Datasets:

sgavela

/

sample_imdb

like 0

I'm not sure this is a spoiler; perhaps it is a public service. If you are one of those people focused on instant gratification who skip end credits, you will miss the final line of the end credits news announcer's voice-over, which states the U.S. has just surrendered to Nazi Germany on May 7, 1945 to end WWII. Here are just a few of the problems with this close: <br /><br />1)The older viewer must conjure up the equivalent of two or three more UNHOLY movies in their mind's eye to fill in the yawning chasm between movie events and this startling conclusion.<br /><br />2)The average person will really kick themselves that they did not "watch" one of these UNHOLY fill-in-the-blanks flicks created in their own head for free, instead of shelling out time and money to see this UNHOLY from the video store (or on cable).<br /><br />3)This end credits sequence of imagined news bulletins may be the first information some younger viewers are exposed to about WWII, leading them to the conclusion that George W. Bush is the latest heir to the Nazi throne.

Almost as tedious to watch as it was to read, Evening is a gorgeously produced failure...until Meryl Streep walks in and quietly shows her other cast members how to act this kind of stuff. Vanessa Redgrave is shockingly off in her role as the dying Ann and Claire Danes is a cipher. Perhaps if Vanessa and Claire had switched roles we could have seen the vibrancy in the young Ann that gave her entrée to the rarefied world of the story and we could have imagined that the older Ann actually was dying. <br /><br />I was hoping the addition of Michael Cunningham to the writing credits would smooth out the jumpy storytelling but alas. It gave me a headache.

An old intellectual talks about what he considers art in movies. You get your Hitchcock, your Chaplin, your Bergman and some other stuff prior to the 80ies. To disguise that he has no clue what is going on in cinemas these days, he throws in The Matrix.<br /><br />But it's not only the same lame film-as-art speech all over again. This speech is reduced to outdated psychological platitudes: it-ego-super ego, anal phase, sexual insufficiency. <br /><br />It is garnished with the cheesy effect of having Zizte edited into the movies he is taking about. For someone who is supposed to know much about movies, his own is, cinematographicly speaking: yeiks.<br /><br />To put it in Zizek's own words - I saw 5\-\!7 on the screen, last night, or in the words of a great movie maker:<br /><br />Mr. (Zizek), what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you (two) points (only), and may God have mercy on your soul.

This is not a good film. The acting is remarkably stiff and unconvincing.The film doesn't seem to know whether it is going for a real horror approach or to go down the camp and kitsch route. I never saw the first film but this one doesn't stand up on its own merits, there are several unconvincing plot twists and the viewer is never made aware of the importance of the lead female vampire. Not worth the effort of watching

A BDSM "sub-culture" of Los Angeles serves as backdrop for this low budget and shabbily constructed mess, plainly a vanity piece for its top-billed player, Celia Xavier, who also produces and scripts while performing a dual role as twin sisters Vanessa and Celia. A question soon develops as to whether or not some rather immoderate camera, lighting and editing pyrotechnics can ever reach a point of connection to a weak and often incoherent narrative that will not be taken seriously by a sensate viewer. Celia is employed as a highly motivated probation officer for the County of Los Angeles, while her evil natured twin has become an iconic figure within her fetishistic world largely because of erotic performances upon CD-ROMS, but when disaster befalls "Mistress Vanessa", virtuous Celia, determined to unearth her sister's vicious attacker, begins a new job as a "sex slave" at the private Castle Club where the specialty of the house is a "dungeon party". Two FBI field agents (whose deployment to the Vanessa case is ostensibly required due to her involvement with internet BDSM sites), in addition to a Los Angeles Police Department homicide detective, are assigned to investigate the crime, while endeavouring to provide security for Celia whose enthusiastic performance in her new vocation is avidly enough regarded by her customers as to have created conditions of personal danger for her. Flaws in logic and continuity abound, such as a homicide being allocated to L.A.P.D.'s Operations-South Bureau, a region of the metropolis that is far removed from the setting of the film. Direction is unfocused and not aided by erratic post-production editing and sound reproduction. The mentioned photographic gymnastics culminate with a batty montage near the movie's end of prior footage that is but tangentially referent to the scenario. One solid acting turn appears among this slag: Stan Abe as a zealous FBI agent.

Pathetic... worse than a bad made-for-TV movie. I can't believe that Spacey and Freeman were in this flick. For some reason Morgan Freeman's character is constantly talking about and saying "pussy" when referring to NSync boy's girlfriend. Morgan Freeman calling women "pussy" is just awkward... What the hell were the people behind this film thinking? Too many plot holes to imagine combined with the horrid acting, confusing camera angles, a lame script and cheap background music made this movie absolutely unbearable.<br /><br />I rented this flop with low expectations.... but... well... it really sucked.

I remember I saw this cartoon when I was 6 or 7. My grandfather picked up the video of it for free at the mall. I remember that it really sucked. The plot had no sense. I hated the fox that became Casper's friend. He was so stupid! Casper cried his head off if he couldn't find a friend. So what? Get over it! The only good part and I don't want to sound mean-spirited was when the fox got shot and died at the end. I laughed my head off in payback because this cartoon sucked so much. The bad news is the fox resurrects and becomes a ghost. I wish he had stayed dead. I think I even gave the video of this to somebody because I hated it. No wonder they were offering it for free at the mall. If you have a child don't let them watch this. They will probably agree with me that it sucks.

When Marlene Dietrich was labeled box office poison in 1938 one of a handful of actresses so named by the trades papers, it was films like The Garden Of Allah. How a film could be so breathtakingly beautiful to behold and be so insipidly dull is beyond me. Also how Marlene if she was trying to expand her range and not play a sexpot got stuck with such an old fashioned story is beyond me.<br /><br />The Garden Of Allah, one of the very first films in modern technicolor was a novel set at the turn of the last century by Robert Hitchens who then collaborated on a play adaption with Mary Anderson that ran for 241 performances in 1911-12. It then got two silent screen adaptions. The story is about a monk who runs away from the monastery out in French Tunisia to see some of what he's missed in the world. He runs into a similarly sheltered woman who was unmarried and spent her prime years caring for a sick parent. She's traveling now in the desert and the two meet on a train.<br /><br />The woman is of course Marlene and the runaway monk is Charles Boyer. I'm not sure what was in David O. Selznick's mind in filming this story. Someone like Ingrid Bergman might have made it palatable for the audience. But you can bet that the movie-going public of 1936 when they plunked their money down for a ticket they expected to see Marlene as a modern day Salome rather than a saint with that title. The public still remembered Rudolph Valentino and you can bet that it was some desert romance and seduction that they were expecting.<br /><br />As for the monks you have to remember that they are self supporting in their monasteries and this particular one bottles a special wine of which Boyer happens to be the one with the secret. The monastery will have to rethink it's economics if Boyer leaves. The monks are a sincerely pious group, but from the head man Charles Waldron on down they've a right to be a little concerned with some self interest.<br /><br />Anyway a whole lot of religious platitudes get said here by a pair of leads that really are not suited for the parts. Most especially Marlene Dietrich. I would watch this film with an eye for the special color desert cinematography and forget the plot.

Not a `woman film' but film for the gang. One of the worst films ever made by a male director about woman. Director Andy McKay simply doesn't know woman. Peaks of bad taste, American Pie's humor style, crude story, no sense, groundless story, refuted characters. Vulgar fantasies came to life on screen. Insulting and definitely not funny. I wonder how three good actresses accepted to take part in it.

Really bad movie, the story is too simple and predictable and poor acting as a complement.<br /><br />This vampire's hunter story is the worst that i have seen so far, Derek Bliss (Jon Bon Jovi), travels to Mexico in search for some blood suckers!, he use some interesting weapons (but nothing compared to Blade), and is part of some Van Helsig vampire's hunters net?, OK, but he work alone. He's assigned to the pursuit of a powerful vampire queen that is searching some black crucifix to perform a ritual which will enable her to be invulnerable to sunlight (is almost a sequel of Vampires (1998) directed by John Carpenter and starred by James Woods), Derek start his quest in the search of the queen with some new friends: Sancho (Diego Luna, really bad acting also) a teenager without experience, Father Rodrigo (Cristian De la Fuente) a catholic priest, Zoey (Natasha Wagner) a particular vampire and Ray Collins (Darius McCrary) another expert vampire hunter. So obviously in this adventure he isn't alone.<br /><br />You can start feeling how this movie would be just looking at his lead actor (Jon Bon Jovi); is a huge difference in the acting quality compared to James Woods, and then, if you watch the film (i don't recommend this part), you will get involved in one of the more simplest stories, totally predictable, with terrible acting performances, really bad special effects and incoherent events!.<br /><br />I deeply recommend not to see this film!, rent another movie, see another channel, go out with your friends, etc.<br /><br />3/10

I caught this film on AZN on cable. It sounded like it would be a good film, a Japanese "Green Card". I can't say I've ever disliked an Asian film, quite the contrary. Some of the most incredible horror films of all time are Japanese and Korean, and I am a HUGE fan of John Woo's Hong Kong films. I an not adverse to a light hearted films, like Tampopo or Chung King Express (two of my favourites), so I thought I would like this. Well, I would rather slit my wrists and drink my own blood than watch this laborious, badly acted film ever again.<br /><br />I think the director Steven Okazaki must have spiked the water with Quaalude, because no one in this film had a personality. And when any of the characters DID try to act, as opposed to mumbling a line or two, their performance came across as forced and incredibly fake. I honestly did not think that anyone had ever acted before...the ONLY person who sounded genuine was Brenda Aoki.. I find it amazing that this is promoted as a comedy, because I didn't laugh once. Even MORE surprising is that CBS morning news called this "a refreshing breath of comedy". It was neither refreshing, nor a breath of comedy. And the ending was very predictable, the previous reviewer must be an idiot to think such things.<br /><br />AVOID this film unless you want to see a boring predictable plot line and wooden acting. I actually think that "Spike of Bensonhurst" is a better acted film than this...and I walked out half way through that film!

When you see Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi as co-stars, you expect to find a well done horror movie, but this was actually quite different, representing as it did what I would describe as an early effort at science fiction. Karloff and Lugosi both play scientists (Rukh and Benet respectively) - competitors to an extent, until Rukh wins Benet over with a demonstration that proves his great theory. The science here was - to say the least - a bit rough around the edges (thus science fiction, with the emphasis on the fiction) but somehow Rukh harnesses some sort of ray from Andromeda that allows him to look at the earth "several thousand million years ago." In that pre historic time, a huge meteorite slammed into Africa, leaving deposits of a substance the scientists call "Radium X" - which can heal and destroy. A large portion of the movie is set rather tediously in Africa, on a search for the meteorite deposits, which Rukh eventually finds and harnesses to create a great weapon, unfortunately infecting himself with some sort of disease that makes him a great weapon as well.<br /><br />Karloff and Lugosi were both pretty good here. Lugosi pulls off a role in which he's the good guy pretty well, although I frankly found him a bit unconvincing - especially during the scenes set in Africa. The story also plodded along a bit, and while it held my attention it didn't captivate me. Given that this is really a sci-fi rather than a horror flick, and that sci-fi was in its very early stages, I suppose the movie needs to be cut a bit of slack. It was OK - nothing more, but also nothing less than that. 4/10

five minutes after watching this i logged on to IMDb to warn all of you out there not to bother with this movie... genre:horror? it had moments of mild suspense and throughout the whole movie i was thinking to myself "somethings gotta happen soon" it did not...when the movie ended i felt so embarrassed for the writer/director i've never been the biggest fan of patrick rea this guy just does not know how to make movies and after watching this sorry excuse of a horror flick i've gone from not been the biggest fan to will not watch another of his works..<br /><br />i was taken in by the plot summary please don't make the same mistake.<br /><br />i gave this movie a 2 for the actors..they were not bad and it wasn't there fault they got such bad direction...

This was an incredibly stupid movie. It was possibly the worst movie I've ever had the displeasure of sitting through. I cannot fathom how it ranks a rating of 5 or 6.............

Zu Warriors most definitely should've been an animated series because as a movie it's like watching an old anime on acid.The movie just starts out of nowhere and people just fly around fighting with metal wings and other stupid weapons until this princess sacrifices herself for her lover on a cloud or something.Whether this princess is a god or an angel is beyond me but soon enough this flying wind bad guy comes in and kills her while the guy with the razor wings fights some other mystical God /Demon/Wizard thing.The plot line is either not there or extremely hard to follow you need to be insanely intelligent to get this movie.The plot soon follows this Chinese mortal who is called upon by this god to fight the evil flying,princess killing bad guy and soon we have a very badly choreographed Uwe Boll like fight scene complete with terrible martial arts on a mountain or something.Even the visuals are weird some might say they are stunning and colorful but i'm going to say they are blurry and acid trip like (yes that's a word!).I watched it both dubbed and with subtitles and both were equally bad and hard to understand....who am i kidding i didn't understand it at all.It felt like i was watching episode 30 of some 1980's anime and completely missed how the story began or like i started reading a comic series of 5 at number 4 because i had no clue how this thing started where it was going or how it would end i was lost the entire time.I can honestly say this was one of the worst film experiences ever it was like watching Inu-Yasha at episode 134 drunk...yeah that's right you don't know what the hell is going on.Don't waste your brain trying to figure this out.

Dude, really!!!! where have you guys been the past 20 years, this is shocking in all kind of ways, horror ? This is a joke, there is nothing wrong with being low budget, but this is a laugh, If you want to look at the classics, Freaks of Tod Browning, the victims of Dracula and Frankenstein, the Undying Monster, Ernest Thesiger, Paul Wegener's The Golem and the passengers of The Ghost Train, you can't compare it, it gives it a bad name, bad acting, bad screenplay etc. Total waist of money and free time, have watched a lot of movies, were as horror is my all time favorite, I really am speechless, have nothing more to say that please don't do the effort to watch something so daft, please understand

I saw this trailer and thought to myself my god is this movie for real, who would want to see this movie and at the same time i thought that, my girl friend turned to me and said "we have to go see this movie"...enough said so i saw this about 5 minutes go and I tried to put on a brave face and enjoy the cheap scares but there weren't even any of those. It has to be one of the worst movies I have ever seen the director has no influence no perspective the same shots were used again and again he did not build up suspense the cast probably were simply told scream cry run fall. I would love to see the script as the first 40 mins was mostly annoying girly giggles and bad music, there was absolutely no character development.<br /><br />The plot is just...well there was no plot it was basically I know we will terrorize a high school group on their prom night with a stalker serial killer, That's brilliant! hmmm The acting was what you expect in a Australian soap opera hopeless, that main character the Blondie god dam she annoyed me. her longest line must have been half a sentence, and every time she was on camera she was just pulling another rude facial expression.<br /><br />Please listen to me if you have any taste in movies don't go see this, and if your like me and don't have a choice well then I wish you good luck, maybe smuggle in an ipod or magazine. Can't believe this film got made!

You know all those letters to "Father Christmas" and "Jesus" that are sent every year? Well, it turns out that they are not actually delivered but dropped off in a half-forgotten corner of the post office to rot unless some bright spark figures out a way of posting them. As bizarre settings go, it's a winner and one which perfectly fits the strange movie that is "Dead Letter Office". Having said that, this is obviously an Australian film as opposed to a British one. If it was Royal Mail, most letters get this sort of treatment anyway. I haven't been in this flat for two years and we're still getting letters for a Mr Wang, some female priest of the Church of Latter Day I've-Never-Heard-Of-You and various catalogues for industrial equipment addressed to a plumbing company.<br /><br />"Dead Letter Office" (the name given to the place where undeliverable mail ends up) follows the story of Alice (Miranda Otto) who grows up in a seriously divided home. Writing to her absent father, she only learns in adulthood that her letters haven't been delivered for one reason or another. So, logically, she gets a job at the D.L.O. and finds herself working alongside other social rejects including the brooding Chilean immigrant Frank Lopez (George Del Hoyo). Slowly, she finds herself drawn to him but can she find out where her dad is without bringing the self-contained world of the Dead Letters Office to its knees?<br /><br />Nothing against this film but I was reminded of the god-awful Heather Graham film "Committed" while watching this. However, this is so much better than that pile of horse crap but then again, that ain't difficult. For a start, this film is much more logical. True, the metaphors are somewhat blatant and the underflowing symbolism quickly becomes a flood. But at least this is cohesive and quirky without being complete drivel. It is also well acted. Both Otto and Del Hoyo are very good as the lovers looking for something they know they'll never find while other characters are peripheral at best. Part of the trouble is that it seems to wrap up far too quickly, leaving this viewer somewhat disappointed. The other part is that when you consider Australia's draconian immigration policy (i.e. if you don't speak English, rack off!), such a story is unlikely to take place in reality. The other characters, sadly, also help to destabilise the realism by proving to be little more than odd-ball stereotypes.<br /><br />Despite that, "Dead Letter Office" is certainly something a little different. It might not be to everyone's taste but I liked it. Yes, it was hackneyed and predictable but sometimes, it's nice to watch a film without guns or violence or heavy-duty swearing and nudity (no chance of that in an Australian film). There ain't any major laughs, there's no Bullet Time and the characters are usually one-dimensional. But it's the story that counts here and while it's not earth-shattering in its magnificence, it's a pleasant enough way of passing the time. It's the movie equivalent of a Sheryl Crow CD - nice to listen to now and again but you wouldn't really miss it if it wasn't there.

About 15 minutes in, my wife was already wanting to leave. Not so much because of the material, but the lack thereof. They decided to fill in the blanks where the funny stuff should've been with as much language and absolutely vulgar talk as they could. When this would let up (very rare), we'd sit back and watch (not laughing, mind you) and wait for the next gross-out or offensive remark(s). After about 35 minutes, we both got up and left. Everything we'd read said how great this was. The trailer looked good and Roger Ebert actually called it "intelligent" and said it wasn't a crude sex comedy. Did he go to the right movie? Along with Be Cool, it's the only other movie I've ever walked out on...and I have no regrets. I'm sick of trying to go see comedies in America.

The acting is good, the women are beautiful, and the men are handsome, so if you're looking for well-acted soft porn, this movie is for you. Otherwise, you are wasting your time. The motivation of the main characters, in particular the eponymous lead, is often a mystery. She could have just told the truth - the truth as presented in the film, not necessarily the historical truth - and her lover would have been spared time in jail for a rape he did not commit. Was she protecting her father, who went off half-cocked, as it were, when he impetuously instigated a malicious lawsuit? Was she protecting herself, with her reputation suddenly of concern when heretofore only her art seemed to matter? During the trial, this strong-willed woman turns to mush before our eyes. Conversely, her lover, who starts off as a narcissistic jerk, becomes a selfless hero during the trial. At least his motivation is clearer: he sacrifices himself for love. Naturally, since no good deed must go unpunished, we are told that she never sees him again.

This movie is not as good as all the movies of Christ I've ever seen. And I'm quite amazed that in this story Pilate wants to finish Jesus, when the Scriptures (as well the other movies) state differently. It lacks also a very important issue: The Resurrection.. None of the other movies skip this very important part: the faith of all of us Christians lies in this very event. As Paul says in one of his letters "If Christ did not rise from the dead, our faith is vain". A very impressive scene for me in this movie was seeing on the streets the remains of the palms that were used when Jesus entered Jerusalem. <br /><br />Finally, and in opposition to my Jewish co-commentator, Jesus WAS NOT a myth. And as a matter of fact, he was also a JEW. There are plenty of documents (relgious and secular) that prove the existence of this extraordinary man(or should I said, God become a man) that indeed changed mankind. I strongly advise him(given he is a historian) to read about Flavius Josephus, the most brilliant Jewish commentator of the 1st. Century.

Ned aKelly is such an important story to Australians but this movie is awful. It's an Australian story yet it seems like it was set in America. Also Ned was an Australian yet he has an Irish accent...it is the worst film I have seen in a long time

I don't care how many nominations this junk got for best this and that, this movie stunk. I didn't know whether to turn off the set, or file a lawsuit with O.J.'s attorney for wrongful damage to my mental health. I have seldom been this bored; to call this dung entertainment is a slap in the face of every movie-goer across the planet. The whole story was stupid, the acting was uninspired, the 'drama' was emotionless. I am thankful I didn't have to pay for this unfulfilling experience.

That's what I found myself saying time after time in the remarkably inept 3rd act of this sorry excuse for a film. First off, the computer effects are absolutely mind-blowing! Those computer wizs' really deserve a pat on the back. The rest of the movie, though...<br /><br />None of the characters act in a realistic manner, especially in the aforementioned, despicable 3rd act (I promise I won't give it away, but trust me, it's not worth keeping a secret!). A lot of laughs in the film come unintentionally, like when they try to explain that an invisible man's eyelids don't work. Please, give the viewers more credit than that!!!<br /><br />Some of the sexual aspects of the film were interesting. What would you do, after all, if you were invisible? No one could catch you! These issues were dealt much more intelligently in the classic The Invisible Man from 1933. There is one scene of violence in particular that is so incredibly ambiguous, and is not mentioned once later on. If more attention had been paid it, Kevin bacon's mad scientist might have made a little more sense. <br /><br />The movie would actually be much more successful as a porno, since the premise could actually be carried out in a unique and interesting manner. But this piece of work... go see something else. Or don't, and live with the consequences!<br /><br />3/10

Oh dear. I was so disappointed that this movie was just a rip-off of Japan's Ringu. Well, I guess the U.S. made their version of it as well, but at least it was an outright remake. So, so sad. I very much enjoy watching Filipino movies and know some great things can come out of such a little country, so I can't believe this had to happen. Claudine and Kris are such big names there, surprised they would be affiliated with plagiarism. To any aspiring movie makers out there in the Philippines: You do not have to stoop this low to make money. There are many movie buffs that are watching the movies Filipinos put out and enjoying them!

Dysfunctional family goes home for the holidays and murder and mayhem result. Violent sexy Milligan at his most home made. Little better than a home movie (as much of Milligans films are) this is a trip into depravity 1960's style. Notable for the copious nudity and sex this film is neither sexy nor gruesome, playing now more as quaint.(though decidedly r rated). The film suffers from its uneven cast and from the cheapness of the production.(No one was ever sure where the money went on his movies since he was always broke). Its a bad bad movie thats not worth seeing except as a Milligan completeist or because its got some good looking people fooling around.

I am generally more willing to be open minded about rom coms than many, but this was simply not a very good attempt. Its got nothing to do with comparisons with the British original -- have not seen, and doubt I will. It has a whole lot to do with a meandering plot, lack of chemistry between the leads and a godawful performance/character from its supposed male lead (Jimmy Fallon).<br /><br />Fallon walks onto the screen wearing the clothes and hairdo of a 15 year old and acting a decade younger than that. He's supposed to be a teacher you see, and of course its well known that school districts the world over love to hire individuals less mature than the children they purport to teach. The character is so extremely disturbed and irrational that I have my doubts whether any actor could have made him likable, but old reliables like John Cusack or Adam Sandler might have been able to give it a shot. Not Fallon, who is neither funny, nor an actor, but appears to think he is both. Not once in the entire course of the movie do you either believe Fallon in his role, or believe that there is any way these two people should, or would be together. Near the end of the movie there is a scene where Barrymore (who was cute as usual but could not carry this one alone -- its hard to have a one person romance) tells Fallon that its over, too much has happened, and she's moving on. And rather than feeling bad about the scene, or sorry for Fallon, you are actively cheering her on -- finally she does what she should have done months ago. But of course the plot mechanics won't allow that to be the end of it (an end which actually might have made a statement out of this mess), and instead we get to see the rational career girl throwing it all away to chase after this childish idiot and encourage his delusions. Its of course meant to be gooey and satisfying, but it actually made me more disgusted than anything else.

A young boy sees his mother getting killed and his father hanging himself. 20 years later he gets a bunch of friends together to perform an exorcism on himself so he won't turn out like his father. All the stock characters are in place: the nice couple; the "funny" guy; the tough (but sensitive) hood; the smart girl (she wears glasses--that's how we know); the nerd and two no-personality blondes. It all involves some stupid wooden statue that comes to life (don't ask) and kills people. I knew I was in trouble when, after a great opening scene, we jump to 20 years later--ALL bad horror movies do that!<br /><br />The dialogue is atrocious, the acting is bad (except for Betsy Palmer--why Betsy?) and the killings are stupid and/or unimaginative. My favorite scene is when two people are supposedly having sex and the statue knocks the guy off the bed to show he's fully dressed! A real bad, stupid incoherent horror film. Avoid at all costs.

How sheep-like the movie going public so often proves to be. As soon as a few critics say something new is good (ie - "Shake-Cam"), everyone jumps on the bandwagon, as if they are devoid of independent thought. This was not a good movie, it was a dreadful movie. 1) Plot? - What plot? Bourne was chased from here to there, from beginning to end. That's the plot. Don't look for anything deeper than this. 2) Cinematography? - Do me a favor! Any 7 year old armed with an old and battered 8mm movie camera would do a far better job (I am not exaggerating here). This film is a tour-de-force of astonishingly amateurish camera-work. The ridiculous shaking of EVERY (I really do mean every) scene will cause dizziness and nausea. 3) Believable? - Oh yes definitely. This is a masterpiece of credibility. I loved scenes about Bourne being chased by (local) police through the winding market streets of Tangier. - I've BEEN to Tangier. Even the guides can't navigate their way through those streets but Bourne shook off 100 police with speed and finesse. Greengrass must be laughing his head off at the gullibility of his film disciples. 4) Editing? - I don't know what the editor was on when he did this film but I want some! - Every scene is between 0.5 and 2 seconds. I felt nauseous at the end of the film from the strobe effect of the "scenes" flashing by. 5) Directing? - Hmmm. This is an interesting aspect. The film appears to have actually NOT had any directing. More a case of Greengrass throwing a copy of the script (all two pages) at the cameramen and told to "shoot a few scenes whilst drunk". - "Don't worry boys, we'll tie the scenes together in the editing room". The editor should be tarred, feathered and put in the stocks for allowing this monstrosity to hit the silver screen 6) Not one but TWO senior CIA operatives giving the tender feminine treatment to the mistreated and misunderstood Jason Bourne. - Putting their lives on the line for someone they couldn't even be sure wasn't a traitor. Talk about stupid nincompoops. (Whilst the evil male CIA members plot to terminate any operative who so much as drops a paper-clip on the floor). (well, all men are evil, aren't they? - Except for SNAGS of course). Yes, this really is a modern and politically correct film that shows the females to be the heroes of the day and the oppressive males as the real threat to humanity. 7) When the you-know-what finally hits the fan, good triumphs over evil (just like it always does, eh?) and the would-be assassin gets the drop on Jason Bourne - he suddenly undergoes a guilt trip and refrains from pulling the trigger (Yeah - right...) - at that very moment, the evil deputy director just happens to turn up - gun in hand and he does pull the trigger. - How did this 60 year old man run so fast and not even be out of breath? Wonders will never cease 8) Don't worry, there's a senate hearing and the baddies get pulled up before the courts. Well, we can't have nasty, politically incorrect, CIA operatives going round shooting people, can we? How lovely to see a true to life P.C. film of the Noughties. -------------The Bourne Ultimatum is utter rubbish.

If you watched this movie you know why I said "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus". Hehehe!!! Every time they said "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus"... I laughed thinking "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, why did I rent this movie"? I cannot believe how Oscar winners like Freeman and Spacey appeared here in the background while Timberlake and LL Cool J grabbed the screen. WTF is Timberlake? Dreaful acting! I think someone like Joshua Jackson could have done a much better job! This job was perfect for Joshua Jackson and believe me I am not a big fun of him... but I really prefer an actor, not this android called Timberlake. And his girlfriend was shallow, hollow and annoying as hell. I was happy when they both were popped in the street.<br /><br />The story was OK and I think Dylan Mc Dermott did his bad guy role very well. The movie was entertaining but I think Timberlake ruined it all. It would have been much enjoyable without him.<br /><br />By the way, the music was OK, but suddenly every time the music appeared the movie turned into a MTV video clip with flashes, low motion and things like that. Something misplaced for this cops movie I thought. Maybe they wanted to make a MTV video clip for Timberlake.

My wife and I thought that with this cast and director, the movie would have to be at least worth watching. We were wrong. In fact, we gave up on it after 45 minutes. The idea that Crawford, Young and Tone are British but speak with American accents was, for me, impossible to get past -- hard to believe this is England when no one talks with a British accent. There is zero chemistry between Crawford and anyone, and to echo a previous comment, the idea that Cooper and Crawford suddenly declare their love for one another without any reason is ludicrous. There is no reason to care about any of the characters, which is why we threw in the towel halfway through. I found it hard to believe that Hawks directed this, as none of the actors spoke with the trademark Hawksian rat-a-tat delivery. So save your time, and skip this one.

The cliché of the shell-shocked soldier home from the war is here given dull treatment. Pity a splendid cast, acting to the limits of their high talents, can't redeem 'The Return of the Soldier' from its stiff-collared inability to move the viewer to emotional involvement. Best moments, as another reviewer noted, come when Glenda Jackson is on screen; but even Jackson's crackling good cinematic power can't pull this film's chestnuts from its cold, never warmed hearth. Ann-Margret, she of sex-kitten repute and too often accused of lacking acting ability, finds her actual and rather profound abilities wasted here - despite her speaking with a nigh-flawless Middlesex accent. The hackneyed score, redolent of many lackluster TV miniseries' slathered-on saccharine emotionalism, is at irritating odds with the emotional remoteness of the script, blocking, and overbaked formalism of the direction; except for its score and corseted script and direction, 'The Return of the Soldier' has all the right bits but it fails to make them work together.

New York, I Love You, or rather should-be-titled Manhattan, I Love Looking At Your People In Sometimes Love, is a precise example of the difference between telling a story and telling a situation. Case in point, look at two of the segments in the film, one where Ethan Hawke lights a cigarette for a woman on a street and proceeds to chat her up with obnoxious sexy-talk, and another with Orlando Bloom trying to score a movie with an incredulous demand from his director to read two Dostoyevsky books. While the latter isn't a great story by any stretch, it's at least something that has a beginning, middle and end, as the composer tries to score, gets Dostoyevky dumped in his lap, and in the end gets some help (and maybe something more) from a girl he's been talking to as a liaison between him and the director. The Ethan Hawke scene, however, is like nothing, and feels like it, like a fluke added in or directed by a filmmaker phoning it in (or, for that matter, Hawke with a combo of Before Sunrise and Reality Bites).<br /><br />What's irksome about the film overall is seeing the few stories that do work really well go up against the one or two possible 'stories' and then the rest of the situations that unfold that are made to connect or overlap with one another (i.e. bits involving Bradley Cooper, Drea DeMatteo, Hayden Christensen, Andy Garcia, James Caan, Natalie Portman, etc). It's not even so much that the film- set practically always in *Manhattan* and not the New York of Queens or Staten Island or the Bronx (not even, say, Harlem or Washington Heights)- lacks a good deal of diversity, since there is some. It's the lack of imagination that one found in spades, for better or worse, in Paris J'taime. It's mostly got little to do with New York, except for passing references, and at its worst (the Julie Christie/Shia LaBeouf segment) it's incomprehensible on a level that is appalling.<br /><br />So, basically, wait for TV, and do your best to dip in and out of the film - in, that is, for three scenes: the aforementioned Bloom/Christina Ricci segment which is charming; the Brett Ratner directed segment (yes, X-Men 3 Brett Ratner) with a very funny story of a teen taking a girl in a wheelchair to the prom only to come upon a great big twist; and Eli Wallach and Cloris Leachman as an adorable quite old couple walking along in Brooklyn on their 67th wedding anniversary. Everything else can be missed, even Natalie Portman's directorial debut, and the return of a Hughes brother (only one, Allan) to the screen. A mixed bag is putting it lightly: it's like having to search through a bag of mixed nuts full of crappy peanuts to find the few almonds left.

This movie is by far the worst movie ever made. If you have to create a film costarring the guy who plays Lars in heavyweights than don't make the damn film. I have to say that I could watch Leprechaun in Space 6 times before I could watch the trailer for this POS of a movie. Adam sandler should be restricted from any movie after this disgrace. Watching this movie is like a mix of listening to Cher and willingly putting your dick in a blender. Anyone with half of a brain cell will realize that this movie is not worth a dime. If I had an extra dollar and had to spend it, I'd give it to the support Lorraina Bobbitt foundation before buying this movie.

Andie McDowell is beautiful as the 40-ish woman whose late start at a serious relationship leads her to a considerably younger man and a subsequenet falling-out with 2 long-time best girldfriends.<br /><br />Seeing a gigolo/gold-digger in the sincere young man, the "girl-friends", dead-set on terminating this "silly relationship", go over and beyond the call of duty in "helping out" their friend (who obviously is blinded by this gigolo's tricky game".<br /><br />A short succession of situations is absolutely ridiculous. Far fetched no longer covers it. Without these unbelievable scenes, there may have been hope for a sweet love story. Instead, all the viewer is left with is an involuntary shaking of head -- these things just don't happen! Without giving away cliff-hanger details, I warn the viewer of having high expectations for this film; most (like me) will be very disappointed. On a scale of 1 to 10, this one ranks a weak 4 with me. There is much better material out there. This one isn't worth your time.

This is an "anthology" horror film. It's made up of 4 short stories taken from the fiction of Robert Bloch (who wrote for Weird Tales and was personal friends with H.P. Lovecraft, but is most famous for the original story "Psycho"). The quality of the stories is very uneven and I didn't think very much about the film was creepy or horrific at all. It would have been better to do it as a comedy like "Comedy of Terrors." Only the last of the 4 stories was really done in a humorous way, and it's probably the best of them (the one with Ingrid Pitt). I've seen a few of these Amicus anthology films and the only one that was really worth my time was Freddie Francis' "Tales from the Crypt." The anthology style works well for the producers, because it means that they can hire a bunch of "big name" actors, employ them for only one week of shooting or so, and then bring in the next big name. So you essentially pay for 6 weeks of movie star salary but get 5 or 6 different names on the marquee. But that's very unfortunate for the audience, because the audience would like to see some scenes with Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, and Ingrid Pitt actually acting together. Instead they're stuck in these vignettes by themselves. So let's take them one at a time, briefly.<br /><br />The first story has Denholm Elliot, who does a really admirable job of trying to bring some dignity to his silly role as a writer terrorized by his own character. Unfortunately the actor who plays Dominic, the source of the horror, Tom Adams, just looks silly which ruins any possible horror. There's some hilarious stuff if you want to laugh at it though, like the scene where Dominic kills Elliot's psychiatrist. It's the patented scene where the killer creeps up behind the victim but nobody is watching, so the whole audience is supposed to shout out "LOOK OUT BEHIND YOU!" The second story is the one with Peter Cushing. God I love that man so much. Too bad so many of his films, like this one, pretty much stink. In the story he's supposed to be pining away for a long-lost love, and he sees her likeness in a wax museum. It's a completely predictable story that goes nowhere.<br /><br />Then you have the bit with Christopher Lee, where he plays the father of a little kid who turns out to be a witch. Again this bit could have been fun if it had been played for laughs. But instead we're supposed to be horrified when Lee slaps the child and surprised when she turns out to be evil. The actress, Chloe Franks, was pretty good in that type of "Bad Seed" role though.<br /><br />The last story is kind of amusing... Ingrid Pitt plays an actress and Jon Pertwee plays an actor who accidentally buys a vampire cape that turns him into a real vampire. That's about all the story has to offer. I was surprised at how bad Ingrid Pitt's English is, I guess she must have been dubbed in some of the other films I've seen her in.<br /><br />Not a very memorable film or one that I would recommend to anyone but horror completists.

I am currently sitting here, forcing myself to finish this. I figure I blew 6 bux on the VHS, might as well suffer for it. I remember about 4 or 5 years ago doing a search on the internet for "War of the Worlds" cause of the rumors of the Spielberg movie at the time, and I missed the old TV series from the early 90's. The website make it out that this was a multi-million dollar budget rendition of the classic book. It was going to be a "perfect translation". Perfect CRAP is more in tune with this film.<br /><br />First off, the video on this movie was glitched! It looked as if I was watching the Full Motion Video from an old mid-90's PC or Playstation CD-Rom video game. Sadly enough, the color quality was similar. The acting made Shatners classic "dramatic pause" look damn near Shakespearean in quality. The CG rendering of various scenes was horrendous, and green screen sequences were worse than those seen in old Dukes of Hazardd scenes.<br /><br />Secondly, it is slow and terribly drawn out. I sat thru 45 minutes of the video (no promo's at the beginning) before the cylinder actually Opened to reveal the first alien. After that, the alien was a terribly constructed CG squid. I am now an hour into it and the most of the alien weaponry I have seen is a spinning silver disk (crappy down even) attached to a mechanical arm. The dramatic scenes are murdered with overly done instrumental's. The last thing on that, for an alien invasion in the turn of the century 1900's NO ONE is concerned for their life. It's like they have no concept. Even though media was slow, word of mouth spreads fast and people would have known. The "illusion" of day and night was shoddy at best. Simply changing the color around the people to purple, blue or green does not signify NIGHT TIME. Perhaps some lighting and actual night time shoots would have given a MUCH better illusion. THere is a lot of wasted sequences throughout the film of just watching the "hero" gallop around or walk down silly roads. Get on with the film. I know how people get around, you do NOT need to be so in-depth.<br /><br />Now, finally an hour and 5 minutes into the film and they show the alien machines. Mighty Morphin Power Rangers had better looking effects. Even the skeletons of vaporized humans looked as if animated by a freshman high school computer app class student. The animations do NOT match up to the scenery at all.<br /><br />In closing folks, if you want "The War of the Worlds", do one of four things. 1) Watch the 1953 original, 2) watch the early 90's TV series, 3) wait for Spielberg's rendition to be released shortly, OR 4) Read the frikkin book (something we all probably did in elementary English class). AVOID THIS MOVIE. IT IS A WASTE OF YOUR MONEY.

Wow, what can I say about this film? It's a lousy piece of crap. I'm surprised that it got rated as high as it did. What's wrong with this film? Here's a better question: What's NOT wrong with this film.<br /><br />The story itself is just crap and cliché. Here's pretty much what it's about...Some kinda nerdy kid with no friends gets picked on, gets killed, and comes back as a scarecrow for revenge. "All" of that is packed into 86 minutes of worthless film. If you haven't seen this movie don't waste your time watching it. Also, the second one isn't much better, so don't bother watching that either...I rated this movie a three because I liked the scarecrow's outfit, not because there was anything good about the movie. I think you get the picture.

This is it. This is the one. This is the worst movie ever made. Ever. It beats everything. I have never seen worse. Retire the trophy and give it to these people.....there's just no comparison.<br /><br />Even three days after watching this (for some reason I still don't know why) I cannot believe how insanely horrific this movie is/was. Its so bad. So far from anything that could be considered a movie, a story or anything that should have ever been created and brought into our existence.<br /><br />This made me question whether or not humans are truly put on this earth to do good. It made me feel disgusted with ourselves and our progress as a species in this universe. This type of movie sincerely hurts us as a society. We should be ashamed. I really cannot emphasize that our global responsibility as people living here and creating art, is that we need to prevent the creation of these gross distortions of our reality for our own good. It's an embarrassment. I don't know how on earth any of these actors, writers, or the director of this film sleeps at night knowing that they had a role in making "Loaded". I don't know what type of disgusting monsters enjoy watching these types of movies.<br /><br />That being said, I love a good "bad" movie. I love Shark Attack 3, I love Bad Taste, they are HILARIOUS. I tell all my friends to see them because they are "bad".<br /><br />But this.......this crosses the line of "bad" into a whole new dimension. This is awkward bad. This is the bad where you know everything that is going to happen, every line, every action, every death, every sequence BEFORE they happen; and not just like a second or two before, I mean like, after watching the first 5 minutes before.<br /><br />Every cheesy editing "effect" is shamelessly used over and over again to a sickening point. I really never want to see the "shaky" camera "drug buzz rush" effect or jump cuts or swerve cuts or ANY FANCY CUT EVER AGAIN EVER. This is meticulously boring, repetitive and just tortures the audience.<br /><br />But.......and let me be specific here, the most DISTURBING thing about this movie is that given the production, it appears that a somewhat decent amount of money was actually put into this excrement. I personally will grab the shoulders of the director if I ever see him and shake him into submission, demanding that he run home and swallow two-gallons of Drain-O or I will do it for him.<br /><br />If we ever needed a new form of inhumane torture for our war prisoners abroad, just keep showing them this movie in a padded cell over and over again. Trust me, I think they will become more extravagant with suicide methods after the 72nd time of sitting through this.<br /><br />Stop these movies, they are just the most vile of all facets of our society. Please. Stop. NOW.

...that Jamie Foxx would ever deliver such a wonderful, Oscar-winning performance. One of the reasons why I was so impressed with Foxx's performance in "Ray" was because from watching his hammy, obnoxious acting in movies like "Bait" and "Booty Call," I would never imagine he would ever hold the Oscar. If people told me five years ago that Jamie Foxx was one day going to win an Oscar, I would laugh right in their faces. Who knows? Maybe he's better off sticking to drama, because if you watch "Bait," it's clearly evident that comedy is not his forte. I swear, Jamie mugs so much in this movie that I'm surprised his face didn't fall off. And why does he have to do those stupid voices at every chance he gets? Anyone familiar with comedians like Bob Newhart and Steven Wright knows that doing comedy doesn't require being loud and obnoxious. If a joke is funny, it's funny. If it's not funny, then doing some crazy accent is not going to make it any funnier. The problem I have with some comedians who decide to try acting is that they favor getting laughs over being in character. In real life, normal people don't always have witty comebacks and quips. Like Albert Brooks said in an interview discussing his character in "Taxi Driver," it's important to be funny as your character, rather than be funny as a comedian. A prime example of Jamie violating that rule is the nauseatingly awful scene where his mug shots are being taken, and he starts posing for the photographs like a model. If a regular person were being thrown in jail, would he really be acting goofy while having his mug shots taken? And wouldn't the police try to scold him if he was? There are many scenes like that throughout the film. Another awful sequence is one where Jamie is on the unwittingly on the phone with the villain, and he starts doing a phony Caribbean accent. Not funny! Not to mention Jamie never seems to acknowledge the timing of a joke. Giving a comedic performance requires patience, whereas he goes straight to the punchline, whether it's the right time for it or not. I'm not even a big Mike Epps fan, but even his performance is good in comparison to Jamie's. As a matter of fact, this is the first time I felt somewhat relieved whenever he would appear on screen. Epps has the same flaws when it comes to comedy, but at least he chooses a more low-key approach. One of the few bright spots in this clunker of a comedy is David Morse, a highly underrated actor mostly known for his supporting roles as villains. He seems to be the only actor in the film concerned with grounding it in reality. However, fellow "Green Mile" star Doug Hutchison is disgustingly over-the-top as the villain. A big surprise, considering he gave a superb performance in "The Green Mile," also playing a heavy. Antoine Fuqua has proved his directing chops in movies like "The Replacement Killers" and "Training Day." Even in "Bait," he shows he can direct a hell of an action sequence. His only problem seemed to be in disciplining Jamie Foxx, who probably improvised half the script with one bad joke after another. Unless you're a die-hard fan of Foxx, please don't take the bait.

Considering that this movie had a serious and quite successful launching campaign, I would have expected something to be worth the fuzz...from the opening scene on (in which the two brothers "sensually" caress each other, laying naked in a bed) it goes rapidly downwards...nothing to get the attention, not a mind-catching thing in the whole plot, baaad baad acting (a few minor exceptions, but artificiality is at its best). Incest and lesbianism are promising themes, but the script analyses none of the two in depth ( mind that a possible excuse of the makers, saying that they aimed for a subtle movie would be hilarious, unless subtle and superficial mean the same thing...). The too curious viewers will not get any interesting scene...at this point, that could have saved some of the movie...so you can imagine how bad it is. Many other things could be said...but please watch the movie yourselves...I am an egoist and I would like as many people as possible to waste about 1 1/2h of their lives...like I did :(

The five or so really good westerns that Mann made are unequaled as an ensemble in Hollywood. Even John Ford never made that many with so much quality. The curious thing about them all is how uneven they are. Ford's My Darling Clementine is worth about two and a half of any of them. Or at least two. <br /><br />The real hero of them besides Mann and Stewart is Chase. Chase being responsible for the brilliant Red River. Chase wrote far country, bend of the river, and probably some others. But none of them are as finished as My Darling Clementine, but then very few films, western or otherwise are. <br /><br />Each of the five films of Mann have huge gaps, or is it six, lets see. Bend, Far, Man of the West, Furies, Winchester 73, and yep, six, Naked Spur. Each have magnificent scene after magnificent scene, with fairly glaring lapses. Yet so does Red River, which is still the single greatest western ever made. So perfection isn't everything. <br /><br />But The Far Country has huge, huge holes. It's mawkish, and really comes alive only when Stewart and Mc Entire are locking horns. The rest is pretty pedestrian, with the usual exception of Mann's camera. Mann's camera is a one man course in cinematography. It is about as good an eye as anybody who ever got behind a strip of moving film. It is almost never in the wrong place, never. <br /><br />The Far Country has one amazing moment. And as usual it comes from Stewart. Nobody in the history of cinema ever received physical punishment with the authority of that man. He is absolutely amazing: look at him in Bend, Far, Winchester, and Man from Laramie: in Bend has been beaten up and is hanging by a thread so believably and with such boiling hatred he looks like somebody displaced from Dachau, in Far he is shot off a raft with such violence, it looks so convincing that you wince, and of course when he is dragged through the fire in Man, well you find yourself looking for the burn marks. What an actor. Not to mention the moment in Winchester when he is beaten up early in the hotel room, also as well as anybody ever did it. <br /><br />But that was Mann's territory: look at Gary Cooper fighting with Jack Lord in Man of the West. As painful as any fight scene ever recorded. Cooper while not being quite as convincing as Stewart, nevertheless is somehow his equal in looking exhausted at the end of the fight. In short, nobody but nobody but nobody ever showed the human being in extremis as well as Mann. <br /><br />What a great, great director. <br /><br />See every western he ever made. They are his real monuments, even if all are scetchy. But so what. When he gets roaring with his great scenes they are as good as anybody, including Ford. And his six westerns as an ensemble are the best ever done by anyone, period.<br /><br />Thanks, Anthony.

Valentine is a horrible movie. This is what I thought of it:<br /><br />Acting: Very bad. Katherine Heigl can not act. The other's weren't much better.<br /><br />Story: The story was okay, but it could have been more developed. This movie had the potential to be a great movie, but it failed.<br /><br />Music: Yes, some of the music was pretty cool.<br /><br />Originality: Not very original. The name `Paige Prescott' Recognize Prescott?<br /><br />Bottom Line: Don't see Valentine. It's a really stupid movie.<br /><br />1/10<br /><br />

Today I found "They All Laughed" on VHS on sale in a rental. It was a really old and very used VHS, I had no information about this movie, but I liked the references listed on its cover: the names of Peter Bogdanovich, Audrey Hepburn, John Ritter and specially Dorothy Stratten attracted me, the price was very low and I decided to risk and buy it. I searched IMDb, and the User Rating of 6.0 was an excellent reference. I looked in "Mick Martin & Marsha Porter Video & DVD Guide 2003" and – wow – four stars! So, I decided that I could not waste more time and immediately see it. Indeed, I have just finished watching "They All Laughed" and I found it a very boring overrated movie. The characters are badly developed, and I spent lots of minutes to understand their roles in the story. The plot is supposed to be funny (private eyes who fall in love for the women they are chasing), but I have not laughed along the whole story. The coincidences, in a huge city like New York, are ridiculous. Ben Gazarra as an attractive and very seductive man, with the women falling for him as if her were a Brad Pitt, Antonio Banderas or George Clooney, is quite ridiculous. In the end, the greater attractions certainly are the presence of the Playboy centerfold and playmate of the year Dorothy Stratten, murdered by her husband pretty after the release of this movie, and whose life was showed in "Star 80" and "Death of a Centerfold: The Dorothy Stratten Story"; the amazing beauty of the sexy Patti Hansen, the future Mrs. Keith Richards; the always wonderful, even being fifty-two years old, Audrey Hepburn; and the song "Amigo", from Roberto Carlos. Although I do not like him, Roberto Carlos has been the most popular Brazilian singer since the end of the 60's and is called by his fans as "The King". I will keep this movie in my collection only because of these attractions (manly Dorothy Stratten). My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Muito Riso e Muita Alegria" ("Many Laughs and Lots of Happiness")

Probably one of the most boriest slasher movies ever, badly acted and badly written.<br /><br />THE PLOT Five students staying behind during the holidays closing down a dorm, but somebody has designs on them and starts killing them off one by one, the main suspect is the creepy groundskeeper John Hemmitt played by Woody Roll, or could it be one of the five characters.<br /><br />ACTING Not that bad not that great either apart from Daphne Zungia who dies way too quickly and should have been the main heroine, and the rest well quite dull although Laura Lapinski the main heroine sometimes has her charm and you do feel sorry for her in the end.<br /><br />THE KILLS Can't really see why they banned this, the kills look fake mostly, one guy has his hand sliced in half in the beginning which looks really fake, but the others are quite nasty like one girl gets her head run over by a car, one girl gets boiled alive and another gets burned alive.<br /><br />OVERALL Not really a great slasher could have been a lot better

Watching this stinker constitutes cruel and unusal punishment at the hands of Sandler. Truly a slow and painful death.<br /><br />'Bought the DVD in the $5.88 bin at Wal Mart. But the thought that keeps echoing in my head is, "How can I get my money back?"<br /><br />The most unforgivable thing about the movie is that the boat JUST DOES NOT SINK!<br /><br />Best constructive suggestion: Mystery Comedy Theatre. You know that show on the SciFi Channel in which some guy and his muppet-machines spoof the most unwatchable horror flicks (Mystery Science Theatre). IMMEDIATELY, spin off a comedy program and feature this flick. Without a good humorous spoof of this train wreck, I fear that viewers may actually begin following Sandler with ice picks and chainsaws.<br /><br />

I heard so much about this movie how it was a great slasher and one of those early 80's movies that die hard fans of most slasher movies just had to see. Well, I rented it and I have to say that although it kept my attention as far as the suspense goes for most slasher films such as "April Fools Day", "Friday 13th" and "Prom Night", this film could have been right up there with the above mentioned only it lacked true enthusiasm and potential from the characters as well as the on going story. Characters that I found were unfortunate to be in this movie was the weirdo guy with the frizzy hair that kept creeping around the dorm and of course leading up to his true climatic role during the end with he faces the killer. Another would be the dirty scruffy looking guy with the jean jacket, he could have played more roles in this movie that might have made the movie more interesting, instead, the movie played this guy as just another loser out there making unknown calls while he sleeps with his girlfriend and then drops his part and cuts him off until the end which was a waste, I was disappointed in his part in the end. As far as the true identity of the killer goes, when the identity was released as to who he was, I just laughed, but it was all to obvious and he really made a true jerk out of himself as well as an annoying character after his true intentions were revealed. This movie should be one to at least watch once for all slasher fans but don't spend your hard earned money on it in some rare hard to find collectors inventory.

This movie is flawed on many fronts. Like many before it, it portrays more of the mythology of the Alamo than the history. The production is poor, overall giving the impression of a welfare project for lots of actors who might have otherwise had to work on Hollywood Squares. This to me was the greatest flaw - I know the ages and general personalities of the real Alamo protagonists and the geriatric ensemble of TV actors chosen to portray them never let any hint of believability intrude.<br /><br />As a native Texan, I grew up with the mythology. I later learned more about the history. I can accept a decent production from either perspective (although I prefer more historical accuracy), but this never gave me a chance to enjoy it. Even John Wayne's or Fess Parker's versions had more life than this stolid mess, while being only slightly less accurate.<br /><br />Very disappointing - avoid it.

One of a multitude of slashers that appeared in the early eighties, Pranks is notable only for an early performance by Daphne Zuniga (The Sure Thing, The Fly 2); her character dies fairly early on, and the rest of the film is totally forgettable.<br /><br />During their Christmas break, a group of students volunteer to clear a condemned college building of its furniture. A crazy killer, however, throws a spanner in the works by methodically bumping off the youngsters one by one in a variety of gruesome ways.<br /><br />Exploiting every stalk 'n' slash cliché in the book, director Jeffrey Obrow delivers a tedious and unexciting horror that had me praying for the characters to be killed, so that I could get on with watching something more worthwhile. The majority of the deaths (which, let's face it, is why we generally watch this kind of film) are brief and not that gory; the only truly grisly imagery comes right at the end when the bodies of the victims are discovered by the remaining survivor (there is one notably bloody dismembered corpse—the film could've done with more).<br /><br />At the last minute, the film saves itself from the disgrace of receiving the lowest possible score from me by having a nice unexpectedly downbeat ending, but this really is one for slasher completists only.

I am guessing the reason this movie did so well at the box office is of course Eddie Murphy. I think this was his first movie since "Beverly Hills Cop" so at the time he was hot. Considering that one made over two hundred million and it was R and this one made about 80 million and it was pg does say it was not all that popular. I have never been a big Eddie Murphy fan, so that is probably another reason I didn't care for it much at all. This one has Eddie as some sort of finder of lost kids. He must find the golden child or the world is in terrible peril. The plot is very bad, but as bad as it is it does not compare to the special effects. I had seen better stuff done in the 70's than some of the stuff this one offers, Ray Harryhausen did better stuff. Still the main reason you see a movie like this is because of Eddie, unfortunately he is not very funny in this one at all and it just seems stupid to put him in the "Raiders of the Lost Ark" type scenes. I guess they were hoping for a fish out of water effect, but to me it just did not work.

I got this movie because I worked at a movie store so I got free rentals. It came in, and the cover made it look alright. Hot chick, carrying a weapon, alright, I'll check it out.<br /><br />Oh man, bad move. This was so horrible, I spent half the movie watching in fast-forward to get to the nudity, which was minimal. I think MAYBE three scenes of partial nudity.<br /><br />Cheesy dialogue, crappy violence, poor excuses of characters. I feel bad putting this movie down, because I know it was made on a cheap budget, but so was "Clerks" and it became a cult classic and a franchise.<br /><br />2/10.

There are only two movies I would give a 1/10 to, this stinker and "The Man who Fell to Earth." I remember seeing Protocol at a theater in the early 80s when I was in high school. The script is insulting to anyone (including a high school student's) intelligence. It completely lost me with the "hillarious" gag of someone getting shot in the butt. Goldie Hawn is supposed to be charming but comes across as vapid and moronic. Then there are offensive stereotypes about Arabs, followed by Goldie winning over everyone by spouting populist dribble. The acting was terrible, including Goldie Hawn's. I could not stand to see another movie she was in until IMO she redeemed herself in Everyone Says I Love You. This is the kind of movie you make if you want to put no effort into screenplay writing. The worst.

There was nothing of value in the original movie, this one was even lamer. The fact that I even found it to rent was absolutely amazing. Anyone connected to this film has to be high on something! So what was the story line? What was with the girl? Was the viewer supposed to get the story line in the first four minutes of the film. Sadly, I tried several times to watch this. I even borrowed a kid from someone to get some feedback. Kid said it was stupid, and he was four years old. I find that possibly some credit could go to the filming director, as possibly some of the shots made the movie more than a B film. That might be pushing it. I did love the theme song. Good thing it was only a dollar, it was worth it. I suppose you might enjoy the film if you were high as the cast and crew would have to be. Is pot legal in France?

I love special effects and witnessing new technologies that make science fiction seem real. The special effects of this movie are very good. I have seen most of this movie, since it's been airing on HBO for the past couple of months. I must admit, I MAY have missed a few scenes, but I'm usually drawn into movies, and have seen some scenes more than once. But every time I see some of "Hollow Man," I feel depressed, almost like a "film noir." I'm not sure why; perhaps it's that I don't want Kevin Bacon to be evil, and there's disappointment in that. But I think it's witnessing just HOW relentlessly evil he becomes. Regardless, I can recommend this movie for excitement (although some parts move slowly), but I do NOT recommend for youngsters under the age of 14 (perhaps 12, if they are mature).

I rented this one to see Vanesa Talor one more time. She can act, but doesn't get a chance in this clunker. The opening sequence is an elaborate crane shot of mountain landscapes. Must have come from a stock archive, because the movie is shot direct to videotape. The production values make _Blair Witch_ look professional. There's a really cheesy animated statue, but no other effects worth noting. This movie is bad, but not amusingly so. The players would do well not to mention it on their resumes.

The worst thing about Crush is not that it's acted pretty bad, or that the plot is virtually non-existent, and it's not even that bad that the camerawork could have been better.<br /><br />No, the worst part of this movie is that it has a few absolutely brilliant moments that keep you hoping that there are more to come.<br /><br />But in the end, it's too little, too late. If you are a fan of violin-music and cheap tearjerking scenes of 40+ women crying and hugging and talking about babies and marriage - then by all means, don't miss it.<br /><br />I myself am not exactly thrilled to see the things listed above in a movie, and as a result I had a pretty horrible time. The few absolutely brilliant jokes can not make up for the rest of it.<br /><br />The verdict: 4/10. Guilty of wasting my time.<br /><br />

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

I bought this adaptation because I really liked Anne Brontë's novel when I read it some time ago and usually particularly enjoy BBC dramas. But I'm very disappointed, I never thought it would be as bad as that: the whole series made me laugh much more than moved me as the novel had.<br /><br />First of all, the music (and songs) seems totally out of place in a period drama (sounds as if it's been written for a contemporary horror film)and like another commentator, I was particularly annoyed by the way the cameras spun and spun round the actors. I've seen some scenes filmed that way in "North and South" and it seemed all right there but in The Tenant, it's definitely overdone and simply annoying. Camera movements cannot make wooden acting lively.<br /><br />Most of the second roles were difficult to distinguish at first and the script lacked clarity. None of the characters were properly introduced at first. The little boy gave a very good performance, he's very cute and the best feature of the film.<br /><br />SPOILERS Tara Fitzgerald's characterisation of Helen Graham made her appear cold and harsh, letting no emotion pass through. She doesn't seem to be able to cry at all in a realistic way. I just couldn't believe Markham could have fell for her and I'm not mentioning the awful hairdo she was given. I could not help feeling some sympathy with her husband! Fancy being married to such a virago... Besides, he was the only main actor that sounded right to me. Toby Stephens I found just OK, Helen Graham's brother not very good. <br /><br />Maybe it's difficult to adapt a novel that deals with such bleak subjects as alcoholism and cruelty. Besides, what is only hinted at and left to the reader's imagination in the book is dwelt upon with complaisance in the TV adaptation: making some scenes both gross and comic, (like when Huntingdon's eye starts bleeding) and others far too sexed up for a period drama! I mean, don't we get enough of those bed scenes in contemporary dramas?

The potential was there. I saw Creep and thought, 'Oooh, this is getting interesting' several times. Yet somehow the interesting plot lines wound up unexplained or ignored, like they never happened. The lead character was irritating throughout the movie, and at one point my fella and I both shouted that we wanted her to die. There are some genuinely spooky/scary moments, but these are grossly overshadowed by the moments that just annoyed the hell out of me. It's another one of those horror movies that crops up and intrigues you for a while, but ultimately leaves you frustrated and a little confused about what the movie makers were trying to achieve.<br /><br />The one saving grace of this movie is the bad guy, but when the baddie is more likable than the lead character you know you're on to a loser.

The story of a woman (Ann) on her death bed, her two daughters (Nina and Constance) and her thoughts about her past. The flashbacks are concerning a weekend where young Ann is in the wedding of her friend Lila. At the wedding she meets Harris who will impact her for the rest of her life. Through all the ups and downs of her professional and family life she remembers him as her true love. Her daughter Constance is older, more "responsible," a mother of two and has things together. Nina jumps from boyfriend to boyfriend and job to job and is unsure of her direction in life.<br /><br />First of all the good. The period detail in the movie is great. The dresses, hair, cars, houses, etc. really put you in another time and place. And there is some very quality acting in the movie. Vanessa Redgrave is quite good at portraying the main character and her fragile mental state as her life comes to an end. Claire Danes is beautiful and does a great job as the main character when she was young (and she is an outstanding singer). Hugh Dancy brought a lot of life to the character of Lila's brother Buddy.<br /><br />Now for the bad, which unfortunately is everything else. Things constantly disrupt the story as it is being unfolded for us. The chemistry between young Ann and Buddy is great. They have fun and dance. Then... you are supposed to believe that she doesn't really like him more than a friend and that his pining only annoys her. And I thought the whole, "he might be gay" thing was out of the blue and didn't serve a purpose.<br /><br />Then we have Harris. The character acts wooden and creepy. Had this been another genre, you would have known that Harris was the serial killer from the get go. It is an unbelievable stretch to think that all these girls loved him so (but they do portray the other guys as pretty lame to try and help him out).<br /><br />And the grandest problem of all. Why don't Ann and Harris get together? They fall for each other. They have this great night of sex in an old dirty gardener's shack, come home to find out about Buddy's tragic end and then...<br /><br />Nothing.<br /><br />They meet up a few years later and get all misty eyed about each other and I couldn't help but wondering why. WHY? The movie doesn't let you know why they were forced to marry other people and so I had a hard time feeling sorry for them.<br /><br />The part of the story in the present is fairly boring. The cliché good daughter and the cliché bad daughter. Nina changes over the course of the movie but I am not sure why. I'm not sure what convinces her to change her life. There is a "touching" scene where the daughters are connecting that coincides with old Ann dreaming she's chasing a butterfly. It is really lame and embarrassing.<br /><br />"There are no mistakes", Ann advises at us. The statement doesn't ring true with the story. And it doesn't ring true after seeing the movie and wishing they hadn't wasted the talent of such good actors.

The performances of Fishbourne (who appears strangely funny somehow) and (short featured)Ed Harris are remarkable, unlike Connery's who doesn't appear to find sense in his role and ends up in the motorial behaviour of a 80yr old man. In fact the screenplay doesn't make sense; imagine a 60 min. happy ending-plot plus a sudden turn appendix without any argumental structure in respect to the characters. It's more an accident than a screenplay and may be good for examination purposes at screen-wrights' schools. The more you remind the details the stronger this impression gets. The capital punishment is not an issue here, although it is a subject from the beginning; it sort of fades away without further comment. The subject-matter and environment could have been good.

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 beautifule scene and failed to ever place any activity in it. The picture trys 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.

This starts off bad, what with the three women acting like simpering junior high school wussies sitting around giggling with their gin, endless cigarettes and a caramel chocolate treat for the one who tells the best 'man' story, and then it gets worse -=- spoiler alert =-= what with Andie's character falling for the young organ player who used to be her student when he was 14 (she's the headmistress of an English school, believe it or not), only to have him destroyed thanks to her bitch-from-hell 'girlfriend' . ..and then from there, it's basically unwatchable claptrap: she forgives her 'friend' and has the organ player's love child and the 3 women end up as they started, drinking more gin and smoking more cigarettes blah blah blah. Andie's character throws the caramel chocolates out in the street, in a pathetic attempt to symbolize growth. Have mercy.

Please, be warned: this movie, though a pretty bad storyline, was one of the most gruesome movies I have seen...EVER. Just remember that before you settle on your sofa to enjoy the movie.<br /><br />So, it officially begins with a party. Just your average party but there's some guy there. He's pretty into Kate...if you know what I'm saying. Memorise his face; it'll help later.<br /><br />So anyway Kate goes of to find George Clooney (didn't I say the plot was bad?) and so takes the tube. That's London underground at the middle of the night, but she's just stupid like that. So the timetable says the next, and last, train will come in 7 minutes. Now Kate, dumb party girl that she is, decides that she can have a nap in the spare 7 minutes. Typically, she misses the train and finds herself locked in the London Underground. Alone. Well, almost...<br /><br />So the movie just carries on from there. Blood, guts, limbs, even certain parts of the body I shall not mention are slashed and gashed and eventually amputated from the body.<br /><br />In short, it's a typical horror; pretty but thick damsel in distress-type women and sick, weird psycho. Or as the case may have it, Creep.<br /><br />I'd say give it a go if you're into Saw, Hostel or the Texas Chainsaw Massacre but for the rest of us, Scream with satisfy out horror needs thankyou very much.

Creep is the story of Kate (Potente), an intensely unlikeable bourgeois bitch that finds herself somehow sleeping through the noise of the last underground train, and waking up to find herself locked in the tube station. After somehow meeting workmate and would-be rapist Guy on a mystery train that runs after the lines have closed, things go awry and she finds herself pursued by what lurks beneath the city's streets. Her story is linked to that of George (Blackwood), an ex-con working in the sewer system; they meet in the final third of the film, brought together by their attempts to escape the monster that pursues them.<br /><br />The pair proceed through a set of increasingly unlikely locations; from the Tube station, they end up in the sewage works before somehow finding themselves in some sort of abandoned underground surgery. Most Tube stations don't have toilets, so how one has a surgery is beyond me. Naturally, the film cares to explain that the surgery doesn't have running water. Yet it has electricity? Just one of many inconsistencies that work against the atmosphere of everyday believability that the film tries to create.<br /><br />The monster itself is a problem. There's a complete lack of reasoning for its actions, it just kills people for no obvious reason. And then of course it keeps some alive for no real reason either, perhaps just so that they can eventually escape and give the film an extra 15 minutes or so running time. I understand that natural evil is supposed to be scary, but then the film attempts to explain itself via a photo of a doctor and his son, and a few shots of some jars containing babies, and yes, it is just as tired and pathetic as it sounds. It also fails to explain how the creature has been underground long enough to lose the ability to speak, communicating only in raptor screams, but not long enough for its pair of shorts to decay. Hmm.<br /><br />This doctor business leads to scene that is the film's desperate attempt to implant itself on your memory, and while it is gory and uncomfortable to watch, it just isn't enough. The final third of the film hinges on an emotional relationship that never existed, and the characters break down and recover for little or no obvious reason. George breaks down, unable to cope with something despite stating that he wants to escape so he can see his daughter again, and Kate becomes emotionally tough seconds after going to pieces over someone that ripped her off for a travelcard. Yeah.<br /><br />After starting out as a "this could happen to anyone" movie, it quickly falls apart as it introduces ideas that make it more and more unrealistic. A complete lack of emotional interest in the characters and an absence of suspense make this one to avoid.

Amateur, no budget films can be surprisingly good ... this however is not one of them.<br /><br />Ah, another Brad Sykes atrocity. The acting is hideous, except for Emmy Smith who shows some promise. The camera "direction" needs serious reworking. And no more "hold the camera and run" gimmicks either; it just doesn't work. The special effects are unimaginative, there's a problem when the effect can be identified in real time. If you're going to rip off an ear, please don't let us see the actor's real ear beneath the blood. The scenery is bland and boring (same as Mr. Sykes other ventures), and the music is a cross between cheap motel porn and really bad guitar driven metal (see the scenery comment).<br /><br />Did I mention the lack of any real plot, or character development? Apparently, the scriptwriter didn't.<br /><br />Whoever is funding this guy ... please stop. I've seen some of his other "home movies" (which I will not plug) and they are just as bad. Normally, a "director" will grow and learn from his previous efforts ... not this guy. It's one thing to be an amateur filmmaker, but anyone can be a hack.<br /><br />Definitely not even a popcorn film ... of course, chewing on popcorn kernels would be less painful than this effort.<br /><br />Award: The worst ever military push-ups in a film.

I was so disgusted by this film, I felt obligated to warn off others. This film has no story, plot or hint of purpose. The film starts after the standard "lets be scary" movie intro, which by now every film watcher has become accustomed. So we can ignore the beginning completely. We are soon introduced to the main actress and from this point it becomes clear to all that you have just wasted your hard earned and would be better off watching static. (Unless you have seen white noise - EEK) Acting is a DISGRACE and all of them should return to the travelling pantomime from where they came. Having said that, even the best actors in the world would struggle to make this film remotely watch able. Their poor performances merely contribute to the disaster. Senseless violence and what I can only assume is the written word of yet another junked up "eccentric" writer, who probably considers himself to be an artist, has resulted in a film which will test your patience. It was not until my fellow watcher turned to me and said, "We have been watching this for 45 mins" did I realise that this film is as thin and tasteless as a cup of tea without a tea bag. Clearly something was missing and unfortunately it wasn't the audience. Rather than suggest what the film is missing, let me tell you what it has: Dumb Blonde (surprise surprise), Victims, bad-monster-guy-thing, about 2 mins of storyline which is stretched over hours, days, weeks, months... and credits.<br /><br />Want a silver lining? Well, the blonde girl is a bit saucy looking in some of the scenes, but expect to want to see her face ripped off for the rest of the film!

Robert Wagner is the evil boss of Digicron, a telecommunications company with a virus that kills people.<br /><br />'so you're saying that the software virus has become a real virus that can kill people - that may be medically possible but not possible from my system' <br /><br />'i'm having to write some new virus software of my own to trap it - it may take some time'<br /><br />'but it's not going after software, it's killing people'<br /><br />watch out for the 'i'm into virology' love moment and perhaps first ever film plot to feature death by braille keyboard

Holy freaking God all-freaking-mighty. This movie was so bad, I thought I was on drugs. In a bad way... The character acting is the poorest thing I've seen in quite some time. This movie was more akin to Lord of the G-Strings, IMHO(it's a real movie). Most of the movie appeared to be done on a horrible green screen. My favorite part was when they are in the carriage, and you can tell there's no horse. They're fleeing from alien monsters, and going about the same speed as a swift jog. Then it switches to a far-shot with a ridiculous CG horse. And the CG in general seems to be sub-par to 1992's Beyond the Mind's Eye. I mean, Come on, really. It felt like a horrible episode of Hercules, only without Kevin Sorbo there to save the day. Worst. Movie. Ever.

I watched this movie for a project on love. please tell Nicolas Cage to learn what it would feel like to be his character, and then re-read the lines he's saying. My life cannot go on... i accidentally cut off my own hand...my brother was close by. Obviously his fault. And since when have happy endings included the nice guy who takes care of Mom sad and alone. No closure, bad script, and doesn't have enough extension of minor characters. Save yourself, unless your up for a good laugh. Costumes were done appropriately, and extras did a fabulous job. I'm sure it would have been a fun movie to make, but keep it more genre specific, I can't recommend this movie to anyone I know, because it is not an intellectual movie. It is not a chick flick. It is not a strict romantic. And I can't show kids because of the sex and questions to follow. All in all, just not a good flick.

WARNING: This review contains SPOILERS. Do not read if you don't want some points revealed to you before you watch the film.<br /><br />With a cast like this, you wonder whether or not the actors and actresses knew exactly what they were getting into. Did they see the script and say, `Hey, Close Encounters of the Third Kind was such a hit that this one can't fail.' Unfortunately, it does. Did they even think to check on the director's credentials? I mean, would YOU do a movie with the director of a movie called `Satan's Cheerleaders?' Greydon Clark, who would later go on to direct the infamous `Final Justice,' made this. It makes you wonder how the people of Mystery Science Theater 3000 could hammer `Final Justice' and completely miss out on `The Return.'<br /><br />The film is set in a small town in New Mexico. A little boy and girl are in the street unsupervised one night when a powerful flashlight beam.er.a spaceship appears and hovers over them. In probably the worst special effect sequence of the film, the ship spews some kind of red ink on them. It looked like Clark had held a beaker of water in from of the camera lens and dipped his leaky pen in it, so right away you are treated with cheese. Anyhow, the ship leaves and the adults don't believe the children. Elsewhere, we see Vincent Schiavelli, whom I find to be a terrific actor (watch his scenes in `Ghost' for proof, as they are outstanding), who is playing a prospector, or as I called him, the Miner 1949er. He steps out of the cave he is in, and he and his dog are inked by the ship. Twenty-five years go by, and the girl has grown up to be Cybill Shepherd, who works with her father, Raymond Burr, in studying unusual weather phenomena. Or something like that. Shepherd spots some strange phenomena in satellite pictures over that little New Mexico town, and she travels there to research it. Once she gets there, the local ranchers harass her, and blame her for the recent slew of cattle mutilations that have been going on, and deputy Jan-Michael Vincent comes to her rescue. From this point on, the film really drags as the two quickly fall for each other, especially after Vincent wards off the locals and informs Shepherd that he was the little boy that saw the ship with her twenty-five years earlier. While this boring mess is happening, Vincent Schiavelli, with his killer dog at his side, is walking around killing the cattle and any people he runs into with an unusual item. You know those glowing plastic sticks stores sell for trick-or-treaters at Halloween, the kind that you shake to make them glow? Schiavelli uses what looks like one of those glow sticks to burn incisions in people. It's the second-worst effect in the movie. Every time Schiavelli is on screen with the glow stick, the scene's atmosphere suddenly turns dark, like the filmmakers thought the glow stick needed that enhancement. It ends up making the movie look even cheaper than it is.<br /><br />And what does all this lead up to? It's hard to tell when the final, confusing scene arrives. See, Burr and his team of scientists try to explain the satellite images that Shepherd found as some kind of `calling card,' but none of it makes sense. Why do Shepherd and Vincent age and Schiavelli does not? Schiavelli explains why he is killing cattle and people and why he wants Shepherd dead, but even that doesn't make much sense when you really think about it. I mean, why doesn't he kill Jan-Michael Vincent? After all, he had twenty-five years to do it. And the aliens won't need him if Shepherd is dead anyhow, so why try to kill her? Speaking of the aliens, it is never clear what they really wanted out of Shepherd and Vincent. What is their goal? Why do they wait so long to intervene? How could they be so sure Shepherd would come back? Not that the answer to any of these and other questions would have made `The Return' any more pleasant. You would still have bad lines, really bad acting, particularly by Shepherd, cheesy effects, and poor direction. Luckily, the stars escaped from this movie. Cybill Shepherd soon went on to star in `Moonlighting' with Bruce Willis. Jan-Michael Vincent went on to be featured in dozens of B-movies, often in over-the-top parts. Raymond Burr made a pile of Perry Mason television movies right up until his death. Vincent Schiavelli went on to be a great character actor in a huge number of films. Martin Landau, who played a kooky law enforcement officer, quickly made the terrific `Alone in the Dark' and the awful `The Being' before rolling into the films he has been famous for recently. You can bet none of these stars ever want their careers to return to `The Return.' Zantara's score: 2 out of 10.

it MIGHT have been a good movie if it had explored something more interesting rather than just the surface of a lesbian relationship if this was the meaning of the movie...it is quite predictable not mentioning that the two girls resemble the Russian group t.A.T.u....coincidence? i don't think so. There is nothing original in this movie to support it so they had to use something which is already famous.You know the recipe. The other actors...well,i just don't know what their role is supposed to be. Most of them are well - known people in Romania and i must mention some of them are not even actors(e.g.Mihaela Radulescu).SO to summarize it: "girl band tatty"+desperate/publicity needing "actors"+ a non-existing plot+ the occasion to use bad language in order to shock= Love sick....too bad...the idea was good,though...and i am seriously holding myself from commenting the title...

Despite the high ratings given to this film by IMDB users, this is nothing more than your typical girl-with-a-bad-childhood-obsessively-stalks-married-man film. The attractive Justine Priestly's brief nude scenes may attract voyeurs, but the film is hackneyed tripe.<br /><br />* 1/2 out of ****

Eh, not a particular good slasher flick. So-so acting, effects, decent yet familiar and uninventive soundtrack.<br /><br />There are three deaths in close succession near the beginning of the movie that make for a fairly good scene in which it would seem anything goes. Apart from that, there's a lot of characters wandering around, not realizing what's going on, or chasing after red herrings; more killing of time, than of people. There are other deaths, and the killer is an equal opportunity murderer, not partial to any one implement. The killer also likes to set other people up to kill innocent people as well. The identity isn't revealed towards the end, and motive is pretty thin, and we really don't care.<br /><br />Supposedly the movie takes place around Christmas, but this isn't a major factor. One scene gets lit by Christmas lights, that's about it.<br /><br />The movie is rather dark with a muddy picture most of the time, at least on the videotape I watched. Some of the dialog got a little lost in some of the opening scenes. The ending should have been stronger than it was. We think we realize what happened, although there's a chance something else did.

Listening to the director's commentary confirmed what I had suspected whilst watching the film: this is a movie made by a guy who wants to play at making a movie. The plot is the kind of thing that deluded teenagers churn out when they're going through that "I could write a book/screenplay/award winning sitcom" phase. There's a germ of an interesting idea buried in there (probably because its a sequel to some-one else's movie), but it is totally buried under an underwritten, badly executed and laughably un-thought-out script.<br /><br />The lines are dire, and the performances are un-engaging, though again, I'm inclined to blame the director. He does not appear to have consulted the actors at all about what is required, rather plonked the script in their hands, pointed the camera at them and told them to get on with it. Who knows, with a little coaching, these actors could have acquitted themselves better (say what you like about musicians in movies, Jon Bon Jovi was excellent in Row Your Boat and more than acceptable in The Leading Man).<br /><br />As it stands, the cast have no chemistry whatsoever. A beautiful opportunity to use the classic sex and vampirism parallel is passed up when, in order to infect Bon Jovi's character with vampire blood from his ailing co-hunter, he is given a transfusion. She should have bitten him. Mind you, they should have looked vaguely interested in each other throughout the rest of the film too. The only real moment of sexual tension, between the two female leads, is by the directors own admittance accidental. He had originally intended to use this silent sequence as an excuse for more pointless plot exposition - so, I suppose the finished product could have conceivably been worse. But not a lot.<br /><br />Frankly, as movies go, this is badly plotted, silly and forgettable. Even as trashy movies go it's not sexy enough or gory enough to be entertaining. It could have been a fun and bloody little romp, but the director has left with more of a comedy, for all the wrong reasons.

... but the keyword here is "usually." I have been known to adore movies EVERYONE thinks are dumb. But in the world of B-rated movies, THIS one is Z-rated. Absolutely ridiculous. The thing I respect about most of my favorite B-rated movies are that they don't take themselves too seriously. The makers of movies like that sort-of treat the movie lightly, even if it's a heavy topic. I get the impression, however, that the producers of this movie took themselves way to seriously, like they were putting together a 10-star classic, complete with poor attempts at poignant lines and dumb camera shots. Nevertheless, despite all this, I STILL gave it 4 out of 10 stars, as I am biased towards movies like this. If you're a B-rated fan, however, I would try too hard to find this one.

Having seen the first ten episodes, I must say this show sucks. <br /><br />What bothers me the most, is that the show was shot in Canada. I know it's cheaper, but they should have shot it in California, so we could have had scenes in the desert. That would have been more true to the movie. The first scene where they are outside in another world is in the mountains, with lots of pinetrees where it looks cold. That does'nt feel very Egyptian. What worked so well in the movie was that it felt like you were in the ancient Egypt. Here it feels like they're running around fighting aliens in a Canadian forrest. And it's so lame that appaerantly, on other planets, the fall comes as well. You can see leaves on the ground in the forrests that all look like forrests outside Vancouver. It just makes the show even more unbelievable and dumb. <br /><br />And then there is Richard Dean Anderson. He is no Kurt Russel. Sure he does a decent job and he tries to copy Russels performance a little bit, but he is just not as cool as Russel. And not nearly as good an actor as Russel. And Russells way of playing O Neill, well he was much more cynical. Andersons O Neil, is way too soft. I liked it that Russels version just did'nt give a s*** and had no trouble detonating the bomb until the very end of the movie. <br /><br />Michael Shanks does a really good job as Jackson though taking over from James Spader.<br /><br />Teal'c is a really annoying character. He is Jaffa. Not a Jaffa. Just Jaffa. Aaaarrgh!! A former bodyguard of a pathetic Ra character, seen only in the pilot and in one other episode so far. Teal'c speaks talks and acts like a robot. I've seen better acting from Jean Claude Van Damme.<br /><br />And the fact that Teal'c and the Ra character and the people they saved in the movie, can speak English all of a sudden is also incredibly dumb. What made the aliens so scary in the movie was that they spoke an ancient language and were real monsters. <br /><br />As for the special effects, they are really good in the pilot. But the very rare effects in the actual show are badly done and looks cheap. Especially a planet they visit with crystals. It's so obvious they walk around on a soundstage with a badly made painting in the background. It's an insult to us viewers that they made it look so cheap. Especially when they could have made it in front of a bluescreen with cgi backgrounds. <br /><br />The X-files had better effects when they aired their first episodes in 1993. That was 4 years before SG-1 started. And they did'nt have the apparent two million dollar budget per episode, that SG-1 supposedly had. They must have spend all the money on catering. Because I don't see it on the screen. <br /><br />Incredibly boring and pointless show, that could have been great if they had shot the show in Hollywood with a bigger budget and better writers and better characters.

The script for this Columbo film seemed to be pulled right out of a sappy 1980's soap opera. Deeply character-driven films are great, but only if the characters are compelling. And in this film the only thing compelling was my desire to change the channel. The villain's dialog sounds as if it were written by a romance novelist. The great Lt. Columbo himself is no where near his famous, lovable, self-effacing, crumpled self; and the bride/kidnap victim is a whimpering, one-dimensional damsel-in-distress (she cowers in fear from a tiny scalpel held flimsily in the hand of her abductor - come on!!! I could have knocked the scalpel out of his hand and kicked him in the you-know-what in 2 seconds). In any sense of reality, this character would have at least TRIED to struggle or fight back at least a little. And speaking of reality....the story revolves around a kidnapping which is worked and solved by the police. The POLICE?? Give me a break. Everyone knows the FBI takes over EVERY kidnapping case. This was NO Columbo, just a shallow and totally predictable crime drama with our familiar Lt. Columbo written in and stretched to 2 hours.

OK, I am not Japanese. I do know a little about Japanese culture, and a little less about Japanese pop culture. Other than that, I am Spanish, I eat paella and I like black humor.<br /><br />Good, with that point set, I can comment on the movie: I have no idea on how it is enjoyable to the Japanese audiences, Mamoru Oshii is quite a good director- despite the overly pedantic postmodern stuff in the style of Talking Head, and even that was curious and somehow interesting- and I am surprised he came up with this. It may just be one of those lost-in-translation cases, I am afraid it is, but as a European viewer watching the film with subtext overloaded English subtitles I just thought it was horrible. The jokes seemed bad, the script was overcooked- I mean, give the audience a break, and shut up a little you damn narrator- to the point of almost making my head explode over an overkill of fast-paced speaking and absurd action.<br /><br />However, I thought the animation was really cool. The idea is great, and it is well exploited in those animated scenes. However, the eye-candy finishes as soon as the characters are left aside to start with an endless not funny at all mumbo-jumbo speech over still pictures. It just makes you want to fast forward to the next cut-out hysterical characters scene.<br /><br />I read Mamoru Oshii is actually planning on a sequel for this. The idea was good but horribly exploited. Maybe the second part will bring up the good parts of this first one and actually make an interesting movie, or maybe it will be more and more over-narrated scenes. But hell, if you thought Talking Head was dense, Amazing Lifes of Fast Food Gifters will give cause you a stroke.<br /><br />Of course, all this comment is based on the experiences of someone who is European. Probably this is totally useless to Japanese people, maybe it was a really funny film lost in cultural frontiers and translation. Maybe.

SWING! is an important film because it's one of the remaining Black-produced and acted films from the 1930s. Many of these films have simply deteriorated so badly that they are unwatchable, but this one is in fairly good shape. It's also a nice chance to see many of the talented Black performers of the period just after the heyday of the old Cotton Club--a time all but forgotten today.<br /><br />Unfortunately, while the film is historically important and has some lovely performances, it's also a mess. The main plot is very similar to the Hollywood musicals of the era--including a prima donna who is going to ruin the show and the surprise unknown who appears from no where to save the day. However, the writing is just god-awful and a bit trashy at times--and projects images of Black America that some might find a bit demeaning. This is because before the plot really gets going, you are treated to a no-account bum who lives off his hard working wife (a popular stereotype of the time) and when he is caught with a hussy (who, by the way, totally overplays this role), they have a fight which looks like a scene from WWE Smackdown! And, the one lady wants to cut the other lady with a straight razor--a trashy scene indeed! Later in the film, when the prima donna is behaving abominably, her husband punches her in the face and everyone applauds him! It seems like the film, at times, wants to appeal to the lowest common denominator in the audience PLUS they can't even do this well--with some of the worst acting I've seen in a very long time.<br /><br />Still, if you can look past a lousy production in just about every way (with trashy characters, bad acting and direction and poor writing), this one might be worth a peek so you can see excellent singing and tap dancing--as well as to catch a glimpse of forgotten Black culture. Just don't say I didn't warn you about the acting--it's really, really bad!

Rosario Dawson stars as a girl who is date raped and then begins a decent into darkness until given a chance at revenge. While its clear why Dawson took the role, its a chance to show her acting chops and to make a small independent, decidedly un-Hollywood film, its also clear that aside from stunning good looks, Dawson seems out of place in the role. Forgive me I simply couldn't find her. Thats not a mistake, thats how I felt, I had no idea where she was. Yes I know she's on the screen but even though I spent the better part of two hours looking at her she left no impression on me whats so ever. I blame the script for this since other than the ending, not a whole heck of a lot that happened on screen seemed to make any real sense. The people seemed to be more posture than real and what happens didn't seem to fit together. Forgive me for being vague but nothing in this film, other than the end (which I would love to talk about but can't cause it would spoil it), and the image of Rosario Dawson as nothing more than an image, stayed with me.What can I say, this may click with you, it may not, for me it's time I can't get back. For Rosario Dawson fans only, though be warned there's several real reasons why this is NC17. (And Rosario- please, you're a better actress, pick better scripts)

This is, without a doubt, the most offensive "chick flick" I have seen in years, if not ever. The writing & characterizations are so riddled with stereotypes that the film verges on parody. Before walking out of the theater an hour and five minutes into this disaster, we were subjected to the following themes: having a baby will solve all of your problems, "performer types" are miserable messes, & musicians can't be good mothers unless they toss their dreams for a more conventional lifestyle. What a waste of a talented cast & some great-looking sets & costumes. When Natasha Richardson told Toni Collette that unless she lives a more mainstream life, she'll end up - shudder - "alone!", I felt queasy. I can't believe this movie made it to theatrical release. It's the sort of fare one expects from those "women's" cable channels that I always pass right by when channel-surfing. I am female and over 35, so I should be part of this film's target audience, but boy, does "Evening" miss its target.

This ludicrous and inept film is certainly the most misguided version of "Hamlet" to ever reach the screen. Branagh's approach to the material can only be described as vulgar; going to such lengths as depicting Ophelia in a straight jacket, having Fortinbras' army appear suddenly on the horizon (looking very much like the climax of "Monty Python and the Holy Grail") when the palace is apparently guarded only by Francisco (who shouts the very un-Shakespearean cry of "ataaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack" before being gunned down), and multitudes of star cameos that harken back to the days of Jimmy Cagney's Bottom and Mary Pickford's Kate.<br /><br />Branagh chose to set his film in an Edwardian setting but at the same time decided to employ an almost uncut text, so that frequently the dialogue that is firmly rooted in Elizabethan mentality makes no sense in the context that it is being performed. And Branagh does not concern himself with such textural subtleties as the ambiguous nature of Hamlet and Olphelia's relationship, treating the audience to a vulgar nude sex scene between the couple that tosses any ambiguity right out the stained glass window.<br /><br />The uncut text does allow Branagh to indulge in his favorite cinematic pastime: more footage of Kenneth Branagh. This is never so apparent as in the "How All Occasions Inform Against Me" speech that ends the first half of the nineteen hour film (at least that's how it feels), which attempts to play to a dramatic crescendo along the lines of Gone With The Wind's "I'll never be hungry again." This may serve Branagh's ego, but it does not serve Shakespeare or the speech: when I saw the film in the theater, I leaned over to my companion and snickered "Great Moments With Mr. Hamlet." Branagh saves the funniest and most tasteless moment for last, when he attempts to out-do the Olivier film and its justly celebrated death of Claudius by having Hamlet jump from off a high tower onto the monarch, impaling him with a sword. Branagh's Dane does in the king by heroically throwing an apparently magic rapier from across the palace to run through Claudius' heart with a super hero's bulls eye. The only thing that saved the moment from being unbearably maddening was that it was so off-the-wall funny.<br /><br />While this film has been praised in some quarters as a serious depiction of the tragedy, it is in fact nothing but a star-studded display of a once-talented filmmaker being overtaken by his own narcissism. The Emperor has no clothes, and this Hamlet has nothing to offer but a few unintended laughs and the appalling sight of one man's ego out of control.

I had never heard of this Adam Sandler movie until I saw it on the wall at Blockbuster. Being an Adam Sandler fan at the time, I rented it. HONESTLY I could only watch about 30 mins. of it. It was TERRIBLE. Do whatever it takes to keep this out of the hands of the public. I honestly hope this movie goes OOP soon, and I hope it STAYS THAT WAY!

That's not the sound of bees, that's the effect induced by watching this extremely long, extremely boring, badly acted movie. How I ever made it through all 3 1/2 hours without falling asleep I'll never know. The plot is simple...3 thoroughly unlikable morons talk about sex for 3 1/2 hours. And you thought Rohmer was deadly. This is even worse, if that's possible. > I must really be a masochist if I could watch this entire movie without turning it off...or killing someone.

I very nearly walked out, but I'd paid my money, and my nearly-as-disgusted friend wanted to hold out. After the endearing, wide-eyed innocence of "A New Hope" and the thrilling sophistication of "The Empire Strikes Back," I remember awaiting "Return of the Jedi" with almost aching anticipation. But from the opening scene of this insultingly commercial sewage, I was bitterly disappointed, and enraged at Lucas. He should have been ashamed of himself, but this abomination undeniably proves that he doesn't have subatomic particle of shame in his cold, greedy heart. Episode I would go on to reinforce this fact -- your honor, I call Jarjar Binks (but please issue barf bags to the members of the jury first).<br /><br />From the initial raising of the gate at Jabba's lair, this "film" was nothing more than a two-plus-hour commercial for as many licensable, profit-making action figures as Lucas could cram into it -- the pig-like guards, the hokey flesh-pigtailed flunky, that vile muppet-pet of Jabba's, the new and recycled cabaret figures, the monsters, etc., etc., ad vomitum. Then there were the detestably cute and marketable Ewoks. Pile on top of that all of the rebel alliance aliens. Fifteen seconds each on-screen (or less) and the kiddies just GOTTA have one for their collection. The blatant, exploitative financial baiting of children is nauseating.<br /><br />Lucas didn't even bother to come up with a new plot -- he just exhumed the Death Star from "A New Hope" and heaved in a boatload of cheap sentiment. What an appalling slap in the face to his fans. I can't shake the notion that Lucas took a perverse pleasure in inflicting this dreck on his fans: "I've got these lemmings hooked so bad that I can crank out the worst piece of stinking, putrid garbage that I could dream up, and they'll flock to the theaters to scarf it up. Plus, all the kiddies will whine and torture their parents until they buy the brats a complete collection of action figures of every single incidental undeveloped, cartoonish caricature that I stuffed in, and I get a cut from every single one. It'll make me even more obscenely rich."<br /><br />There may have been a paltry, partial handful of redeeming moments in this miserable rip-off. I seem to recall that Harrison Ford managed to just barely keep his nose above the surface of this cesspool. But whatever tiny few bright spots there may be are massively obliterated by the offensive commercialism that Lucas so avariciously embraced in this total, absolute sell-out to profit.

What is this crap? My little cousin picked this out obviously for the overly girlie DVD art and title... I decided to watch it with her so she didn't get bored, and I sure was appalled at the horrible quality.<br /><br />First, the acting was terrible. They seem like amateur actresses reading off of cue cards. The delivery is sub-par and very formulaic. Scene cuts were terrible.. it looks like they took it straight from the story board, if there was one.<br /><br />Secondly, the jokes and stereotypes weren't original or well played at all- again, very formulaic. I can't count the times I was able to predict the next joke. I got a few chuckles out of the blatantly "subtle" sexual innuendos. The Cat, The Beaver Patch, Hung Wong?.. c'mon! Just.. stay away from this movie. It's not cute, it's not funny, it's not even stupid-funny. It's just stupid-stupid. It's like a PG kids' movie with unnecessary sexual innuendo, vulgarity, and violence to bump the MPAA rating. STAY AWAY.<br /><br />"Would you like to ride my yacht?"<br /><br />"Is that what they're calling it now?"<br /><br />"You could ride my ding."<br /><br />"Oh! I think I got blood on my stool!"<br /><br />Badly played, sir.

Do not waste your time or your money on this movie. My roommate rented it because she thought it was the other movie called Descent (the flick about some travelers who get trapped in a cave). so, we decided to watch it anyways thinking it couldn't be that bad. It was. I can't believe this movie was actually produced and put out to the public. It was so horrible it was almost like an accident scene where you want to look away but you just can't make yourself. I honestly feel emotionally scarred. It went from being a semi-low budget movie in which a college girl gets assaulted by a boy she's dating to an all out porno flick. And really not a good one. I went from hating the woman's rapist to almost feeling bad for him. Almost. All in all, an awful movie that was definitely rated NC-17 for a reason. Don't waste your money. And don't let your kids watch it.

The Invisible Maniac starts as a young Kevin Dornwinkle (Kris Russell) is caught by his strict mother (Marilyn Adams) watching a girl (Tracy Walker) strip through his telescope... Cut to 'Twenty Years Later' & Kevin Dornwinkle (Noel Peters) is now a physics professor who claims to have discovered a way to turn things invisible using a 'mollecular reconstruction' serum. However during a demonstration in front of his fellow scientists it fails & they all laugh at him, Dornwinkle goes mad kills a few of them & is locked away in a mental institute from which he escapes. Jump forward 'Two Weeks Later' & a group of summer college students discuss the tragic death of their physics teacher when the headmistress Mrs. Cello (Stephanie Blake as Stella Blalack) says that she has hired a replacement, yes you've guessed it it's Dornwinkle. The student don't take to him & treat him like dirt, however Dornwinkle has perfected his invisibility serum & uses it to satisfy his perverted sexual urges & his desire for revenge...<br /><br />Co-written & directed by Adam Rifkin wisely hiding under the pseudonym Rif Coogan (I wouldn't want my name to be associated with this turd of a film either) The Invisible Maniac is real bottom of the barrel stuff. The script by Rifkin, sorry Coogan & Tony Markes is awful. It tries to be a teenage sex/comedy/horror hybrid that just fails in every department. For a start the sex is nothing more than a few female shower scenes & a few boob shots, not much else I'm afraid & the birds in The Invisible Maniac aren't even that good looking. The comedy is lame & every joke misses by the proverbial mile, this is the kind of film that thinks someone fighting an invisible man or having Henry (Jason Logan) a mute man trying to make a phone call is funny. The Invisible Maniac makes the Police Academy (1984 - 1994) series of films look like the pinnacle of sophistication! As for the horror aspect that too is lame. It's also an incredibly slow (it takes over half an hour before Dornwinkles even becomes invisible), dull, predictable, boring & has highly annoying & unlikable teenage character's.<br /><br />Director Rifkin or Coogan or whatever does absolutely nothing to try & make The Invisible Maniac an even slightly enjoyable experience. There's no scares, tension or atmosphere & as a whole the film is a real chore to sit through. He does nothing with the invisibility angle, just a few doors opening on their own is as adventurous as it gets. There is very little gore or violence, a bit of splashing blood, a few strangulations & the only decent bit in the whole film when someone has their head blown off with a shotgun, unfortunately he was invisible at the time & we only get to see the headless torso afterwards.<br /><br />The budget must have been low, & I mean really low because this is one seriously cheap looking film. Dornwinkles laboratory is basically two jars on his bedside cabinet! When he escapes from the mental institution he has all of one dog sent after him & the entire school has about a dozen pupils & two teachers. The Invisible Maniac is a poorly made film throughout it's 85 minute duration, I spotted the boom mike on at least one occasion... Lets just say the acting is of a low standard & leave it at that.<br /><br />The Invisible Maniac is crap, plain & simple. I found no redeeming features in it at all, there are so many more better films out there you can watch so there is no reason whatsoever to waste your time on this rubbish. Definitely one to avoid.

2 stars for Kay Francis -- she's wonderful! And she didn't deserve this horrible tripe that Warner Bros. threw her way! <br /><br />The two-pronged premise that this movie is based on is ridiculous and unbelievable in the extreme. Kay is a small-town wife and mother who yearns for something bigger: she wants to be an actress. When a big-shot actor comes to town and invites Kay to his hotel to talk about possibilities, Kay tells her husband she's going to the movies. The hubby's biddy of a mother puts a bug in hubby's ear that Kay's not being truthful, and he sets out looking for her. He finds her w/ the actor in the hotel (they are only talking!) and he slugs the guy, who falls over a railing, lands face-first in a pond (lake?), and dies. Now here's the two unbelievable premises upon which the rest of the movie is based: <br /><br />1) the judge tells the jury that if it's determined that the man died *before* his head went into the water, that they must find the hubby guilty of first degree murder. (Whaaaaa?????? I think slugging a guy in a fit of rage would count for manslaughter or murder 2 at the most, not FIRST DEGREE murder. Give me a break! But the plot required him being found guilty of murder 1 so that he could be sent to prison for life. Whatever.) <br /><br />2) the hubby's lawyer, after the conviction and sentencing, tells Kay that it's all HER fault. His reasoning is that if she hadn't gone over to the actor's room, then her husband wouldn't have had to go after her and slug the guy and kill him. He tells her that she's the guilty one, not her husband, and she nods and agrees. What. The. Hell?!?!?! The rest of the movie is all about Kay trying to achieve fame and money in order to get her husband released from prison and right the wrong she committed by causing him to kill the actor dude in the first place.<br /><br />I can't even go on with this review. The movie was just all too painful. Four years earlier, in the pre-code days, you'd never have caught Kay playing such a wimp! In true Kay Francis fashion, though, she did do her best to make us believe that this woman was a believable character. I give her much credit for trying to breathe some life and credibility to this thankless role. This character was a far cry from pre-code Kay roles and real-life spitfire Kay Francis.<br /><br />Steer way clear of this one! There are much better Kay Francis vehicles out there! (From personal experience, I can highly recommend Mary Stevens, MD and Jewel Robbery; also good are Dr. Monica and One Way Passage. I'm sure there's other great Kay flicks as well, but I'm only mentioning the ones I've seen and can recommend.)

This film differentiates itself from the run-of-the-mill "wonder of the human body" documentaries by bravely, if bizarrely, opting to elicit disgust in the viewer. In one scene, the camera closes in on a gigantic 50-foot zit as a teenager squeezes pus and fluid out of it. In another, the camera is semisubmerged in a swamp of half digested food and stomach acid as parts of a pasta salad drop in from the esophagus and plop into the goo. In a final tour de force, the camera takes the viewer on a harrowing ride through a forest of...teenage armpit hair. Unfortunately, I'm not making any of this up. See this film if you must, but: bring your vomit bag, and don't have pasta salad beforehand.

It is amazing to me what passes for entertainment today. maybe I am a dinosaur from the fifties, and I am out of touch with todays movie going generation, and apparently that is the case with regards to this movie, since so many people loved it. I found it foul and vulgar. I haven't said that about many movies in my life but this one fits the bill. The humor is sophomoric and crude. I am not a politically correct person, and even I found the gay jokes, not only not funny but downright offensive ( I'm not gay). The main character in the movie is not even a likable person, just pathetic. When the movie was finally over i heard a number of people comment on how disappointed they were in what they had just pay good money to see.

When I saw the preview, I thought: this is going to be a great movie. And indeed it could have been. The actress playing the main character was very credible, and the beauty of the filming is undeniable. However the dialogues cast a dark shadow on the whole picture. The level of language was too familiar and too contemporary for an action taking place in 1610, and it took away most of the magic of the film. However, I must congratulate the translator, because the English sub-titles were more refined and appropriate that the original French cues, and it probably explains the good rating the movie received on the imbd!

I'm not particularly fond of remakes, or to steal the modern jargon "retellings", but this film truly peeved me off. The original Prom Night, while not in my humble estimation a masterpiece, still realized what it was... horror. There are some simple things to remember when making a horror film. Suspense is crucial to maintaining the interest of the audience. Sorry folks, but a white knuckle film this was not! The scares were cheap, and foreshadowed terribly. (A good example of scare which has been done to clichéd excess now, is the cat jumping out of the closet, followed soon there after but a now unexpected appearance by the villain of the film) This film couldn't successfully pull that off, so how could I expect it to fulfill any of the other conventions of horror film. There needs to be a likable hero or heroine. This film doesn't have one. The person I most identified with was the head detective. His calm demeanor, but level headed approach to the escape of a killer was what more films of this ilk should have. Common sense approach to events that occur. (If you're running from an Axe wielding psycho, you turn and sprint in the opposite direction. Not jog, whilst looking back ever three seconds, gaging the killer's progress, only to trip over every branch and inanimate object in your path.) If you friend disappears, you don't go looking for them alone. And if you suspect foul play you tell someone, not investigate yourself. These clichés are tired and well overplayed. In the horror genre in general, and in this film in particular.

I am compelled to write a review of this IMAX feature as a means of warning others to SAVE YOUR MONEY. Almost any episode of Desmond Morris' "The Human Animal" or David Suzuki's "The Nature of Things" could have bested the material presented. Not only does the director fail to make use of IMAX's incredible 65 to 70 mm film stock and gigantic presentation screen, everything on screen is extremely unimpressive given the accessibility of such programming mentioned previously. Viewers are introduced to a pregnant Heather, her husband Buster, and their niece and nephew. We follow them for an interminable forty-odd minutes as they eat, sweat, listen to music, etc. Although we are given access to scenes inside the human digestive track and learn about babies' natural diving reflexes, do we really learn anything more than most grade-school graduates? Are we even remotely entertained by the trans-Atlantic Heather? Do we care? Avoid this film at all cost. If you do wish to see an IMAX feature, I suggest the beautifully photographed "India: Kingdom of the Tiger" or the technically thrilling "Space Station 3D". Trust me.

A slick romanticizing of the sexual exploitation of NewOrleans black women by white men of power and privilege. Ooh. Does that whet your appetite? Well, then, belly up to a VHS or DVD and gorge on this gratuitous trolling through a seamy segment of history. For good measure, it's adapted from the book by celebrated hack Anne Rice. The directing is as cloying and melodramatic as the cheesy dialog. Most of acting is amateurish. The production's sole worthwhile note is that it employed practically a dozen black actors, all of whom have scarcely been in employed in today's market (Jasmine Guy, Ben Vereen, Pam Grier, Eartha Kitt), including some faces that have barely been seen at all (Bianca Lawson, Rachel Cuttrell). It also is, despite itself, a sterling showcase for Nicole Lyn. The pompous and ponderous James Earl Jones is on-hand as well. So, is the late Ossie Davis, a minimal talent who owes his success to having been affiliated with the legendary Negro Ensemble Company. This film should be rated "T" for tripe.

I'm glad that I saw this film after Mr.Sandler became famous.<br /><br />It is bad....bad,bad,bad. There is no plot. It's like watching a painfully dull home movie.<br /><br />I really enjoy his other films......but if you're a fan like me....stay away from this one. It may change your thoughts on Adam. You may never recover from the horror that is this film....I've had a better time watching old folks play scrabble in a home.......

Predictable plot. Simple dialogue. Shockingly unemotional performances. But Robert Downey, Jr. is so cute, I gave this "poor man's afternoon special" a 3 instead of the 1 or 2 it so richly deserved.

Closer to reality and containing more depth than "Breakdance", Stan Lathan's "Beat Street" is still a pretty dull show. Again this pic is really only cashing in on the 'breakin' craze but at least we get a little bit of entertainment from the plot, which concerns the lives of three young friends and a younger brother, all growing up in Queens, New York. Each has their own unique talent. One is a hustler, one a d.j., another an artist who creates 'burners', while little bro' Lee is a hot 'hip hop' dancer.<br /><br />Lathan is unable to generate any real audience interest in the story though, and his young cast are likewise struggling with their characters. Therefore it is left almost entirely to the funky music and the 'fresh' dancing to save the day.<br /><br />Choreography is again sharp for both club and street scenes, but this alone is not enough to lift ""Beat Street" to greater heights. Unfortunately the film really falls flat late on, after showing a glimmer of hope that it just might get interesting.<br /><br />Sunday, August 25, 1996 - Video

Thanks to the BBC for this show. I used to suffer from an inferiority complex, I hated leaving the house, talking to new people and I had an overwhelming sense that people hated me. However after watching one episode of 4 Non Blondes my fortunes started to change. After episode 2 I started applying for new jobs, wearing fashionable clothes and I actually felt talented. When the series had finished I was running the sales department at work, banging a plethora of women and frequently won the karaoke competition down my local. If you ever have a confidence crisis and don't know where to turn then take a trip down to Poundland and pick up the DVD it's only 99p.