day. Charlton Heston overdramatizes his role, yet it works. Edward G. Robinson, in his final role, makes the most out of it in SOYLENT GREEN more than anyone else and his final scenes are touching.<br /><br />It is Manhattan in 2022, the world is overcrowded and food is an unbelievable fortune (a small jar of strawberry jam costs $150). A big executive for the Soylent company is murdered and police detective Thorn is on the case.<br /><br />The secret of soylent green is not a mystery if you do research on the movie. SOYLENT is enjoyable to watch, but the whole screenplay is a joke. It is just as cheap as the entire production. The screenplay and the over dramatics of the actors made the movie, yet were completely hilarious. Everyone seems to be a moron and no one knows the rules, specifically cop Thorn who likes to just waltz into people 's apartments, peruse around shamelessly and steal anything he wants. The character 's interactions keeps your attention on the movie, but still you realize that SOYLENT GREEN sucks. An enjoyable piece if you have the time, but do not expect anything more.

After being hugely entertained by Mr. Brosnan's performance as a cad in "The Tailor of Panama" (which I rate 10/10 across the board: casting, acting, script, story, editing, pace, music, emotional impact, etc.), I enthusiastically anticipated this film. I was hugely disappointed. It is a script reading not a film, vulgar for the sake of being vulgar, bankrupt in every way that "The Tailor of Panama" is rich and satisfying. Blame it on the screen writing and directing. I sat in the theater waiting for the "good part;" it never came. I neither laughed nor cried, although one line of dialog did make me smile. Worth $7? Hardly.

I really wanted to like this western, being a fan of the genre and a fan of "Buffalo Bill," "Wild Bill Hickok," and "Calamity Jane," all of whom are in this story! Add to the mix Gary Cooper as the lead actor, and it sounded great. <br /><br />The trouble was.....it wasn't. I found myself looking at my watch just 40 minutes into this, being bored to death. Jean Arthur's character was somewhat annoying and James Ellison just did not look like nor act like "Buffalo Bill." Cooper wasn't at his best, either, sounding too wooden. This was several years before he hit his prime as an actor.<br /><br />In a nutshell, his western shot blanks. Head up the pass and watch another oater because most of 'em were far better than this one.

Basically what we have here is little more than a remake of the hilarious 1970's classic kitsch horror 'Death Line' which ironically was like this cobblers, also partly filmed at the disused Aldwych underground station.<br /><br />Making good use of the now disused Jubilee Line platforms at Charing Cross as well as the aforementioned Aldwych, this film contains basically the same plot - dodgy murdering mad zombie in the tunnels preying on the lost passengers who have missed the last train - originality is not this film's strong point.<br /><br />Indeed strong points are sadly lacking. The gore ranges from the poor to the unnecessarily over gory whilst the sub-Gollum nutter is never really fully explained as seems little more than an under developed plot device.<br /><br />Franke Polente has little to do with a thin script than run down a lot of tunnels and scream every so often, indeed she was like pretty much everyone else in this film, out-acted by a small dog and a pack of tame rats.<br /><br />If creepy films set on the London Underground are your bag, or you just want to play 'spot the tube location' them pick this up on DVD when it hits a bargain bin. If you are looking for classic horror, go and dig up a copy of Death Line (aka Raw Meat).<br /><br />If you are looking for a quality well written and acted film, you will need to change trains.....

1st watched 2/16/2002 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Arne Glimcher): Mystery??/Thriller with too many ridiculous plot twists. Despite the very talented cast this movie is way too predictable and just downright under-estimates it's audience. The movie-going public is not stupid and I hope will not keep filling certain stars pockets again and again despite what they are involved with. We think that this movie is going to be about something with Connery's conviction against capitol punishment in the beginning but it turns out to be nothing but a standard, contrived for the audience's sake, run of the mill, let's never get it over with, thriller. We are pulled into every silly switch in character, as they are portrayed to us when it's needed in the story, and we're ready for this thing to be over way before it ends. Yes there is some good acting here, especially from Blair Underwood, Fishburne, and Ed Harris in a psycho-supporting role but the story does not work from almost the beginning to the very long-awaited end.

When I was younger I really enjoyed watching bad television. We've all been guilty of it at some time or another, but my excuse for watching things like "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century" and "Silver Spoons" is this: I was young and naive; ignorant of what makes a show really worthwhile.<br /><br />Thankfully, I now appreciate the good stuff. Stargate SG-1 is not good. The 12 year-old me would love every hackneyed bit of it, every line of stilted dialogue, every bit of needless technobabble. The writing is beyond insipid; so bland and uninspired it makes one miss Star Trek: Voyager. If your show makes me long for the worst Trek show ever, you're in trouble.<br /><br />The film Stargate is a wonderful guilty pleasure, anchored by two solid performances by James Spader and Kurt Russell, full of fascinating Egyptian architecture and culture, a wonderful musical score, and cool sci-fi ideas. With the exception of a little of the original music, none of what made the film fun appears in this show. Even Richard Dean Anderson, who made MacGyver watchable and Legend interesting, seems like he's half asleep most episodes.<br /><br />The budget must have been very low because the sets sometimes look like somebody's basement. The cinematography isn't much better, as vanilla and dull as the scripts. It amazes me that shows with a lot more style (like Farscape) and substance (like the reimagined Battlestar Galactica) have smaller, less rabid fanbases than this pap. It just doesn't deserve it.

I saw this movie once a long time ago, and I have no desire to ever see it again.<br /><br />This movie is about Preston Waters, a hard-lucked preteen, who always seems to be overlooked by his family and who always seems to be short on cash. All this changes when a bank robber runs over Preston's bike and passes him a blank check as compensation. Preston uses the check to withdraw $1 million from the bank (ironically, the money belongs to the bank robber who gave him the check). Preston then buys a mansion and says that he's working as the assistant of a mysterious and wealthy backer named Mr. Macintosh (named after his computer). After that, he just goes crazy with the money.<br /><br />On paper, this sounds like a great idea. However, on screen, it is one of the emptiest movies I've ever seen. For one thing, it's too unbelievable. I know some parts of the movie were meant to be incredible, but I draw the line at a twelve-year-old boy going out with a thirty-year-old woman, and being put in charge of a imaginary person's small fortune. Also, this was a shallow movie with weak acting, a predictable plot line and characters who are less than memorable. The characters were either cheesy, over the top, annoying, or underdeveloped. But "Juice" was a funny character.<br /><br />If you're looking for a good movie to watch with your family, skip this one.

Saw this movie in my English class this afternoon and was surprised by how bad this version was. Don't get me wrong, George C. Scott was terrific as Scrooge, but the rest of the cast fails so very badly. Sometimes I couldn't stop laughing at the stupid acting and the repeated line: "Merry Christmas to everyone!" Other times I almost fell asleep.<br /><br />The movie is based on a Charles Dickens short story about a rich guy, who don't think Christmas is nothing but humbug. After 30 minutes, the rich guy is visited by three ghosts, who persuade him to celebrate Christmas after all.<br /><br />I can not understand how this movie, with a script so bad it must have been written in five minutes, can be so well-rated. Instead of this piece of garbage, I recommend to you, the Bill Murray comedy Scrooged. That at least, was funny...

You may consider a couple of facts in the discussion to be spoilers.<br /><br />I'm sorry, but Spielberg didn't deserve to win any Oscar for this piece, and I think the Academy was right in that vote. (Other Oscars for best actor nominations and such... that I don't know about. But it would be hard to justify, given what they were told to do and what you see in the final product.) The way Spielberg directs this is so contrived, so meddlesome. While watching this movie a distinction made during a Film as Art course I have taken was screaming at me: "Sentiment is honest emotion honestly rendered. Sentimentality is sugary and unreal, a false view of life." This is over-the-top sentimentality. When in real life to two people ever begin to read out loud in synchronicity, as Celie and Shug Avery do when sitting on the bed going over the letters from Nettie they have found? There are examples of this type of faux behavior throughout the film: all the men crowding around Miss Millie's car and then jumping in unison like a flock of birds taking off when she goes to drive away; Harpo falling through the roofs of various buildings he's working on (a cheap slapstick gag); the whole troop of revelers heading from the Jook Joint en masse to the chapel, as if magically entranced by the choir's singing... on and on. Nothing rings true. I even wondered if Harpo's name was chosen purposefully because it's his wife Sophia's real name, "Oprah," backwards. Spielberg isn't above such "cuteness."<br /><br />It's not that Spielberg is incapable of honestly rendered action and emotion. Schindler's List was amazing, deeply touching for me, and I greatly admire Saving Private Ryan too for its realism, even if the story is a bit contrived.

I LOVED the Apprentice for the first two seasons.<br /><br />But now with season 5? (or is it 6?) things are getting just plain too tiring.<br /><br />I used to like the show, but its become Donald Trumps own ego fest. Granted its his company you'll be working for, but come on! some of the things says "You're FIRED" is just insulting.<br /><br />after watching the show, I would not want to work for him. not because he is arrogant, pompous or such. Its just that the show is unrealistic and the way he handles things makes me just squirm. Good Entertainment? YES, but tiring as the back stabbing gets so tiring.. its not team work, its not personal, its just business. watch your back jack.

I am really shocked that a great director like Chuck Jones started out making some of the most incredibly boring cartoons I've ever seen. I did not laugh once throughout this short, and it's a Bugs Bunny cartoon, for Christ's sake! Bugs Bunny cartoons are always funny, not boring! Alas, this short turns out to be Good Night Elmer (another incredibly boring Jones short) with the addition of Bugs Bunny.<br /><br />The first warning sign of a dull cartoon is always no gag payoff. Good Night Elmer was boring because it dragged on the same two gags forever with predictable payoff. This cartoon, on the other hand, is afflicted with the second warning sign of a dull cartoon: there's too much dialogue. The cartoon at least has more than two gags up its sleeve, but most of them seem longer than they are thanks to the immense padding of the dialogue. At one point, Elmer finishes eating dinner, and comments, "That was weawwy awfuwwy good weg of wamb," possibly the most redundant dialogue I've ever heard in a cartoon (characters reading text out loud in the later-era Woody Woodpecker cartoons doesn't count in my book). Even though this cartoon is only 8 minutes long, it feels like 20 thanks to redundant dialogue like this.<br /><br />Elmer's Pet Rabbit was not a fun cartoon for me, but if you've sold your soul to Chuck Jones and are unable to acknowledge that he directed a few clunkers during his career, you might enjoy it.

I watched this movie recently together with my sister who likes the performances of Sophia Loren. I'm a person who they call a Cultural Barbarian. I hate art in any kind of shape or form. Rambo is more my kind of movie, action, kills, blood, horror. If you recognize yourself in this avoid this movie like the plague. No one dies, no action, no nudity, nothing of the kind. Let me give you a résumé in a few sentences. It starts out with 5 minutes in black and white Nazi propaganda. Every Italian in a housing block attends a parade in honor of Hitler, except for a housewife, an anti fascist and a caretaker. The housewife who is cheated by her husband, meets the anti fascist. She falls in love with him, wants to make love to him, but the anti fascist is gay. Despite of this they make love with each other. At the end of the day, the housewife reads a book from her gay lover, and the guy himself is deported by agents. The end. You want an even shorter résumé? BORING... That short enough? The guy should have used his gun in the beginning of this movie and shoot himself, to save the audience from this atrocity. On a side note my sister loved this movie. Like I said, I'm a Cultural Barbarian...

Imagine you're a high-school boy, in the back of a dark, uncrowded theater with your girlfriend. How bad would a movie have to be, in order that you would feel compelled to leave the theater and head home before it ended? This movie is that bad. Really. Movies often become so bad that they're good; this movie is beyond that stage of bad-ness. It is painfully bad. Horribly, terribly, crime-against-humanity bad.

Just PPV'd this. I don't want to waste too much time on this as most of the posters here put it better than I ever could, but I did want to say a few things.<br /><br />I didn't know which was funnier: Redgrave chasing tiny moths and tripping over her nurse; Close wailing that her "precious" boy (whom she and the Mr. had decided was a drunken loser) has been turned into roadkill; that the tone-deaf Ann schmoozed with Peggy Lee; or the horrid CGI of Crypt Keeper Annie gazing at her younger self!<br /><br />I never bought Danes as the younger Redgrave. I didn't buy Richardson and Collette as sisters, either. If Meryl Streep's daughter wants to be an actress, she better get Mama to give her a few lessons! I had zero idea why any girl (or Buddy) would make fools of themselves over vapid stud du jour Harris! Ann's daughters are as whiny and thoughtless as she, Luc is a retarded slacker on crack, and I didn't give a rot about any of them! Evening gives Chick Flicks a bad name!

The stranger Jack (Matthew Lillard) arrives in the studio of the crook collector of antiques Max (Vincent D'Onofrio) and tells his ambitious companion and specialist in poisons Jamie (Valeria Golino) that he is Jack's brother. Jamie does not buy his story, dominates Jack and ties him up to a chair. When Max arrives, Jack proposes US$ 100,000.00 for each one to protect him in a negotiation of the antiques "Spanish Judges" with a wealthy and dangerous collector. Max invites his stupid acquaintance Piece (Mark Boone Junior), who comes with his retarded girlfriend that believes she is from Mars, to compose the backup team. However, Jack double-crosses the collector and then he intrigues Jack, Jamie and Piece.<br /><br />The low budget "Spanish Judges" is a movie with a reasonable screenplay with an awful conclusion that wastes a good cast. Valeria Golino is astonishingly beautiful but together with the good actor Vincent D'Onofrio, they are not able to save the stupid story. Further, the scenes that are supposed to be funny unfortunately do not work, and actually they are silly and not funny. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Tudo Por Dinheiro" ("All For Money")

I give this film it's props that it is very well made and reasonably well acted. BUt I couldn't get past the implausibility of the whole thing.<br /><br />First and foremost, a game built around the notion of "Russian Roulette" that has to fill on hour. the big problem is that if you are doing a "live" show, you run the possibility that your first contestant will be the one unlucky enough to draw the "real" bullet. Then what do you do? You have 50 minutes of show to fill and nothing to show. The corollary is that Okay, you get to the end and the first five contestants survive, which means number six has the bullet and can't possibly get the payout. He isn't going to shoot himself at that point, so it's kind of anti-climatic. <br /><br />second problem, almost as big. Human nature. People are going to flinch, panic, soil their underwear and do things that would otherwise not make very good television. Too much randomness. That's why "real" Reality television is actually tightly scripted and even more tightly edited.<br /><br />(The only random thing is the "performance artist's" rant about female sacrifices, which were actually rare historically. Even that was predictable, since she went through with shooting herself to no effect.) <br /><br />We are led to believe the shows ratings would increase while it was going on at 1 AM in the morning (unlikely) with the token Asian girl announcing each boost in ratings.<br /><br />A point on race and sex. Big surprise the movies two minority (one gay) and two female contestants are the ones who survive. So we are left with the two white males, and of course, the slightly less likable of them is the one who buys it. The purpose of such a show would be it's randomness, but the guy you like the least is the guy who dies.<br /><br />the Climax is that after spending two hours fighting for televised suicide, the Eva Mendes character (Mendes produced and starred in this thing, so she has no one to blame but herself) actually grows a conscience when someone dies. What did she THINK was going to happen? She is promptly shot by a bystander angry about the whole thing (motives never explained) and the show went on to be a big hit. Really? <br /><br />the problem with media satire is that it has to either have some grounding in reality or it has to be so over the top to be ludicrous (like Network). This is neither.

Leave it to Paul "sex on the brain" Verhoeven to come up with a pointlessly sleazy and juvenile version of the INVISIBLE MAN story. If he'd direct a Pokemon film, I'm sure he'd turn it into some massive orgy of sorts. I don't mind sex or even sleaze (check my other reviews) on film but frankly, it's obvious the director has a one track mind and he couldn't see interesting aspects about an invisible man storyline than the kinky implications it comes with it. It's a shame because it could have been good if the film didn't spend so much time having an invisible Kevin Bacon grope women. <br /><br />The game cast of actors does what it can with the one-note cheesy script but I felt bad for some of them, including William Devane, who is totally wasted here.<br /><br />But then what could I have expected from the director of SHOWGIRLS, which, btw, is much more entertaining than this stilted & bad film.

Thanks for killing the franchise with this turkey, John Carpenter and Tommy Lee Wallace. This movie sucks on so many levels it's pathetic. The first VAMPIRES was fun, but this low budget retread makes me yawn.<br /><br />Jon Bon Jovi (the poor man's Kevin Bacon) drives around Mexico with a surfboard housing a hidden compartment holding his vampire killing gear ala Antonio Banderas's guitar case in DESPERADO. He picks up some lame "hunters" along the way (including an annoyingly feminist infected girl who takes pills to keep from turning into a vampire), and they set out to stop some female master vampire who is given no backstory and so we could care less about her or her quest (to walk in the sunlight by stealing the Black Cross and performing a ritual to allow her to do so). If you've seen the first VAMPIRES, you've already seen this, and done much better.<br /><br />John Carpenter has been responsible for a lot of bad movies lately. Frankly, I think he's past his prime and incapable of making another horror classic. The only decent film he's done since THEY LIVE (1987) is VAMPIRES. Everything else is complete crap, right up until the unbelievably cheap looking and retarded GHOSTS OF MARS... and now this waste of celluloid. Where are more greats like ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13, HALLOWEEN (1), ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK and THE THING?<br /><br />Carpenter crony Wallace proves he can't write his way out of a paper bag with his paper-thin script packed with yawns, groans and recycled gags from the original. Did I mention I hated every character in the movie? There was not a single memorable character in the whole film. How does that happen? This film has nothing to recommend it. Not even the DVD presentation is good; the menu looks awful.<br /><br />By comparison, JASON X: "FRIDAY THE 13th IN SPACE" was a masterpiece. Now that is how you make a sequel and (re)energize a franchise, ladies and germs, as well as create an exciting DVD menu.

There's so little here of the fantastic Anne Rice book that what IS here makes no sense. Some of the characters--intense and surprising characters--don't make it to the screen at all, and those who do are watered down to the point that there's no reason for their existence.<br /><br />Where's the relationship between Christophe and Marcel? Where's the continued affair between Marcel and Juliet? Why does Dolly Rose appear at all, since her story's never explained? Where's the rape and redemption of Marie, whose greatest attribute (and downfall) is that she can pass for white--and her marriage to Richard? Why does the film end with Marcel's beating at the hands of his father? We learn nothing of Aglae beyond that she's a bitch who hates her husband; why no backstory explaining this hatred? <br /><br />As for the performances, there's not a one that's better than mediocre, though that's likely due to the lousy script. Best of the lot is that of the actor playing Richard--but Richard's not on screen enough to salvage the film. Worst is Jasmine Guy as Dolly Rose, though again, it comes down to the actress having nothing to do with what little she's given to work with.<br /><br />All in all, this is just terrible. I thought it'd be impossible for any Anne Rice book-turned film to be worse than EXIT TO EDEN, but FEAST OF ALL SAINTS makes that mess look like a critical hit. How is it that Rice is such a slut she'll allow her best works to become such junk on the screen?

..Oh wait, I can! This movie is not for the typical film snob, unless you want to brush up on your typical cinematic definitions, like "continuity editing" and "geographic match". I couldn't tell where I was in this movie. One second they're in the present, next minute their supposedly in the 70's driving a modern SUV and wearing what looked like to me as 80's style clothing. I think. I couldn't pay long enough attention to it since the acting was just horrible. I think it only got attention because it has a 3d which I did not watch. If you're a b-movie buff, and by b-movie I mean BAD movie, then this film is for you. It's home-movie and all non-sense style will keep you laughing for as long as you can stay awake. If your tastes are more for Goddard and Antonioni, though, just skip this one.

There's one line that makes it worth to rent for Angel fans. Everyone else: this is just a very bad horror flick. The female characters are typical horror movies females. They are wooden, annoying and dumb. You are glad when they are killed off. Long live the strong female character in a horror movie!!

"The Return of Chandu" is notable, if one can say that, for the casting of Bela Lugosi as the hero rather than the villain. Why he even gets the girl.<br /><br /> The story as such, involves the Black Magic Cult of Ubasti trying to capture the last Egyptian princess Nadji (the delectable Maria Alba) and use her as a sacrifice as a means of reviving their ancient leader who just happens to look like Nadji. Lugosi as Chandu, who possesses magical powers, tries to thwart the villains.<br /><br /> Director Ray Taylor does his best with limited resources and extensive stock footage. Fans of King Kong (1933) will recognize the giant doors that were used to keep Kong at bay in several scenes. The acting is for the most part, awful. The actor who plays the high priest (I believe Lucien Prival) for example, uses that acting coach inspired pronunciation that was so common in the early talkies. The less said about the others the better.<br /><br /> It is a mystery why Lugosi accepted parts in independent quickies at this stage of his career, because he was still a bankable star at Universal at this time. Maybe it was because in this case he got to play the hero and get the girl, who knows. As his career started to spiral downwards in the late 30s, this kind of fare would become the norm for Lugosi rather than the exception.<br /><br />

As other reviewers have noted the film dies in the last 1/2 hour. However before that it suffers from predictability and a stunningly vapid performance by Kate Capshaw, who clearly never found her character and ruins every scene she's in. Connery is fine as is Fishbourne, but most scenes are manipulated for effect rather than truth which overlays the entirety with a sense of unreality. And the ending is simply bizarre. The film makers apparently knew when they pieced this mess together that all they needed were sweet potatoes and pumpkin pie to have Thanksgiving dinner, so to compensate they added an overloud "dramatic" score. Every little jump is accompanied by a crescendo of orchestration, to the point where it becomes laughable. If you want an example of major league bad film this is one to see, otherwise skip it.

I have to say I am really surprised at the high ratings for this movie. I found it to be absolutely idiotic. The mother gets "visions" when she touches certain things or people? And one thing she touched twice made her vision continue... Just seemed so ridiculous. Deedee Pfieffer's performance was awful I thought. She was very irritating. The girl who played Lori did a good job and so did most of the supporting cast for what they had to work with.<br /><br />I usually love LMN and am very open minded when it comes to movies but this movie seemed to have a ridiculous plot and over the top acting and it just was not for me.

"Prom Night" is a title-only remake of the 1980 slasher flick that starred Jamie Lee Curtis and Leslie Nielsen. This movie takes place in an Oregon town, where Donna (Brittany Snow) is about to go to her senior prom and let herself have some fun after going through some extremely traumatic events in the past few years. She and her friends arrive at the prom, which is taking place in a grand hotel, and try and enjoy what is supposed to be the most fun night of their lives. Little does anyone know, a man from Donna's past, who has haunted her for years, is also at the prom... and is willing to kill anyone in way of his pursuit of her.<br /><br />I'm a fan of the original "Prom Night", so I tried to maintain a little hope in this movie, but I have to admit I was quite disappointed. "Prom Night" suffers from the worst affliction a horror movie could have, and that is predictability. There are absolutely no surprises here, and I felt I had seen everything in this movie done dozens of times, often better, before. What does this equate to for the audience? Boredom. Unless of course you have never seen any horror movies, or are part of the pre-teen crowd, but the majority of the audience will most likely be able to guess nearly everything that is going to happen. The plot is simplistic, but the entire script is void of any type of surprise, twist, atmosphere, or anything, and this really, really hurts the movie because it never really gives the audience anything to sink their teeth into. It all just seemed very bland.<br /><br />A lot of people seem to complain with the fact that this is a PG-13 slasher movie as well, and I understand what they are saying, but I don't think it's impossible to make a good slasher movie with minimal gore. Take Carpenter's "Halloween" for example - little to no on screen violence, but still an extremely frightening and effective movie. You don't need gore to make a film scary, but even had "Prom Night" been gratuitously violent (which it is not, it is very tame), it still would have added little to the movie because there is not much in the script to build on to begin with. The tension and suspense here is mild at best, and I spent most of the movie predicting the outcome of situations, and was correct about 99% of the time. Our characters aren't well written enough either for the audience to make any connection to them, and their by-the-numbers demises are routine and careless.<br /><br />I will point out a few things I did like about this movie, though, because it wasn't completely useless - the cinematography is really nice, and everything was very well-filmed and fairly stylish. Among the "jump" scares (that are for the most part very predictable), there were a few that were kind of clever. The sets for the movie are nice too and the hotel is a neat place for the plot to unfold, however predictable the unfolding may be. As for the acting, it's mediocre at best. Brittany Snow plays the lead decently, but really the rest of the cast doesn't show off much talent. Johnathan Schaech plays the villain, and is probably the most experienced performer here, but even he isn't that impressive. However, I did like the character he played, which was a nice change from the typical 'masked-stalker' type killer we see a lot. As far as the ending goes, the last fifteen minutes of the film had me bored to my wit's end and it was very anti-climactic.<br /><br />Overall, "Prom Night" was a disappointment. Everything was very by-the-numbers, routine, and predictable, which is somewhat upsetting considering this had the potential to be a decent slasher movie. There were a few neat moments, but the movie lacked any suspense or atmosphere, and had little plot development, nor believable characters. I'd advise seasoned horror fans to save their money and wait till it's out on video, or rent the original instead, because there are absolutely no surprises here. Some may find a little entertainment in it, but it was far too predictable for my tastes. I expected better, and left the theater very disappointed. 3/10.

Sure, I like short cartoons, but I didn't like this one. Naturally, kids would love it. But then again, I'm not a kid anymore (although I still consider myself young).<br /><br />I will not tell you anything about the story, for the simple reason there is no story. How is it possible this dragon of a cartoon was nominated for an Oscar?! Well... I guess it's because people in the 30's were more happy with not much than now. In the present where we live, everything must happen fast. Look at the movies nowadays, and you will come to the same conclusion: we live in a society that doesn't allow men to be slow. That's really a shame. I wish I lived in the 30's, because it seems so peaceful. But every time has got its ups and downs, I guess...<br /><br />To conclude: if you like music (and frogs), you'll have to see this cartoon. Otherwise, don't spill your time on it.

i would have given this movie a 1 out of 10 if it weren't for ms. Claudine Barretto's performance. and i will take this time to overlook that Kris Aquino's here. and... end.<br /><br />i really AVOID watching Pinoy horror movies because stories lack originality and i really think that (some) writers don't give enough attention to the characters (and their progression) in their stories (redundant??). it was as if they 'pushed' the movie onwards when their storytelling stank. and my goodness, creative exhaustion led them to rip-off other movies. why?? why did this movie get a good review?? i wouldn't give it that much merit. the movie was KIND OF scary, but the movie seemed more freaky as it deals with Filipino folklore... it goes into my list of 'most likely to happen' category. i just wished they spent more time improving the story lines and fix those flash back sequences, never mind if the lighting sucked, it wouldn't matter much if the content would blow you away.. SAYANG.

I've just lost 2 hours of my life watching this mindless plot. I could make a better movie with my cellphone camera. How do they manage to get actors to play in those movies?? Porn movies have better scenarios and effects... I wish I had those 2 hours back...<br /><br />The only good thing about this movie is the cast. Even though, their acting skills in this one could not lift this movie to passable, the rest was just WAY too bad! <br /><br />It's the type of movie that I'd recommend using to torture prisoners into scaring them straight.<br /><br />Even worse, I saw a translated version of this flick...Imagine, a bad movie...with an even worst translation...Yikes!

This crap is like watching paint dry. I'm so disappointed because I was so eager to see it.<br /><br />There simply is no meaning to this film. If it were never made, no one would notice or care. It's hyped up because of all the big names in it, but if "nobody's" were in, nobody would give this film any love.<br /><br />Seriously, I was at the point where half-way through the film I would look at Vanessa Redgrave and think, "Hurry up and die already!" This is like the "Joy Luck Club" without any of the friggin' joy. It's the "Ocean's 13" (nothing but a big-named cast) of mother-daughter movies and completely anti-climatic...oh until it's finally over.<br /><br />I'm sure they'll all be nominated for Oscars...<br /><br />- 4 stars for cinematography and the ability to convince great actresses to commit to this junk.

After a day at work, I sat down to relax and turned on the movie channels. The movie came up on the guide and sounded interesting so I tuned in just before it started. The first 30 minutes were enough to make me interested, but the lack of acting ability in Jamie Foxx and the slow plot movement made me want to get up and find food during the movie. If there is any credit to be given for acting in this movie it should go to David Morse who at least tries to make the movie interesting. All in all, don't plan on impressing your friends by picking this one as a renter for a movie night.

Three part "horror" film with some guy in a boarded up house imploring the viewer not to go "out there" and (unfortunately) gives us three tales to prove why.<br /><br />The first story involves a young couple in a car accident who meet up with two psychos. It leads up to two totally predictable twists. Still, it's quick (about 15 minutes), violent, well-acted and well-done. Predictable but enjoyable.<br /><br />The second involves a man on the run after stealing a large amount of money. His car breaks down, he's attacked by a dog and stumbles into a nearby clinic. VERY obvious, badly done and extremely slow. Even at 30 minutes this is too long. Good acting though.<br /><br />The third is just barely a horror story. It involves a beautiful, lonely woman looking for Mr. Right. It has beautiful set designs, a nice erotic feel and a nice sex scene. But (again) predictable and not even remotely scary.<br /><br />It ends very stupidly.<br /><br />All in all, the first one is worth watching, but that's it. Tune in for that one then turn it off.

Story of a man who has unnatural feelings for a pig. Starts out with a opening scene that is a terrific example of absurd comedy. A formal orchestra audience is turned into an insane, violent mob by the crazy chantings of it's singers. Unfortunately it stays absurd the WHOLE time with no general narrative eventually making it just too off putting. Even those from the era should be turned off. The cryptic dialogue would make Shakespeare seem easy to a third grader. On a technical level it's better than you might think with some good cinematography by future great Vilmos Zsigmond. Future stars Sally Kirkland and Frederic Forrest can be seen briefly.

This movie is just plain bad. It isn't even worth watching to make fun of it. The lunatic professor is just plain annoying. Even suspending disbelief to allow for invisibility (which I glady do for the sake of good bad movies) and allowing for exceedingly stupid victims in a horror movie, this movie asks for even more than that. If you are looking for women's locker room shower scenes, and random sexual encounters, get a porn, if you are looking for a good-bad movie, get something else. If you want to simply waste your time on an annoying bad movie, rent this.

As a Southern Baptist, it pains me that I must give a below average rating to an overtly Christian movie. There certainly aren't so many that I want to discourage film-makers from a genre that's woefully under-exploited. Still, I must honestly say that "Love's Abiding Joy" is a typically low budget, low key, self-consciously Christian film. The plot is predictable, the acting mediocre (I'm being kind), and the editing atrocious. As a TV movie it might have been slightly above average, but as a feature film it leaves much to be desired. Keep trying guys. You've got to have a movie about about real Christians inside you somewhere. Might I suggest you turn to G. K. Chesterton or C. S. Lewis for some inspiration?

Overall an extremely disappointing picture. Very, very slow build up to the basic storyline. The role of Maria Schrader searching for her families secret past. (Every take seems to last forever…. There is really no rhythm in the film.) ***SPOILERS*** Her Mother Ruth is rescued from the Nazis, by a German woman, played by Katja Riemann. The entire character of Ruth is so one dimensional, so stereotypical. ***SPOILERS END*** The film cuts back and forth between present day New York and Berlin and Berlin 40s something. Please when you do that, give the audience an indication of what time exactly the story takes place. There is never a clear indication of time – very annoying. Worst part is, the end. ***SPOILERS*** The entire show and jabber about the Jews being so terribly tormented, simply by a bureaucratic accident! Give me a break. That's how the Jews got out of the Rosenstrasse? The question of who freed the Jews is NEVER answered. Was is Goebels who freed them? Did Lean Fischer sleep with Goebels? In Venice the film won an acting award for K. Riemann, why? – I have no idea. Must be the Jewish theme…

Users who have rated this movie so highly simply can't have seen enough good films to compare it with. Have they all been brainwashed?? I have rarely felt so disappointed by a film and some of that must be attributable to the ridiculous hype surrounding this movie.<br /><br />From the first, BU is just a chase film. We pick it up at the end of one chase and go straight into another. And another. And another. And another. Do you see a pattern emerging? There is virtually no time 'wasted' on plot, character development, or boring old reality.<br /><br />If you haven't see the other two Bourne films, you're pretty lost. If you have - you only WISH you were lost - somewhere a long way from a cinema.<br /><br />Paul Greengrass's dispassionate style worked exceptionally well on United 93 which was a sentiment overload desperate to happen, but on Bourne and his interminable woes it just has the effect of removing the audience from involvement with the character. He runs. He jumps. He punches. He gets blown up. He clears tall buildings. Yada yada yada. Above all - he SURVIVES. He survives like a plastic Action Man survives, which only makes the ridiculous stunts he pulls all the more slack and lacking in any kind of tension. So he drives off a building? So what? He'll survive. Yawn.<br /><br />There's a girl thrown into the mix because Bourne's love interest died in a previous incarnation, but she's just decor. I've seen more character depth and snappy dialogue in episodes of Captain Scarlet.<br /><br />Bourne's own journey of literal self-discovery is dull and formless and tells us nothing we didn't know from the first movie. He was turned into a killing machine. Big deal. He finds out his true identity. So what? It doesn't have any emotional resonance when it comes.<br /><br />The 'twist' ending is telegraphed and weak. Oh, dear, the more I think about this film the more I hate it! I've already reduced my score to 4 during the writing of this comment! I'd better end now before the slide continues.<br /><br />I love a good action flick and I love a good thriller. The Bourne Ultimatum is neither. It's a loud, tedious series of flashy edits, ridiculous sound effects and cartoon violence. <br /><br />The idea that it 'shows the way' to the Bond franchise is utter crap. Casino Royale blows it out of the water.

Spirit of a murdered high school geek animates a scarecrow which then takes revenge on everyone.<br /><br />This movie really annoyed me. It has a great looking monster, has some good low budget effects, some atmosphere but manages to short circuit the good stuff with bad. Half way in I started to fast forward and then step through the chapters on the DVD.<br /><br />The problems with this movie are many. First off the cast looks about thirty and yet they are suppose to be in high school. You don't believe anything from the get go as a result. The scarecrow, while looking great isn't much beyond that. He says stupid one liners and moves in a manner more designed to be funny then scary. Is this a comedy or a horror movie? Its a problem that goes beyond the one liners to much of the dialog and set up. It seems more send up of every cliché than heartfelt horror film. I some how expect that the film was made for a very narrow audience in mind, horror fans who want to mock the genre rather than embrace it.<br /><br />Despite the good looking monster this is a film to avoid. Even if you pick it up in the bargain bin for under five bucks, you're paying too much.<br /><br />Avoid.

I must admit I burst out laughing when I saw one reviewer compare this to LOTR. Well yes, if you exclude the dwarfs, the cast of thousands, the great special effects, the big battles, the strong characterization, the decent plot, the good acting, the classy direction and everything else. Which leaves you with the walking. And boy, does this film do walking! If Mr Piano had his way, this would probably be an uninterrupted three hours of hardcore walking through the Wisconsin countryside, but every 40 minutes or so these pesky Martians pop up for a few seconds to interrupt him before he goes for another bit of a ramble. You've never seen so much walking in a movie. If this really had a $20m budget, most of it must have gone on Mr Piano's shoes, because he had to get through plenty of pairs with all the walking he does. Which explains why there's no money left for decent effects, a decent video camera or proper actors. Honestly, it's like watching some bizarre fetish video for people with a thing about going for long walks in period costumes. Even on fast-forward, this is a looonnnggg walk.<br /><br />As for the sci-fi stuff, I think it was a mistake to put Martians in the film: they only get in the way of the walking, which is clearly much more interesting to the director than the story.<br /><br />I wonder how much Mr Piano charges to walk dogs?

I have read the novel Reaper of Ben Mezrich a fews years ago and last night I accidentally came to see this adaption.<br /><br />Although it's been years since I read the story the first time, the differences between the novel and the movie are humongous. Very important elements, which made the whole thing plausible are just written out or changed to bad.<br /><br />If the plot sounds interesting to you: go and get the novel. Its much, much, much better.<br /><br />Still 4 out of 10 since it was hard to stop watching because of the great basic plot by Ben Mezrich.

The Bloodsucker Leads the Dance - what a laughable title, it's so utterly misleading. It's not surprising that the film-makers try and mislead us though because this is one terrible movie.<br /><br />The story basically involves a murder mystery in a castle on a remote island.<br /><br />Very little happens in this film. And when something does wake the viewer from his stupor, it invariably is unintentional comedy in the form of atrocious dialogue delivered by a hopeless group of voice-artists. These guys are so bad they make the actors they deliver voices for appear like a group of remedial-level morons. It really is hard to determine how bad the acting is when you have dubbing this abysmal. But the voice-artists cannot be blamed for the script. It's a travesty. Unintentionally funny at best, pathetic at worst. The story in general is, to say the least, uneven. The women characters are particularly idiotic; the men are either creepy or tedious.<br /><br />The whole enterprise smacks of pure exploitation of the audience. It doesn't remotely deliver what it promises and even when the murders (finally) start happening, they all occur off screen. All we get is a few half-hearted severed head shots.<br /><br />A few people have said that this movie is a giallo. I cannot agree less with this opinion. Anyone who enjoys Italian thrillers should give this movie a wide berth as there is nothing remotely thrilling about it. It's basically a soft-core porn film with a horror angle. But it's not very erotic either.<br /><br />I can't recommend this to anyone.

I wasn't sure how to rate this movie, since it was so bad it was actually very funny. I'm not a Gackt fan by any means, though he is talented, despite the weird pseudonym that sounds like a cat coughing up a hairball. I always thought Hyde was talented though, Faith is an interesting album.<br /><br />But on topic here folks. This movie is ridiculous. It's so over the top and nonsensical it's almost like a parody of supernatural action films.<br /><br />The movie has almost no plot here, except it's just about vampires with gangster friends. In a way, this film almost reminded me of Spider-Man 3, with how there were too many ideas, which resulted in not enough time to pay attention on one of them.<br /><br />The action scenes were laughable. Quickly edited, almost hard to understand, with choreography that's so laughably bad. Though Hyde looked very stylish during the action scenes, but that's this film's only such redemption. I'm a sucker for good action movies, but the action was horribly done. Though the final shootout was OK and the highlight of this otherwise depressing movie.<br /><br />It keeps jumping between genres, not a good thing. It wants to be a drama, or an action flick, or a horror, or a romance... what the hell.<br /><br />If this review is making you mad, why? Is it because Gackt and Hyde are your love? Don't fool yourself, this MOVIE IS BAD.

Burt Kennedy used to be a very good director, but you'd never know it by this lumbering mess. Not only does this film look cheap, it IS cheap--most of the battle scenes are lifted from the far superior "The Last Command" from 1955, and that footage, shot 32 years previously, looks more contemporary than anything in this picture. The few action scenes that were actually shot for this movie are disorganized, confused and incompetent, looking just as shoddy as the rest of the picture. This has the look and feel of a bad student film (and the budget didn't seem to be a whole lot more). It moves like molasses, the acting for the most part is either over-the-top ham or under-the-top comatose--although Raul Julia comes off better than most of the rest of the cast--and it's chock full of annoying historical inaccuracies. On top of that, it's WAY too long. If you're going to make a boring film, do it in an hour or so and get it over with--don't stretch it out over three hours, like this one does. If you want to see a good movie about the Alamo, check out John Wayne's 1960 version, or even the 1955 film from which this movie stole its action scenes. Hard to believe it took six producers to make a movie this lousy. Skip it.

This movie has beautiful scenery. Unfortunately it has no plot. In order to have a plot there must be a conflict. This movie had none. It spent two hours painting a beautiful scene and failed to ever place any activity in it. The picture tries to be artistic but fails to pay attentions to the fundamentals of story telling.<br /><br />If you love Montana scenery and fly fishing you will find some value in this film just don't expect a story. There isn't one.

Weak plot, predictable violence, only semi interesting characters. Like the writer (also one of the stars?) was fictionalizing his own screw ups and added an incredulous fantasies of drugs and murder to make it "hot". From the predictable rap and house soundtrack, to the family conflicts, it's poorly acted, stereotypical, and ultimately terribly boring. Even the title has been done before - IMDb lists FIVE movies with the same name released in 2007-2008!! <br /><br />Note: Saw it on Showtime, which listed the synopsis for one of the other movies. Was halfway thru before I realized no one was an undercover cop. Even tho another stereotype, would have made it interesting if it happened.

I could never stand watching Happy Days after Chachi joined the cast, so I knew I was in trouble when the best scene in this movie featured Scott Baio (a skateboard chase scene!). Jodie Foster in her first "grown-up" role turns in her usual professional performance but that is no excuse for this boring mess. Two hours out of my life that I'll never get back! No noteworthy characters, unbelievable storyline, questionable editing and horrendous cinematography but worst of all, I couldn't have cared less. The story of California teens in the 1970's, where the kids live miserable lives and all their parents are idiots. Don't waste your time watching this ugly excuse for a movie.

The silent one-panel cartoon Henry comes to Fleischer Studios, billed as "The world's funniest human" in this dull little cartoon. Betty, long past her prime, thanks to the Production Code, is running a pet shop and leaves Henry in charge for far too long -- five minutes. A bore.

The annoying mouse and lullaby really got to me and really had nothing to do with the story...It's something I would have done my 1st year in film school. Very sad. Additionally, the story just seemed to drag on for no apparent reason...there were too many things just thrown in there that had nothing to do with the story, which makes me feel that the creative team didn't really know what they were doing, or just that it should have been shorter...which would have been a blessing, not a crime. As I have just watched all of the episodes up to this point over the past week...I'd have to say that this was by far the worst, and I just wanted to warn others not to start with this one.

Like so many media experiments, this amateurish effort contains seeds of a very interesting social commentary. In the 5+ years since it was released, the premise has been made less outrageous by real world events in software development, and I found it less boring than the previous commentator for that reason, I imagine... The director clearly is a fan of Hitchcock, and it's too bad that the film was not better executed, but in fact, it is nearly a parody of pulp fiction, including the soundtrack screeching at us when we are supposed to pay attention. One can almost see the exclamation points and capital letters on a yellowing page.<br /><br />I have to admit I found it rather entertaining for all these reasons and more. Sometimes the slick has less to offer us, and I would recommend it to anyone interested in deconstructing it for education purposes. Oh yes--and even though the seams showed and it creaked a lot, my heart rate went up, and I was reluctant to get up and take a break.

An uninspired and undistinguished "new" Columbo which sees the man-in-the-mac attend his nephew's wedding, only for his bride to disappear on their wedding night. Columbo investigates...<br /><br />And that it is about it: indifferently plotted and surprisingly laden with a flat script, given that it is written by Robert Van Scoyk, who penned the highly enjoyable Columbo story "Murder Under Glass" in the detective's heyday; there is not even a murder to speak of and the greatest amount of ingenuity afforded to Columbo by the script-writer is the narrowing down of suspects via the photos taken at the wedding, which include everybody who was there!<br /><br />Devoid of every Columbo trait possible, I thought I was watching an episode of Hill Street Blues. An insult to the history of the series, with appropriately soap-opera style acting. Very avoidable stuff.

Blonde and Blonder was unfunny.Basically, it was a rip-off girl version of Dumb and Dumber, but less funny, and they used too much background noises and music.WAY TOO MUCH BACKGROUND NOISES AND MUSIC IF YOU ASK ME!!!!It starts out immensely boring, and TOTALLY inane.It doesn't pick up pace anywhere soon, and I was feeling more frustrated as this nonsense carried on.Maybe, the only thing that saved me from giving this movie a 1 was the last 30 minutes.I found it somewhat entertaining and interesting as it neared the end, but that was the only part.Also, I couldn't help but like Pamela Anderson and Denise Richard's characters a little.Even though this movie didn't get any laughs from me, it kept my attention.I wouldn't say to completely avoid this movie, but there are thousands of better films for you to spend your time and money on than Blonde and Blonder.

Even if you're a huge Sandler fan, please don't bother with this extremely disappointing comedy! I bought this movie for $7.99, assuming it has to be at least halfway decent since my man Sandler is in it and because I assumed some women would get naked (judging by the R-rating and scantily-clad women on the cover). Well, there are quite a few scantily-clad women, but none get naked. I'm not sure what point this was in Sandler's career, but I'm guessing it was even before his SNL days. I can be wrong. This is like watching one of his home movies. He might look back at a cheesy movie like this and reminisce about the good ol' times...but we (the audience) are left to dry. This is hardly a "movie"! Sandler does a lot of talking to the camera, and even admits at one point that this is "no-budget" movie (that's right, not a low-budget movie, a NO-budget movie). So our job is pretty much to laugh AT the quirky characters. There is no steady plot, it's like an extended sketch comedy show--but a crude and badly written one. That guy who played the nasty comedian was completely annoying and it was implausible in the first place that he would receive such a mass audience. And Sandler finds his comic inspiration by saying the one classic Henny Youngman line "Take my wife, please" and the audience is on the floor? I'm not even going to TRY to make any logic here. Sure, Sandler's current and recent movies are not known for making a lot of sense (the penguin in "Billy Madison," the midget in "Happy Gilmore's" Happy Place) but the comedy works. This is a strictly amateurish work, and even if you're curious about Adam's early days in film--you still won't be interested. You're better off checking out his start on SNL or maybe his underrated role in "Mixed Nuts." Of course, the Sandman is not the only actor wasted in this thankless vehicle. Billy Bob Thornton also makes a short appearance, Billy Zane ("Titanic") has a supporting role and the great Burt Young (from the "Rocky" movies) has a significant role. <br /><br />This awful comedy will most probably be collecting dust on the 99-cent rental section of your local video store--and rightfully so. <br /><br />My score: 3 (out of 10)

Although the director tried(the filming was made in Tynisia and Morocco),this attempt to transport the New Testament in the screen failed.The script has serious inaccuracies and fantasies,while the duration is very long.But the most tragic is the protagonist Chris Sarandon,who doesn't seem to understand the demands of his role.

One has to wonder if at any point in the production of this film a<br /><br />script existed that made any sense. Was the rough cut 3 hours<br /><br />long and was it trimmed into the incoherent mess that survives? <br /><br />Why would anyone finance this mess? I will say that Tom<br /><br />Wlaschiha is a good looking young man and he does what he can<br /><br />with the dialogue and dramatic (?) situations he is given. But<br /><br />characters come and go for no apparent reason, continuity is<br /><br />non-existent, and the acting, cinematography, and direction are (to<br /><br />put it politely) amateurish. Not One Sleeps is an unfortunate<br /><br />choice of title as it will probably prove untrue should anyone<br /><br />actually attempt to actually watch this film.

This is one of the most insipid, lackluster, unoriginal, and pointless movies ever made! It almost feels like everyone involved in this project didn't even try to make an appealing movie. This is nothing more than a continuation of a tiresome series of films that attempt to cash in on the success of Smokey and the Bandit, which I think is the best film of them all. As for this waste of film stock, Burt Reynolds sleepwalks his way through the entire movie, Jim Nabors is wasted, the other actors aren't given very much to do, the car races are obviously stock footage, the humor is uninspired, and many of the scenes are more dull and lifeless than staring at a wall for two hours. "Stroker Ace" is simply a superfluous film with nothing unique or distinctive about it.

An executive, very successful in his professional life but very unable in his familiar life, meets a boy with down syndrome, escaped from a residence . Both characters feel very alone, and the apparently less intelligent one will show to the executive the beauty of the small things in life... With this argument, the somehow Amelie-like atmosphere and the sentimental music, I didn't expect but a moralistic disgusting movie. Anyway, as there were some interesting scenes (the boy is sometimes quite a violent guy), and the interpretation of both actors, Daniel Auteil and Pasqal Duquenne, was very good, I decided to go on watching the movie. The French cinema, in general, has the ability of showing something that seems quite much to life, opposed to the more stereotyped American cinema. But, because of that, it is much more disappointing to see after the absurd ending, with the impossible death of the boy, the charming tone, the happiness of the executive's family, the cheap moral, the unbearable laughter of the daughters, the guy waving from heaven as Michael Landon... Really nasty, in my humble opinion.

I used to LOVE this movie as a kid but, seeing it again 20+ years later, it actually sucks. Up The Academy might have been ahead of it's time back in 1980, but it has almost nothing to offer today! Movies like Caddyshack and Stripes hold-up much better today than this steaming dogpile. No T&A. No great jokes except for the one-liners we've all heard a million times by now.<br /><br />I recently bought the DVD in hopes that it would be the gem I remembered it being. Well, I was WAY off! The soundtrack had only 2-3 widely-recognizable hits (not the smash compilation others had mentioned) and the frequent voice-overs were terrible. The only thing that was interesting, to me, was predicting what the character's lines were before they said them. Yep, I watched this movie that much back then! <br /><br />The only reason I am writing this review is to give my two cents on why this movie should be forgotten, sorry to say. :(

After reading some very good reviews about this film I thought I would give it a watch and after being very disappointed with the film I thought I would give it my own review. This is my first ever so bare with me.<br /><br />First of all I would scratch horror from the genre as in no way is it horrific or scary in the slightest (with the exception of a few feeble attempts to make you jump unfortunately one of which worked on me.) I would say that calling this film a thriller is pushing it as I wasn't particularly thrilled either! The film is about a spoiled mischievous girl who faints a few times. During these times she visits a house which she has been drawing, after each visit she decides to add something else to the house to make it a bit more lively one of the features being a sad little boy who is also ill in reality. As she befriends the boy she realises that her imaginary world that she created is actually better than the real world that she is in. Until she adds her constantly away father to the house, due to a misdrawing her dad turns out to be evil and her and the boy must escape from his clutches.<br /><br />Think its an attempt to be a slightly more mellow version of A Nightmare On Elm Street but is more like a trip to the beach.<br /><br />In conclusion my generous 3/10 will hopefully stop at least one of you from watching this drab!

Okay first of all, I didn't sit down to watch the premier of a "Star Trek" Series to see a cowboy flying around in space. this is how a normal Enterprise episode works<br /><br />1 Archer finds a nebula or something aloung the lines of that and wants to take a closer look but it might destroy the ship.<br /><br />2 he sends a shuttle into the nebula and and the shuttle get damaged...<br /><br />in all of the episodes I have seen, all of the problems are happening because of Archer's stupid mistakes. Oh and did you see the preview of one episode showing Archer and T'pol kissing?!?!?!?!?!?!? I was planning to watch that episode but after that I totally gave up on Enterprise and turned to TV right off. Come on!!!! This is star trek!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br /><br />Also what was with the banana slug?? In one episode, Hoshi had a banana slug but had to leave it behind for some stupid reason. Okay fine, little dumb to bring you pet slug in space but whatever. Okay that was what I thought until they left it on a desert planet!!!!! A BANANA SLUG CANNOT LEAVE IN A DESERT!!!!!!!!!!!! How dumb are these writers<br /><br />Any ways, just saying if Enterprise is on DON'T WATCH IT!!!!!

The oddly-named Vera-Ellen was to movie dancing what Sonja Henie was to movie ice-skating: blonde, girlish, always delightful to watch, but not an especially good actress and usually lumbered with weak material. When I watch Vera-Ellen's sexy apache dance with Gene Kelly in 'Words and Music', I can't help noticing that her blouse (yellow with narrow red horizontal stripes) seems to be made out of the South Vietnam flag. For some reason, the very American Vera-Ellen starred in *two* musicals (made several years apart) set in Edinburgh, a city not noted for its tap-dancers: 'Let's Be Happy' and 'Happy Go Lovely'.<br /><br />In the latter, Cesar Romero plays an American impresario who for some reason is staging a musical in Edinburgh. There's a vague attempt to link this show to the Edinburgh Festival, which is nonsense: the Festival is not a showcase for splashy leg-shows. We also see a couple of stock shots of the Royal Mile: apart from a few Highland accents, there's absolutely no attempt to convey Scottish atmosphere in this movie. The funniest gag occurs at the very beginning, when we learn that the title of Romero's show is 'Frolics to You': this is a cheeky pun that Britons will get and Yanks won't.<br /><br />Vera-Ellen is, as usual, cute and appealing and an impressive dancer, but the very few musical numbers in this movie are boring and bad. The plot -- mistaken identity between magnate David Niven and reporter Gordon Jackson -- is brainless, though no more so than the plots of several dozen Hollywood musicals. Romero is less annoying than usual here, probably because (for once) he isn't required to convince us that he's interested in bedding the heroine.<br /><br />The single biggest offence of this movie is its misuse of Bobby Howes. The father of Sally Ann Howes was a major star of West End stage musicals; his wistful rendition of "She's My Lovely" was a big hit in Britain in 1937. Here, he shows up in several scenes as Romero's dogsbody but never has a chance to participate in a musical number, nor even any real comedy. It's absolutely criminal that this movie -- with a title containing the word 'Lovely', sure to evoke Howes's greatest hit -- would cast a major British musical star but give him nothing to do!<br /><br />The delightful character actress Ambrosine Phillpotts (whom I worked with once) shines in one restaurant sequence, and there's a glimpse of the doomed beauty Kay Kendall. As Vera-Ellen's confidante, somebody named Diane Hart speaks in one of the most annoying voices I've ever heard: it sounds like an attempt to imitate Joan Greenwood and Glynis Johns both at the same go, but doesn't match either. Val Guest has a story credit, but this movie doesn't come up to the quality of his brilliant comedies. The colour photography is wretched, though I realise that postwar Britain could not afford Hollywood's process work. 'Happy Go Lovely' is at utmost best a pleasant time-waster, with 'waster' being the operative word. I'll rate this movie just 4 out of 10.

This movie sounded like it might be entertaining and interesting from its description. But to me it was a bit of a let down. Very slow and hard to follow and see what was happening. It was as if the filmmaker took individual pieces of film and threw them in the air and had them spliced together whichever way they landed (definitely not in sequential order). Also, nothing of any consequence was being filmed. I have viewed quite a few different Korean films and have noticed that a good portion are well made and require some thinking on the viewer's part, which is different from the typical Hollywood film. But this one befuddled me to no end. I viewed the film a second and third time and it still didn't do anything for me. I still don't really understand what the filmmaker was trying to convey. If it was to just show a typical mundane portion of a person's life, I guess he succeeded. But I was looking for more. Needless to say, I can't recommend this movie to anyone.