Datasets:

sgavela

/

sample_imdb

like 0

The only good part about this film is the beautiful scenery. This movie was long and boring. The minister should have retired from the pulpit the time his son Paul strayed from the teachings he proclaimed. How many times can his boys take the Lord's name in vain in this film being from a Presbyterian background? It doesn't fit. I wished Paul was swept down the river without a boat at the very beginning to spare us the silly, smirkish, selfish story of Paul (Brad Pitt). So Norm becomes a teacher and Paul becomes a compulsive gambler who Norm wants to rescue but doesn't-so what. It's very uninteresting. We see the prejudiced whites being stood up to by Paul because of his native American girl. That was the only part that had some interest and maybe could have been developed into a real 'wild western'. What we only see is a sleepy town where the two minister's sons have nothing to do but 1. Norm chase a lame girlfriend and deal with her family and 2.Paul make up dumb stories at the newspaper shop while scratching his head and take a lot of swigs and tie a lot of flies. I'd rather watch a show about fishing that that film again-which will be never.

I'm not a huge Star Trek fan, but I was looking forward to this. I was intrigued by the pre-hype descriptions of the Enterprise, its cramped-submarine styling and rough-edged technology compared to the Treks we are used to.<br /><br />I didn't see anything all that interesting in this pilot. I found the plot to be convoluted and confusing.<br /><br />I will admit that I did like some of the character development - the depictions of the humans as an 'adolescent' species ready to outgrow their britches was entertaining.<br /><br />And that Vulcan babe had one hell of an incredible rack.<br /><br />But I don't think I'm going to get hooked on this series.<br /><br />3/10

We have all been asking ourselves "why don't they remake the slasher films that were only OK instead of remaking the ones that were great already, that way they can only make it better?" well with Prom Night they have remade the average but trashy fun 80s Jamie Lee Curtis film and made it even WORSE. Its a paint by numbers slasher film which is clearly trying to attract the young teens (hence no violence etc), the knife in this slasher flick is blunt.The director spends so much time focusing on trying to make the rather attractive killer look somewhat creepy that anything else goes out of the window.The cast who include Britney Snow (who was superb in Hairspray) try their hardest but the material gives them nothing to do but pout and look scared.More annoying is how the death scenes are handled (we will hear the attack but wont see it). It also looks like the only place the knife in this film worked was in the editing suite since the film looks like it has been butchered (im guessing anything remotely scary ended up on the cutting room floor so as not to scare the kids) Yet in pours the money from Americans sending this film to number 1 at the box office!!! Slasher movies are a lot of fun but in Prom Nights case it made me want to download the original.I've seen scarier OC and Dawsons Creek episodes

I'm a big fan of the TV series Largo Winch. This movie was pain for me. I had to use fast forward not to fell to sleep. It was boring! How can somebody ruin this title so much? The story was the only good thing. Actors were sh.t. They can't live the role. The main actor(Tom ... ) is a null. Watch the other roles of this actor. The fighting scenes were unbelievable boring and not to followable,somehow they were not to follow the situation. Like other reviewer said low budget film with bad actors.Maybe next time somebody else can do better thing out of this title. French can't do right thing with big films,like Alien 4. That was bit brrr, after Alien 1,2,3.

The plot of this terrible film is so convoluted I've put the spoiler warning up because I'm unsure if I'm giving anything away. The audience first sees some man in Jack the Ripper garb murder an old man in an alley a hundred years ago. Then we're up to modern day and a young Australian couple is looking for a house. We're given an unbelievably long tour of this house and the husband sees a figure in an old mirror. Some 105 year old woman lived there. There are also large iron panels covering a wall in the den. An old fashioned straight-razor falls out when they're renovating and the husband keeps it. I guess he becomes possessed by the razor because he starts having weird dreams. Oh yeah, the couple is unable to have a baby because the husband is firing blanks. <br /><br />Some mold seems to be climbing up the wall after the couple removes the iron panels and the mold has the shape of a person. Late in the story there is a plot about a large cache of money & the husband murders the body guard & a co-worker and steals the money. His wife is suddenly pregnant. <br /><br />What the hell is going on?? Who knows?? NOTHING is explained. Was the 105 year old woman the child of the serial killer? The baby sister? WHY were iron panels put on the wall? How would that keep the serial killer contained in the cellar? Was he locked down there by his family & starved to death or just concealed? WHO is Mr. Hobbs and why is he so desperate to get the iron panels?? He's never seen again. WHY was the serial killer killing people? We only see the one old man murdered. Was there a pattern or motive or something?? WHY does the wife suddenly become pregnant? Is it the demon spawn of the serial killer? Has he managed to infiltrate the husband's semen? And why, if the husband was able to subdue and murder a huge, burly security guard, is he unable to overpower his wife? And just how powerful is the voltage system in Australia that it would knock him across the room simply cutting a light wire? And why does the wife stay in the house? Is she now possessed by the serial killer? Is the baby going to be the killer reincarnated? <br /><br />This movie was such a frustrating experience I wanted to call my PBS station and ask for my money back! The ONLY enjoyable aspect of this story was seeing the husband running around in just his boxer shorts for a lot of the time, but even that couldn't redeem this muddled, incoherent mess.

Before I comment on this movie I just watched on YouTube, I have to admit that the reason I checked this out was to rewatch something I first saw on the TV ads in 1980: Barbara Bach's cleavage. And since the movie received an R rating, I expected to see her nude. Alas, no dice for her or of the other gorgeous actress that appeared here: Stacey Nelkin who's supposed to be a teen but was actually 20 when she made this. Seeing her in a bra and panty and later in a belly dancer outfit was just as arousing as Ms. Bach. They provide some of the scattered laughs this movie provides. In fact, I don't blame Ron Leibman for having his name removed from the credits since his role as the tight-fisted Liceman is pretty embarrassing though I did like the "seduction" scene he did with Ms. Nelkin. This also happens to be the debut of Ralph Macchio who's the loner among the misfits sent to an academy school. The others are a black kid who really loves his stepmother and Ms. Bach, an Arab who worships motor oil, and a politician's son who loves his girlfriend Candy (Nelkin's character) so much, he risks sneaking in the middle of the night see her in the girls academy. Among the supporting cast, Tom Poston plays a swishy character named Sisson who I found partly amusing. With a screenplay by Tom Patchett and Jay Tarses and direction by Robert Downey Sr. (whose son Robert Downey Jr. has a cameo early on in a soccer scene), Up the Academy is uneven with the politically incorrect humor but unless you're really offended at the scatological and sexual content, this is actually a pretty harmless comedy that Mad Magazine and its trademark cover boy-Alfred E. Newman-shouldn't be ashamed of even though they once had their name and character taken off the picture...P.S. Another one of the "misfits" was Harry Teinowitz who was born in my birth town of Chicago, Ill. He played Rodney Ververgaert. He also says one of my favorite lines: "I'm trying to come."

First of all, if you'r a fan of the comic, well, you'll be VERY disappointed I'm sure ! Low budget movie !!! Largo is supposed to be Serbian in the comic, now suddenly he becomes croatian, pfff! chicken producers, it gave some spice and guts to the comic ( By the way, in the film, his father speaks Serbian and he speaks croatian... Lol ). The striking N.Y. Winch building becomes a common average-small yacht in H.K. The good looking Largo becomes some unshaved Tzigan/Turkish looking guy. Freddy the cool 'scarface' pilot becomes some fat, out of shape, sad, average guy. Simon, Largo's good buddy, does not exist at all !? He gave some pepper ! Largo doesn't throw knifes at all, but just some snake stares... The whole story is confused and looks like a pretentious TV-film. French directors and producers, if you don't have the money, the ability or the technology to adapt correctly the comic, please stick to some romance shooted in Paris. Very very bad film, good thing I just rented it, don't count on me to watch the sequel ( If there is any ! ).

Anybody who has ever been a fan of the original series, or even has a clue about the storyline should be embarrassed by this series. The Borg does not come around until Q brings the Enterprise to the Gamma sector, the Klingons are NEVER seen until Kirk encounters them, the NCC-1701 was the FIRST ship to carry the Enterprise name....need I go on? Berman and Pilliar have made a mockery of Gene Roddenberry's creation. After he died, they only saw $$$$ and just went their own way. No wonder Majel Barrett was in every single episode of star trek until this series. I don't blame her for not being involved with this mess. Poor Bakula. He's a great actor, as are the entire cast. I like them all, but the storyline is tragic and ignores all of the precedents set by the original series. Just check the ratings. I think more people watched Deep Space 9 (which was untimely canceled).

A young boy comes into a lot of money and promptly begins to live it up. Unfortunately, the man whose money it really is happens to be very bad. He wants his loot back. When he discovers who has the bucks, he begins trying to get it back. He keeps getting foiled by this little kid who is just lucky enough to keep from falling into the evil man's hands. Sounds familiar, I'll bet. Very predictable, not interesting at all. Come up with something a bit different, ok guys?

I was disgusted by this movie. No it wasn't because of the graphic sex scenes, it was because it ruined the image of Artemisia Gentileschi. This movie does not hold much truth about her and her art. It shows one piece of art work that she did (Judith Beheading Holofernese) but shows that being entered as testimony in the rape trial when she did not paint her first Judith for a year after the trial.<br /><br />I don't know if you understood this from the movie, probably not, Tassi was not a noble character. He RAPED Artemisia. It was not love, it was rape. He did not claim to accept false charges of rape to stop her from suffering while she was tortured. According to the rape transcripts he continued to claim that he never carnally knew Artemisia (aka had sex with) while she states over and over again "It's true".<br /><br />I encourage all of you people to go out and find about the real Artemisia and see what she is really about. Don't base all of your knowledge on this fictional movie. I encourage you to do some research, Artemisia really does have interesting story behind her and some amazing art work.<br /><br />Don't see the movie, but find out the true story of Artemisia.

This movie is not only a very bad movie, with awful actors --or presumed actors--, a bored direction and a story unattractive, it also copies exactly an scene from the excellent "giallio" "Torso", directed by Sergio Martino in 1973 (two years before), one of the most celebrated psycho-thrillers of Italian cinema and a cult-movie around the world. In "La Sanguinusa conduce la danza", the director replays the bed scene between the black girl and the white girl, with an peeping-tom watching from a window of the bedroom. Naturally, the scene in Rizzo's movie is ridiculous and inferior to the softness and charming in Martino's film. To put another black girl, another white girl and another peeping-tom replaying the scene is simply the most appropriate way of prove that Rizzo's movie has no ideas, no originality, no taste, and nothing at all. I think that such things are an offense to spectator.

Creep - "Your journey terminates here." Some very graphic scenes and...well, yeah, that's about all for this film.<br /><br />No real plot, no storyline. No likable characters, well, 'characters' isn't correct considering you don't have a clue who anyone really is. I mean, they are being chased by some weird looking 'thing' in the sewers (who is this thing? why is he there?), that's quite scary I guess, but do I really care? No, I don't. Why don't I? Because I don't have a clue who these people are and I don't know if I should want them to live or die. It's one dimensional and relies upon gore and sound effects to scare you, which it rarely does.<br /><br />This film lacks any meaning, any purpose. It feels like I fell asleep and missed out the 45mins of build up. It jumps right into the action. Basically, some women and her friends get locked in the London Underground, get chased by a weird creature, then they eventually escape from it.<br /><br />Creep has its moments which make you jump, the art is good, the location is excellent and the sounds are OK, but that isn't what makes a decent horror film, so unfortunately all that goes to waste.<br /><br />It's nothing new. Another predictable modern 'horror', where Kate (the lead 'character') consistently does the stupid "hey, I know you lot sitting at home think I should do the sensible thing in this situation, but, oooh no! I'm going to do the total opposite because I'm a dumb blond" thing. I wish they wouldn't do that, it's done so many times, it's boring and gets predictable. In fact, I'm pretty annoyed the silly woman didn't get stabbed by the, erm, grey alien-looking creature.<br /><br />"Your journey terminates here" is the films tag line. Well, Creeps journey terminates only a short while into the film. If you've had a few beers, got a couple of mates back at yours,then sure, watch it by all means. But if you want something original and clever, avoid.

The main reason people still care about "Carlton-Browne Of The F.O." is that it features Peter Sellers in a second-billed role. But watching this film to see Peter Sellers is a mistake.<br /><br />Sellers plays Amphibulos, a vaguely reptilian prime minister of the dirt-poor island nation of Gaillardia, formerly a British colony, now hosting a lot of Russian diggers during the height of the Cold War. Amphibulos wants to play both U.K. and Soviet interests against each other for easy profit, "everything very friendly and all our cards under the table". Terry-Thomas is the title character, a lazy British diplomat anxious to show Gaillardia that Great Britain hasn't forgotten them, all appearances to the contrary.<br /><br />A positive review here says: "The reason this movie is considered average is because the comedy is understated." I would argue that the reason "Carlton-Browne" is considered below average is because the comedy is non-existent.<br /><br />After a decent opening that establishes the film's only two strengths, a sympathetically doltish Terry-Thomas and John Addison's full-on larky score, things quickly slow down into a series of slow burns and lame miscommunication jokes. The low opinion of Carlton-Browne by his boss and the obscurity of Gaillardia (which no one can find on a map) is milked to death. By the time we actually reach the island (after a labored series of airsick jokes), expectations are quite low.<br /><br />They're still too high, though. The island itself, which seems to exist either in Latin America or the Mediterranean, is so pathetic its honor guard faints at the airport, and the review stand falls apart in the middle of a parade. The army is apparently still horse drawn, allowing for another lame aural gag by a thick-accented announcer: "In war, the army uses many horse."<br /><br />Sellers never quite takes center stage even when we're on his character's island. The plot is taken over instead by Ian Bannen as King Loris, who inherits the throne of Gaillardia after his father's assassination. Bannen is dull and plays his part as straight as it is written. Normally this would make him the likely target for scene-stealing by Sellers, but trapped behind a thick accent and greasy moustache, Sellers is only a threat to those of us who remember him far more happily in two other films made this same year, "The Mouse That Roared" and "I'm All Right, Jack."<br /><br />Strange that this film, like "Jack", was a Boulting Brothers production, with Roy Boulting here serving as co-director alongside Jeffrey Dell. Usually Boulting films combine wicked social satire with anything-goes comedy, but here there are only fey jabs in either direction. Amphibulos works his mangled-English vibe for all its worth ("This man is like, how do you say, the bull in the Chinese ship") while Carlton-Browne is generally ragged on by his superior far more than he seems to deserve.<br /><br />The weakest and most protracted element of the film is young Loris's romance with Ilyena. Score one point for her being played by ravishing Luciana Paluzzi, dock one for the fact that they are apparently cousins is never addressed.<br /><br />The film winds up with a lamely staged revolution whose surprise resolution will surprise no one, and a final bit of action by Carlton-Browne that would seem to nail the lid on his coffin literally. Apparently he lives to see another day, but the film of the same name is strictly DOA.

So, I got a hold of this as an assignment for Trent Harris, who teaches occasionally in the film dept at the U of U. I guess this is his only real way to get anyone to see his film...<br /><br />The documentary section at the beginning dragged on. Yes, the kid is a nut-job from no where, but that's not good enough to keep it interesting.<br /><br />Seeing Sean Penn dressed as a ONJ is the only highlight... and after about thirty seconds it loses all humor.<br /><br />When Crispin Glover takes on Larry, the story-telling was better, but I just couldn't take anymore...

Loyalty to Peter Falk is all that kept me from giving this awful picture the (1) it deserved. (For that matter, loyalty to Mr. Falk was what kept me watching this film all the way from heads to tails.) Even if you forgive all the glaring errors, this was just plain the poorest excuse for a made-for-TV "Columbo" film ever. I'm glad I watched it on TV for free; would have hated to have coughed up the bucks for a print.

The Good Earth is not a great film by any means, it is way to ordinary. Maybe it was different in the 1930's but who would want to see the life of a farmer. It is not very interesting to me. Yes, Luis Rainer and Paul Muni do an excellent job acting but the film dragged on way too long. I could have told you the ending of this movie by the first act. In short Wang Lung (Muni) a small time farmer who does not want to be like his own father turns out exactly like him. Both falling in love with their wives just as they are on their death beds. The film does a complete 360 going from one generation to the next. Also this film did not have any good character actors or funny moments, it just was depressing stuff about lasting as a farmer during a time of crisis.

This film, though ostensibly a comedy, is deadly serious. Its subject is Imperialism (with a capital I): how Britain, foolishly, humiliatingly, tries to convince itself that it's still a great power after World War II. At home, the Empire is run by amiable dolts, benevolent Tories who are so in-bred that they can't distinguish close relatives; the Offices of Government consist of long forgotten archives (a dig at Orwellian paranoia?), inhabited by indolent rats, and ante-rooms wherein lounge bored synacures, reading popular novels.<br /><br />Abroad, Britain clings to the old pomp; but pomp out of context looks threadbare and silly, especially when its embodied in bumbling twits. Carlton-Browne is an unsentimental picture of decline, with none of the lachrymose rot that marred the supposedly anti-imperialist Jewel in the Crown.<br /><br />The film is also about the Cold War, bravely admitting that it's a dangerous farce, whose participants deserve mockery and contempt, not fear and respect. It's about how colonialism, characterised more by neglect than tyranny, destroys the colonies it deserts, robbing them of amenities, power, and, most importantly, self-respect, leaving them vulnerable to the machinations of dangerous cowboys.<br /><br />It's the seriousness, of course, that kills it. That's not to say that weighty subjects can't be treated in comedy - The Miracle Of Morgan's Creek, Dr. Strangelove and The Life Of Brian have all proved that. Indeed, one might suggest that serious themes should only be treated by comedy - it allows for a clearer-eyed view.<br /><br />The problem with Carlton-Browne is that every situation must have a significance beyond the merely comic, so that it becomes weighed down and unfunny. In the three films mentioned above, much of the comedy arises from character reaction to an extreme situation, not the extreme situation itself. Here, the script is too poor to sustain rich comic characterisations, and some of the greatest comedy talent ever assembled - Peter Sellers, Terry-Thomas, Raymond Huntley and John le Mesurier - are criminally wasted.<br /><br />Terry-Thomas, sublime so often, shows that he couldn't handle lead parts, and that he needed to play sneering, arrogant bounders, not brainless toffs. The music is made to carry much of the comedy, but its heavy irony only draws attention to the lack of hilarity on screen. (To be fair, unlike the majority of British comedies of the period, which were stagy and underproduced, the Boultings often try to make their points through film itself, by montage and composition) Only Huntley manages to raise genuine laughs, and that's by essaying a character he could have played in his sleep.<br /><br />None of the Boultings' farces have dated well - they're never thought through enough. Although Carlton-Browne revels in the decline of the Empire, it also seems to be anti-democratic and militaristic. I'm sure this wasn't intended, but these blunders are bound to happen if you allow worthy intentions to take precedence over comic intelligence and film form.

I didn't think the French could make a bad movie, but I was, clearly, very wrong. As has been said before, this film essentially uses its title character as a point of departure; its portrayal of her life and person have little or nothing to do with the real Artemisia Gentileschi. <br /><br />The script is awful -- pretentious, stilted, and vapid -- and its rewriting of the facts is unusually offensive even in a genre that all too often makes its living by distorting, rather than retelling, history. Along with some fairly decent set design, Valentina Cervi's physical charms are the primary asset of this movie, and it's obvious from the beginning that the filmmakers were aware of this too; they waste no time in contriving various "erotic" sequences which have far more to do with titillation than with plot or character development. Unfortunately, the appeal of seeing a pretty young girl in a state of feigned sexual arousal cannot, and does not, sustain this movie. The acting is unremarkable, and the score is all too generic despite an interesting chord or two. The cinematography is OK, and there are some pretty colors, but there are also some pretty ridiculous sequences using distorted-lens effects more appropriate for a 1960s freakout movie than a costume drama. In any event, the script leaves the camera dwelling all too often on Artemisia's body, and all too seldom on her paintings.<br /><br />All told, a near-complete failure. It's not intelligent or tasteful enough to be a serious film, and it's too slow and pretentious to work as soft-core pornography. So the French can fail, after all!

OK first of all the video looks like it was filmed in the 80s I was shocked to find out it was released in 2001. Secondly the plot was all over the place, right off the bat the story is confusing. Had there been some brief prologue or introduction the story would've been better. Also I appreciate fantasy but this film was too much. It was bizarre and badly filmed. The scenes did not flow smoothly and the characters were odd. It was hard to follow and maybe it was the translation but it was even hard to understand. I love Chinese epic films but if you're looking for a Chinese epic fantasy film i would recommend the Promise (visually stunning, the plot is interesting and good character development) not this film. Beware you will be disappointed.

I never like to comment on a good film but when it comes to a bad movie, I gotta come really hard on it. Talking about Vivah, this guy, Sooraj Badjatya, seems to have completely lost it. After success of Hum Aapke Hain Kaun, he thought he can make money with cheesy wedding videos. Vivah is so so cheesy that Badjatyas have left Johars and Chopras behind.<br /><br />There was not a single moment during the movie where I can say 'Oh! at least this thing is good'. Aloknath does cliché in a role of Girl's father, Shahid kapoor looks fat and Shahrukhed, Amrita rao is another disaster in addition to ugly looking sets, bad costumes, hackneyed storyline, monstrous stepmother, trying-hard-to-act actors, cacophonous background music, cheap soundtracks.<br /><br />Now the spoiler, I'm warning you guys that as happens in all his other movies, after a calamitous incidence movie ends on a happy note.

I realize that living in the Western Plains of Wyoming during the 1900s was brutal, in fact, it probably is still brutal today, but was it monumental enough to transform into a seemingly "made-for-TV" movie? Also, women's rights were still budding in this nation during this time, so to find an independent woman determined to start fresh in this harsh territory, and still show the realism of the era … would it make for good viewing? Honestly, I don't know. I have thought about this film for the past two days, and I still can't seem to muster the strength to say that it was a horrible film, yet I can truthfully tell you that it wasn't the greatest I have ever seen. From several hodgepodge styles of acting, to two mismatched actors playing devoid of emotion character, to some of the most gruesome PG rated scenes to ever come out of late 70s cinema, it is hard to fully get a good grasp on Heartland. Was it good? Was it bad? That may be up for you to view and decide yourself, but until then, here are moments I enjoyed and desperately hated! <br /><br />This film continues to be a struggle in my mind because there were some very interesting scenes. Scenes where I wasn't sure what the director was doing or which direction he was headed, but somehow still seemed to work well as a whole. I thought the story as a whole was a very interesting, historical tale. I do not know much about living in Wyoming, especially during the early 1900s, so this film captured that image in my mind. The thought of very cold winters, no neighbors for miles upon miles, and this Polaroid-esquire view untouched by corporate America. It was refreshing to witness and sheer breathtaking to experience (though the television). There were scenes that really stood out in my mind, like the cattle-branding scene, the pig slaughtering scene, and the saddening homesteader that didn't survive their journey, that just brought a true sense of realism to this story. Director Richard Pearce did a great job of bringing the view of Wyoming to the viewers, but I am not sure he brought decent players to accompany the view.<br /><br />While I will constantly compliment the scenery of this film, I had trouble coping with the actors that seemingly walked on the set and read their lines from cards on the side. Rip Torn seemed out of place in his role as Clyde Stewart, a loner that somehow finds a connection with Conchata Ferrell's Elinore Randall. The two as actors have no chemistry at all. Their scenes that they share together are pointless and honestly void of any emotion. The pregnancy scene nearly had me in stitches because of the way these two "veteran" actors portrayed it. The brave Elinore does what she has to do to get the child out of her, while Clyde gives an approving nod when she is done. This is love? Was it supposed to be love? I don't know, I think with stronger characters we would have seen a stronger bond, but with Torn and Ferrell, it felt like two actors just playing their parts. Other scenes that just seemed to struggle in my mind were ones like when the frozen horse "knocks" on the door for food or shelter, the constantly fading and growing compassion that Clyde had for Elinore's daughter (I just didn't believe it), the lack of true winter struggle, and the entire land scene. The land scene especially because I needed more explanation on what Elinore was doing, why she was doing it, and why Clyde would build her a house if they were married! It was these simple events that if taken the time to explore, would have made for a stronger film.<br /><br />Overall, I will go middle of the road with this feature. There were definitely elements that should have been explored deeper, such as the relationship between these two strangers and the ultimate homesteading goals of Elinore, but they were countered with some beautiful scenes of our nation. These panoramic scenes which, in the span of 100 years, have changes from vast mountains to enormous skyscrapers. While there were some brilliant scenes of realism (starring cattle and pigs), I just felt as if we needed more. Depth was a key element lacking in this film, which was overshadowed by marginal acting and a diminishing story. Pearce could have dove deeper into this untapped world, but instead left open loopholes and clichéd Western characters. Ferrell carried her own, but Torn was completely miscast. Decent for a viewing, but will not be picked up again by me.<br /><br />Grade: ** out of *****

The only thing I remember about this movie are two things: first, as a twelve year old, even I thought it stunk. Second, it was so bad that when Mad magazine did a parody of it, they quit after the first page, and wrote a disclaimer at the bottom of the page saying that they had completely disavowed it.<br /><br />If you want to see great sophomoric comedies of this period, try Animal House. It's so stupid and vulgar it lowers itself to high art. Another good selection would be Caddyshack, the classic with the late Rodney Dangerfield and Bill Murray before he became annoyingly charming, with great lines like greens keeper Carl Spackler's "Correct me if I'm wrong Sandy, but if I kill all the golfers they'll lock me up and throw away the key."

William Russ is the main character throughout this made for TV movie. He left his family behind to only reappear and begin paying off his debts. But he tries to keep away from his family. Thats where Peter Falk (Colombo) comes in, playing several different roles, to convince him to come home.<br /><br />The story is average and they actually managed to get a former star (Peter Falk) and use him to a fairly nice degree. But William Russ wasn't truly a star. However, it appears his acting is still OK.<br /><br />I found the delivery and story very cheesy in how everything was predictable. In fact, the last 20 minutes I could almost dictate word for word before it happened. A good movie should never be like that.<br /><br />Overall, it was a sub-par movie. In a letter grading system, it would receive a "D".

This movie's full title is "Waqt: Race Against Time". That's a race no one can ever win, but you can certainly cut your losing margin by not wasting any of your precious "waqt" on this bakvaas. This movie was clumsy and manipulative in a way that made K3G look honest. It strained my credulity too far. It was ridiculously stupid in its storyline, and deserves to be mocked for it.<br /><br />It's not quite as awful as Baghban or Black, but this movie has nothing to recommend it. Stupid, pointless, with a ridiculously OTT performance by Amitji. The central "plot" is another nasty example of the crudely manipulative propaganda that infests so many "family" BW films. If my father, who raised me, and who I love dearly, treated me like Big B did Akshay, I'd shoot him myself. To say nothing of the trivialising of terminal illness.

It's not like I have overwhelmingly fond memories of Verhoeven's original pants-down shocker - it always struck me as a glossy, well-made airport-novel-of-a-movie. Thrilling, sexy trash, but trash nonetheless. It was also a film that tapped into a certain sexual zeitgeist. After a decade of anti-sex AIDS-induced hysteria, a film about a wildly-sexual hotbod who thrill-kills to heighten her sexual pleasure was pretty enticing stuff. Basic Instinct 2 was always going to struggle to provide the same social relevance and immediacy, so the fact that it's desperate attempts at raunchiness are so lame can sort-of be overlooked. All it really had to provide was that thin veneer of titillation and a mildly engaging story and all would have been watchable. That it resoundingly fails on so many levels, and in such a way to be a career nadir for everyone involved, is really quite extraordinary to watch. Let's state the obvious for starters - Sharon Stone is too old for the part of sexual magnet Catherine Trammell. What was so photogenic thru Verhoeven's lens looks like mutton dressed as lamb in the hands of gun-for-hire Michael Caton-Jones, who's flat, drab colours and static camera render her undeniable beauty totally moot. I like Sharon Stone a lot, but if the first film launched her career, BI2 could kill it. She has no chemistry with stuffed-shirt David Morrissey - their only sex scene is embarrassing too watch. His dough-faced mamma's boy of a character made me yearn for the swaggering, orange-skin machismo of Michael Douglas. Supporting turns by David Thewlis and Charlotte Rampling waste these fine actors on talky exposition scenes and cliché-heavy posturing. And what of the much-touted sexual shenanigans? Poorly-lit, fleetingly-glimpsed, as utterly mainstream as an episode of Desperate Housewives - the European sensibilities that Verhoeven brought to the sexual content of the first film are sorely missed. Don't watch this film for carnal thrills - there are none and what there is is tragic. The film is, as a whole, convoluted to the point of utter confusion, boring and laughable. The last 40 minutes in particular, where you come to the realisation that the film is, in fact, not going to go anywhere of interest at all, are particularly gruelling and hilarious in equal measure. As a failed sequel, Basic Instinct 2 will come to occupy similar cinematic ground as Exorcist 2 The Heretic, Beyond The Poseidon Adventure and XXX2. As a vanity project, it rivals Battlefield Earth in its misconception. As a multi-million dollar piece of Hollywood film-making, it's a travesty that will be hard to top as the years worst.

It's been about 14 years since Sharon Stone awarded viewers a leg-crossing that twisted many people's minds. And now, God knows why, she's in the game again. "Basic Instinct 2" is the sequel to the smash-hit erotica "Basic Instinct" featuring a sexy Stone and a vulnerable Michael Douglas. However, fans of the original might not even get close to this one, since "Instinct 2" is painful film-making, as the mediocre director Michael Caton-Jones assassinates the legacy of the first film.<br /><br />The plot of the movie starts when a car explosion breaks in right at the beginning. Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone, trying to look forcefully sexy) is a suspect and appears to be involved in the murder. A psychiatrist (a horrible David Morrisey) is appointed to examine her, but eventually falls for an intimate game of seduction.<br /><br />And there it is, without no further explanations, the basic force that moves this "Instinct". Nothing much is explained and we have to sit through a sleazy, C-class erotic film. Sharon Stone stars in her first role where she is most of the time a turn-off. Part of it because of the amateurish writing, the careless direction, and terrifyingly low chemistry. The movie is full of vulgar dialogues and even more sexuality (a menage a trois scene was cut off so that this wouldn't be rated NC-17) than the first entrance in the series. "Instinct" is a compelling torture.<br /><br />To top it off, everything that made the original film a guilty pleasure is not found anywhere in the film. The acting here is really bad. Sharon Stone has some highlights, but here, she gets extremely obnoxious. David Morrisey stars in the worst role of his life, and seems to never make more than two expressions in the movie- confused and aroused. "Instinct 2" is a horrible way to continue an otherwise original series, that managed to put in thriller with erotica extremely well. Paul Verhoeven, how I miss you....<br /><br />"Basic Instinct 2" never sounded like a good movie, and, indeed, it isn't. Some films should never get out of paper, and that is the feeling you get after watching this. Now, it is much easier to understand why Douglas and David Cronenberg dropped out, and why Sharon Stone was expecting a huge paycheck for this......-----3/10

This film had a lot of promise, and the plot was relatively interesting, however the actors, director and editors seriously let this film down.<br /><br />I feel bad for the writers, it could have been good. The acting is wooden, very few of the characters are believable.<br /><br />Who ever edited this clearly just learnt some new edit techniques and wanted to splash them all over the film. There are lots of quick 'flashy' edits in almost every scene, which are clearly meant to be symbolic but just end up as annoying.<br /><br />I wanted to like this film and expected there to be a decent resolution to the breakdown of equilibrium but alas no, it left me feeling like I'd wasted my time and the film makers had wasted their money.

Add to the list of caricatures: a Southern preacher and "congregation," a torch singer (Sophie Tucker?), a dancing chorus, and The Mills Brothers -- it only makes it worse.<br /><br />Contemptible burlesques of "Negro" performers, who themselves often appear in films to be parodying themselves and their race. Though the "Negro comedy" may have been accepted in its day, it's extremely offensive today, and I doubt that it was ever funny. Though I wouldn't have been offended, I don't think that I'd have laughed at the feeble attempts at humor. As an 11-year-old white boy, however, I might not have understood some of it.

This is not Michael Madsen's fault, he was hardly in it. This movie was just awful. If you want to laugh and be bored, go ahead and watch this movie. Words cannot describe how idiotic it is. Sorry Michael. The cinematography was dark. All the other actors are unknowns. When watching it, it feels like a soft porn, but with no nudity or heated scenes. This movie had sexual overtones, since it is about a underground S & M killer. The acting was bad, except Michael Madsen's parts. He looked like he wanted to laugh. I hope he got paid well for this lousy movie. It is something I would not be proud of. It is not even a B movie for cable, it is more like a F and it should never be shown, ever.

This film is exactly what you get when you really over stretch your abilities, it's like someone who has just passed there driving test and then pitting them in a formula 1 Grand Prix (not I might add, the US Grand Prix as everyone might pull out due to dodgy tyres and you might just win), that is how far short this film falls. Now don't take this the wrong way, I love B-Movies, around half my collection is made of B-Movies but I don't think there are enough letters in the alphabet to describe how bad this film is.<br /><br />First of the story (for a B-Movie) isn't that bad, it has potential there to make a B-Movie brand, were not talking Friday 13th potential, but potential none the less. But what really lets this film down is the acting, at not one second do I believe anything, it's like watching QVC except the presenters on QVC tend to have a heavier tan.<br /><br />In summary I'd like to say I've seen worse films, but I can't.

I can not believe such slanted, jingoistic material is getting passed off to Americans as art house material. Early on, from such telling lines like "we want to make sure they are playing for the right team" and manipulative framing and lighting, A Love Divided shows it's true face. The crass manner in which the Irish Catholics are shown as hegemonic, the Protestants as peaceful and downtrodden, is as poor a representation of history as early US westerns that depict the struggle between cowboys and American Indians. The truth of the story is distorted with the stereotypes and outright vilification of the Irish Catholics in the story; a corruption admitted by the filmmakers themselves! It is sad that people today still think that they can win moral sway by making a film so easily recognized for it's obvious intent, so far from attempting art. This film has no business being anywhere in any legitimate cinema or library.

This film is awful. The screenplay is bad, the is script mediocre, and even the sex scenes are worthless. The thrill and intrigue of the original film are completely lacking. This movie was shot in a dark, shadowy and monochromatic style (a la "War of the Worlds"), which is so disappointing after the beauty of the original film. Greg Morrisey's brooding character displays one facial expression throughout the film. The twists and turns of the original plot are woefully lacking here; the few that do exist are simply anticlimactic. The only highlight is Sharon Stone's performance as Catherine Tramell, faithfully continued in this sequel, but it isn't enough to make up for the other shortcomings. The only circumstance under which a "Basic Instinct 3" should be made would be if Michael Douglas agrees to join the cast.

Are you familiar with concept of children's artwork? While it is not the greatest Picasso any three-year-old has ever accomplished with their fingers, you encourage them to do more. If painting is what makes them happy, there should be no reason a parent should hold that back on a child. Typically, if a child loves to paint or draw, you will immediately see the groundwork of their future style. You will begin to see their true form in these very primitive doodles. Well, this concept of children's artwork is how I felt about Fuqua's depressingly cheap and uncreative film Bait. While on all accounts it was a horrid film, it was impressive to see Fuqua's style begin emerging through even the messiest of moments. If you have seen either Training Day or King Arthur, you will be impressed with the birth of this director in his second film Bait. While Foxx gives a horrid, unchained performance, there are certain scenes, which define Fuqua and demonstrate his brilliance behind the camera. Sadly it only emerged in the final thirty minutes of the film, but if you focus just on those scenes, you will see why Fuqua's name appears on so many "Best Of…" film lists.<br /><br />I will never disagree with someone that Fuqua's eye behind the camera is refreshing and unique. His ability to place a camera in the strangest of places to convey the simplest of emotions is shocking. I am surprised that more of Hollywood hasn't jumped aboard this bandwagon. Even in the silly feature Bait, you are witness to Fuqua's greatness. Two scenes that come directly to mind are the explosion scene near the middle of the film and the horse scene close to the end. In both of these scenes I saw the director Fuqua at work. Alas, in the rest of this film, all I saw was a combination of nearly every action film created. The likable hero down on his luck that suddenly finds his life turned around by some unknown force is a classic structure that just needs to die in Hollywood. We have seen this two often, and no matter who you are (unless you are Charlie Kaufmann), you cannot recreate the wheel. It is just impossible with this genre, and it is proved with Bait. I was annoyed with Fuqua for just sitting back and allowing this to happen, which could explain why it took me three viewings to finish this film. I was just tired of the structure, and while I hoped that Fuqua would redefine it, he did not.<br /><br />Then, there was the acting. While Jamie Foxx has never impressed me as an actor, I was willing to give this helmed vehicle a try. I wanted to see if he could pull off another dramatic role similar to Collateral. I was under the impression that perhaps this was the film chosen to show producers that Foxx could handle the role in Collateral. Again, I was disappointed. Foxx was annoying. Not in the sense that it was the way that his character was to be, but in the sense that it felt as if neither Fuqua nor Foxx took the time to fully train Foxx on what should be ad-libed and what should be used to further the plot. Instead, we are downtrodden with scene over scene of Foxx just trying to make the audience laugh. Adding second long quips and culture statements just to keep his audience understanding that he was a comedian first, an actor second. Fuqua should have stopped this immediately. Foxx's jokes destroyed his character, which in turn left me with nothing solid to grasp ahold of. Instead of character development, he would crack a joke. Neither style worked, no joke was funny. The rest of the cast was average. By this I mean I have seen them all in similar roles. They were brining nothing new to the table, nothing solid to the story, and nothing substantial to the overall themes of the film. They were pawns filling in dead air space. Fuqua had no control over this mess, and the final verdict only supports that accusation.<br /><br />Overall, this was a sad film. With no creativity in sight and unmanaged actors just trying to upstage themselves, what originally started as a decent story eventually sunk faster into the cinematic quicksand. Foxx was annoying, without character lines, and a complete bag of cheese. In each scene I saw no emotion, and when emotion was needed to convey a message, he chose to take his shirt off rather than tackle the issues. Are my words harsh? I don't think so. When you watch any movie you want to see some creativity, some edible characters, and themes that seem to hit close to home. Bait contained none of these. While I will give Fuqua some credit for two of the scenes in this film, the remaining five hundred were disastrous. Apparently, I took the bait when renting this film, but now having seen it, hopefully I can stop others from taking that curious nibble.<br /><br />Grade: ** out of ***** (for his two scenes that were fun to watch)

I honestly believe that ANYONE considering film-making be subjected to this mind-boggling failure. Like the "films" of Edward Wood, Jr. in the '60s and '70s, this film is a shining example of why real filmmakers expend so much energy rewriting scripts, re-editing their films, and reworking their special effects until they finally look right. This movie is also a decent argument FOR the studios' pre-screening process. If Mr. Hines were forced to endure the honest reactions of an impartial audience, perhaps he would have cut 75% or the walking/running/strolling scenes and edited this movie down to a more bearable 90 minutes.<br /><br />Film students should view this movie as an example of just how dangerous thinking their work is "good enough" can truly be. Every performance, every line of dialog, every digital effect, every filter effect, indeed every frame of video expresses the danger of striving for mere mediocrity. A beginning filmmaker may find himself/herself tempted from time to time to think "At least I accomplished SOMETHING" or "Just finishing this will be an accomplishment in itself". This movie will help them understand just how badly a film can turn out.<br /><br />Critics might also benefit from seeing this movie before they dub the latest summer entertainment "the worst movie ever made".<br /><br />Beginning writers can learn from this film just how important rewrites are, and perhaps understand the necessity for rewrites. Also, beginning directors can learn the importance of a GOOD screenplay, and some degree of respect for just how hard it is to write a script that causes the audience to feel emotionally compelled through the story. Writers and directors who watch bad made-for-cable movies of the week and think "I can do better than THAT" can see get an idea from this movie how difficult it really IS to produce even mediocre results.<br /><br />I sincerely believe this movie can serve as an educational tool to beginning filmmakers. Particularly those entering the craft in this current post-Lucas and post-Spielberg environment. There is a reason filmmakers such as these are hailed for their ability with special effects. The War of the Worlds illustrates clearly that not everyone can pull it off. Some can't even come CLOSE to it.

This movie is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. There is absolutely no storyline, the gags are only for retards and there is absolutely nothing else that would make this movie worth watching. In the whole movie Fredi (oh my god what a funny name. ha ha) doesn't ask himself ONCE how he came from a plane to middle earth. There are plenty of stupid and totally unfunny characters whose names should sound funny. e.g. : Gandalf is called Almghandi, Sam is called Pupsi ... and so on. I didn't even smile once during the whole movie. The gags seem like they were made by people whose IQ is negative. If you laugh when someone's coat is trapped in the door (this happens about 5 times) then this movie is perhaps for you. Another funny scene: They try to guess the code word for a closed door (don't ask why- don't ever ask "why" in this movie) and the code word is (ha ha): dung. So if you laughed at this examples you might like this movie. For everybody else: Go to Youtube and watch "Lord of the Weed": it's a lot, lot more fun.

That reviewers liked this movie surprises me. The plot is a muddle. The characters are wooden. Michael Bowen spends most of the film spying on the other characters and misjudging all of them. No one has any redeeming quality or point-of-interest. This is not an edgy work. It is not imaginative. It is not ironic. It is no clever. There is nothing straight forward about this tedious work. That is missed theatrical release is not surprise. That the "This Network" airs it diminishes that venue. I definitely recommend turning to a rerun of the Garden Smart show on PBS or even a good informational if you encountered this mess on late night television. If you encounter it on daytime television, take a long walk. Even if you walk in smog, you will feel better not having suffered through this shambles. Life is short. This movie is long.

I am not so much like Love Sick as I image. Finally the film express sexual relationship of Alex, kik, Sandu their triangle love were full of intenseness, frustration and jealous, at last, Alex waked up and realized that they would not have result and future.Ending up was sad.<br /><br />The director Tudor Giurgiu was in AMC theatre on Sunday 12:00PM on 08/10/06, with us watched the movie together. After the movie he told the audiences that the purposed to create this film which was to express the sexual relationships of Romanian were kind of complicate.<br /><br />On my point of view sexual life is always complicated in everywhere, I don't feel any particular impression and effect from the movie. The love proceeding of Alex and Kiki, and Kiki and her brother Sandu were kind of next door neighborhood story.<br /><br />The two main reasons I don't like this movie are, firstly, the film didn't told us how they started to fall in love? Sounds like after Alex moved into the building which Kiki was living, then two girls are fall in love. It doesn't make sense at all. How a girl would fall in love with another girl instead of a man. Too much fragments, you need to image and connect those stories by your mind. Secondly, The whole film didn't have a scene of Alex and Kik's sexual intercourse, that 's what I was waiting for……. However, it still had some parts were deserved to recommend. The "ear piercing " part was kind of interesting. Alex was willing to suffer the pain of ear piercing to appreciate kik's love. That was a touching scene which gave you a little idea of their love. Also, the scene of they were lying in the soccer field, the conversation express their loves were truthful and passionate.

Instead, go to the zoo, buy some peanuts and feed 'em to the monkeys. Monkeys are funny. People with amnesia who don't say much, just sit there with vacant eyes are not all that funny.<br /><br />Black comedy? There isn't a black person in it, and there isn't one funny thing in it either.<br /><br />Walmart buys these things up somehow and puts them on their dollar rack. It's labeled Unrated. I think they took out the topless scene. They may have taken out other stuff too, who knows? All we know is that whatever they took out, isn't there any more.<br /><br />The acting seemed OK to me. There's a lot of unfathomables tho. It's supposed to be a city? It's supposed to be a big lake? If it's so hot in the church people are fanning themselves, why are they all wearing coats?

Let's face it; some lame kid who dies and has his soul transfered into a scarecrow. Das no gonna happen neva! OMFG This stupid loser kid who can't stand up for himself gets his ass handed to him by some drunk bastard screwing his mom. Right as he dies, he looks up at the scarecrow and he let's his spirit go into the scarecrow. The drunk guy covered up his death by making it seem suicidal and thought he had gotten away with it. We later see he is tossed out of the trailer and later earns another encounter with the scarecrow. They had a brief encounter which includes the drunk calling him a loser and the scarecrow rebounding with "Takes one to know one, loser!" The scarecrow flips off the building, calls him "daddy-o", and then beheads the poor man. We can see how this awesome movie unfolds from that. He goes on to kill many people, afterward. He mainly kills the people who gave him a hard time in rl and goes off to kill some random ass people, just for some laughs. No laughing here. He adds a punchline to every kill, too. Every time he killed someone, he would do some karate flips and finish it all off with one of his signature punchlines. In the case of someone who was hard of hearing, he would say "Here, have an EAR of corn!" then shove it up their ass. OR we can actually take an example from the movie! He just got done killing a cop and was on his way to killing the only person who ever stood up for him. Her father, the sheriff, yelled to the madman to stop, and he said "Hey, stay awhile!" and threw a dagger threw his chest and stuck him onto some tree. In the end of the movie, he killed two guys and threw in the punchline "Gotta split!" and killed two guys by shoving a scythe into their heads. Wowzors, this movie made me want to cream my pants so bad. Maybe next time this guy makes a movie, it won't be gay.

I was really, really disappointed with this movie. it started really well, and built up some great atmosphere and suspense, but when it finally got round to revealing the "monster"...it turned out to be just some psycho with skin problems......again. Whoop-de-do. Yet another nutjob movie...like we don't already have enough of them.<br /><br />To be fair, the "creep" is genuinely unsettling to look at, and the way he moves and the strange sounds he makes are pretty creepy, but I'm sick of renting film like this only to discover that the monster is human, albeit a twisted, demented, freakish one. When I saw all the tell-tale rats early on I was hoping for some kind of freaky rat-monster hybrid thing...it was such a let down when the Creep was revealed.<br /><br />On top of this, some of the stuff in this movie makes no sense. (Spoiler) <br /><br />Why the hell does the Creep kill the security Guard? Whats the point, apart from sticking a great honking sign up that says "HI I'm A PSYCHO AND I LIVE DOWN HERE!"? Its stupid, and only seems to happen to prevent Franka Potente's character from getting help.<br /><br />what the hells he been eating down there? I got the impression he was effectively walled in, and only the unexpected opening into that tunnel section let him loose...so has he been munching rats all that time, and if so why do they hang around him so much? Why is he so damn hard to kill? He's thin, malnourished and not exactly at peak performance...but seems to keep going despite injuries that are equivalent to those that .cripple the non-psycho characters in the film.<br /><br />The DVD commentary says we are intended to empathise with Creep, but I just find him loathsome. Its an effective enough movie, but it wasted so many opportunities that it makes me sick.

It's impossible for me to objectively consider this movie. Not that I haven't tried, mind you - but I sit down, and I pop in the aged VHS, and I watch the opening...and suddenly I'm five years old again and clutching my very own Care Bear and watching the movie with open eyes and an eager heart.<br /><br />I can see, objectively, that this movie is a BIZARRE combination of cuddly baby merchandising-mascots and creepy prepubescent children with evil powers that has a thin story and uninteresting animation. But my inner five-year-old goes, "Yay! Care Bears!" every time I think about it. So - I'd only (cautiously, reluctantly) recommend this movie for those who saw it during their early youth and can call on the awesome power of nostalgia while watching it (like me) OR those lovably cynical Gen-X/Y-ers who deliberately seek out the wonderfully bad/strange (a category in which this movie...definitely belongs). To those actually looking for a compelling movie or wholesome family entertainment: You might want to keep looking.

I desperately want to give this movie a 10...I really do. Some movies, especially horror movies are so budget that they are good. A wise-cracking ninja scarecrow who can implement corn cobs as lethal weaponry...definitely fits this 'budget to brilliance' system. The depth of the movie is definitely its strong point and the twists and turns it implements, keeping the audience at the edge of their seats really drives the creepy...ninja... puberty-stricken... pre-thirty year old student...non-cowboy drawing...wise-cracking...son-of-a-bitch scarecrow into the limelight as the creepiest horror icon of the year. All I can really say is, 'can you dig it' and recommend watching movies such as Frankenfish if you enjoy this sort of hilarious horror.<br /><br />(WHAT THE HELL WERE THEY SMOKING!?'

Mere thoughts of "Going Overboard" (aka "Babes Ahoy") make me want to weep. Throwing yourself out a window would be better than watching this movie. It's not even a supposed "so bad it's good" movie. I would spend money to buy copies of this movie and burn them so that people can't see it. Oh the pain, the pain...

Two years ago, on Berlin Film Festival we watched the Amos Kollek movie "Sue" in the Panorama program, with a wonderful Anna Thomson in the leading part. It's a film about loneliness and sex, and how the one thing is compensated by the other. In the same section on the Festival now we have to complain the superfluous antithesis of Sue, "Extension du domaine de la lutte", which now tries to convince us that loneliness and having NO sex is one and the same problem. But unfortunately we can't sympathize with "our hero" (how he is called by the story-teller), because he is unnecessarily and incomprehensibly tired of company and himself. Own fault, I'm sorry. I can't understand him. Not enough, the writer/director/actor want us admitting to him, that it's not his destroyed self-consciousness or the passivity of his personality, what brought him so far, but the rotten society and its image of sexuality. Yes, there are some deeper insights about gender relations, but we won't follow him so far... And the point is, that there is rather any sign of reflection about his own portion to the fate, having no sex. Who didn't notice yet, it's a quite depressing film...<br /><br />In the beginning, there had been some starts to be more accurate in sketching the situation. At the bed store the "hero" speaks about the hindrances buying a new bed. Perhaps it's too broad getting up the stairs, you have to stay at home half a day... THIS is a satire about a character, who doesn't know taking the life and heart in hands, DOING something... The movie doesn`t follow this path, but handles his characters with helplessness. Nobody believes, that "our hero" is able to instigate Tisserand for a murder. Too dull, too kind, too - passive (not to mention Tisserand's complex; he has an inhibition, but he couldn't be, of course, a murderer of women!). To finish: There are women and the world, it's not a device of a modern sexualized society. Help you as you can, but don't follow the messages and the "wisdom" of this movie, which announces bankruptcy to human relationships, without seizing the real conflicts within.

This is the biggest insult to TMNT ever. Fortunantely, officially Venus does not exist in canon TMNT. There will never be a female turtle, this took away from the tragic tale of 4 male unique mutants who will never have a family of their own, once gone no more. The biggest mistake was crossing over Power Rangers to TMNT with a horrible episode; the turtle's voices were WRONG and they all acted out of character. They could have done such a better job, better designs and animatronics and NO VENUS. <br /><br />don't bother with this people...it's cringe worthy material. the lip flap was slow and unnatural looking. they totally disrespected shredder. the main baddie, some dragonlord dude was corny. the turtles looked corny with things hanging off their bodies, what's with the thing around raph's thigh? the silly looking sculpted plastrons!? <br /><br />If they looked normal, acted in character and got rid of Venus, got rid of the stupid kiddie cartoon sounds...and better writing it could have been good.

When I ordered this from Blockbuster's website I had no idea that it would be as terrible as it was. Who knows? Maybe I'd forgotten to take my ADD meds that day. I do know that from the moment the cast drove up in their station wagon, donned in their late 70's-style wide collars, bell-bottoms and feathered hair, I knew that this misplaced gem of the disco era was glory bound for the dumpster.<br /><br />The first foretelling of just how bad things were to be was the narration at the beginning, trying to explain what cosmic forces were at play to wreak havoc upon the universe, forcing polyester and porno-quality music on the would-be viewer. From the opening scene with the poorly-done effects to the "monsters" from another world and then the house which jumps from universe to universe was as achingly painful as watching an elementary school production of 'The Vagina Monologues'.<br /><br />Throughout the film, the sure sign something was about to happen was when a small ship would appear. The "ship" was comprised suspiciously of what looked like old VCR and camcorder parts and would attack anyone in its path. Of course if moved slower than Bob Barker's impacted bowels, but it had menacing pencil-thin armatures and the ability to cast a ominous green glow that could stop bullets and equipped with a laser capable of cutting through mere balsa wood in an hour or two (with some assistance).<br /><br />Moving on... As the weirdness and bell bottoms continue... We found out that they're caught in a "Space Time Warp". How do we garner this little nugget of scientific information? Because the oldest male lead tells his son that, in a more or less off-the-cuff fashion, like reminiscing about 'how you won the big game' over a cup of joe or an ice-cold bottle of refreshing Coca-Cola. Was pops a scientist? Nope, but he knew about horses and has apparently meddled as an amateur in string theory and Einstein's theories.<br /><br />The recording I watched on DVD was almost bootleg quality. The sound was muddy and the transfer looked like it had been shot off a theater screen with the video recorder on a cell phone, other than that, it was really, really, really bad. (There's not enough 'really's' to describe it, really).<br /><br />I know some out there love this movie and compare it to other cult classics. I never saw this film on its original release, but even back then I think I would've come to the same conclusion: bury this one quick.

This movie never made it to theaters in our area, so when it became available on DVD I was one of the first to rent it. For once, I should listened to the critics and passed on this one.<br /><br />Despite the excellent line up of actors the movie was very disappointing. I can see now why it went straight to video. <br /><br />I had thought that with Bloom, Ledger, and Rush it could have some value. All have done wonderful work in the past. <br /><br />The movie was slow moving and never pulled me in. I failed to develop much empathy for the characters and had to fight the urge to fast-forward just to get to the end. <br /><br />I do not recommend this film even if you are thinking of renting it for only for 'eye candy' purposes. It won't satisfy even that.

"Plan B" is strictly by-the-numbers fare except for one thing. I surprisingly found it to be rather insulting.<br /><br />Jon Cryer is the "star" of this film and plays his usual, smarmy, egotistical, snotty character that was actually endearing in "Pretty In Pink" and has NOT been amusing ever since. Grating doesn't even begin to describe his performance. Ricky (Mark Matheisen) is a muscular, blonde, struggling actor who (gasp!) is only worried about his hair and getting laid. Talk about a stock character...ugh. At least the other three characters are somewhat engaging. Lisa Darr and Lance Guest play a grounded, optimistic, caring couple who are struggling to conceive. Since they are not whiny drama queens, however, their roles are apparently considered boring and they aren't given enough screen time. Sara Mornell rounds out the cast by playing Gina, your usual nice and good-looking young woman who just can't seem to find the right partner in love. I've seen this character a million times before but at least her performance overcomes some of the shortfalls caused by the predictability of her situation.<br /><br />What startled me about this film was its juvenile promotion of stereotypes. They introduced a Russian character for the sole purpose of mocking him and making fun of the way he talked. He was portrayed as being wild, ignorant and amazingly shallow. They were just getting warmed up though for the usual nonsense about gays. Gina decides to be gay for a while since she isn't having any luck with guys. Honestly. That wasn't that bad except they really went overboard when Gina brought a lesbian to a Christmas party her friends were throwing. Her lesbian date had very short hair (like I'm sure all lesbians do). She also got quite upset (like I'm sure all lesbians do) when Gina had the nerve to put on lipstick(!). Finally, her date goes around the party hitting on just about every woman there and mouths off when Gina expresses her disappointment. Of course, we all know how gay people can't stay faithful for so much as a couple of hours much less months or even years, right? (Please note the sarcasm in that statement. Thank you.)<br /><br />This film was based on a tired and predictable premise to begin with but Cryer's unlikable performance combined with the idiotic stereotyping sinks this movie to the lower depths of cinema. 2/10

What I hate about this show is how poorly the leads are written. These women have no self-respect or dignity. The entire plot is them throwing themselves at guys. Amanda Bynes' talent is completely wasted. She was brilliant on "All That" and her own show. Why they would write her and Jenny Garth as vapid, airhead, desperate, men chasing, "old-maid" wannabes is beyond me.<br /><br />Their plots and dialog remind me of "The Simpons", Homer says whenever his cartoon character Poochie is not on screen, "Everyone should ask, where's Poochie?". All the talk centers on whining about some guy, and then whining to some guy. Sometimes they change it up and the guy whines instead. Then they get back together or break up at the end. The 2 women are either shallow, stupid, or sex addicts. The only word I can think of is "sucks".

This was an absolutely terrible movie. Don't be lured in by Christopher Walken or Michael Ironside. Both are great actors, but this must simply be their worst role in history. Even their great acting could not redeem this movie's ridiculous storyline. This movie is an early nineties US propaganda piece. The most pathetic scenes were those when the Columbian rebels were making their cases for revolutions. Maria Conchita Alonso appeared phony, and her pseudo-love affair with Walken was nothing but a pathetic emotional plug in a movie that was devoid of any real meaning. I am disappointed that there are movies like this, ruining actor's like Christopher Walken's good name. I could barely sit through it.

The competition for the worst Warner Bros Kay Francis movie is stiff. I've only seen perhaps eight of them, but Comet over Broadway is the worst so far. The very best thing about it is that it's short. Oh, and the Orry-Kelly gowns (of course) are fine. James Wong Howe's cinematography is not. Kay Francis throughout looks fat-faced and far less attractive than she normally does. Minna Gombell whom I don't know otherwise is good as a semi-tough "burlesque" dancer (it looked more like a fashion show than burlesque). The closing shot - Kay Francis and her child (when did the child learn that Kay Francis was her mother? Did I doze off?) walking up a dirt path toward a prison painted in misty outlines on a sound stage drop is beyond ludicrous. The whole film is so cheap, so implausible and so careless that it feels infected by a sour cynicism on the part of everyone who made it: Warner Bros tossing garbage to dolts who don't know, in Warner Bros' cynical estimation of them, that what they're getting is garbage.

I'm trying to picture the pitch for Dark Angel. "I'm thinking Matrix, I'm thinking Bladerunner, I'm thinking that chick that plays Faith in Angel, wearing shiny black leather - or some chick just like her, leave that one with us. Only - get this! - we'll do it without any plot, dialogue, character, decent action or budget, just some loud bangs and a hot chick in shiny black leather straddling a big throbbing bike. Fanboys dig loud bangs and hot chicks in shiny black leather straddling big throbbing bikes, right?"<br /><br />Flashy, shallow, dreary, formulaic, passionless, tedious, dull, dumb, humourless, desultory, barely competent. Live action anime without any action, or indeed any life. SF just the way Joe Fanboy likes it, in fact. :(

The Good Earth follows the life a slave girl and a poor farmer in China. The movie is based on the novel by Pearl S. Buck. The story is great, but I hated that they decided to cast Anglos in the lead roles. Walter Connolly is laughable as the farmer's father. He has such a heavy American accent, as do most of the lead actors, that I could not bear listening to him speak.<br /><br />It is a shame that Hollywood could not get past their racist beliefs to cast Asians in the lead roles. To take Anglos and make them look like Chinese is akin to Anglos putting shoe polish on their faces to play African-Americans.

First of all, Jon Bon Jovi doesn't seem to be in place in a vampire movie. Together with the other not so interesting characters and the poor storyline the whole movie becomes predictable. If you keep that in mind and you're a total vampire movie fan, you can have some fun with a few of the scenes. Don't expect any Tarantino-style chapters here and neither an Anne Rice storyline. (I expect to have have forgotten the whole movie by tomorrow ;)

This was a disappointing horror film about a snotty young girl and her nightmares. For a horror or "thriller" film and hype, it's way too tame. There are only a few tense moments in here, not anywhere as near as many as should have been for a film of this genre. Even those "tense" scenes weren't much. The music made them more dramatic that they actually were.<br /><br />There is a lot of symbolism in here, so the elitist critics label this "a thinking person's horror film." Well, if they think about it, I'm sure they will come to the same conclusion I did - a waste of money at the video rental store.<br /><br />Summary: a yawner that offers an unlikeable lead character and generally poor acting. Vastly overrated and certainly not what it is advertised.

Really, I can't believe that I spent $5 on this movie. I am a huge zombie fanatic and thought the movie couldn't be that bad. It had zombies in it right? Was I wrong! To be honest the movie had it's moments...I thought it was cool when the guy got his head ripped off but that was about it. Overall I think that it would be more enjoyable to slide down a razorblade slide on my bare nutsack into a vat of vinegar then watch this movie again. The movie could have been better if we could see some boob but I had to watch the trailers for the other movies produced by this company to see that. Buyer beware...unless you are into masochism.

It's amazing that this movie turns out to be in one of my hitlists after all. It is by far the number 1 worst movie I have ever seen.<br /><br />Not only have I ever been this bored before (luckily not for more then 1,5 hours), the pre-adolescent attempts at humor that feature it are not even close to getting but one of the corners of my mouth slightly tilted. After the first very awkward part, you tend to hope that the other parts will be at least slightly better. You hope in vain, it only goes downhill from there.<br /><br />The movie has no story worth telling whatsoever and repeats this non-story three times. One can only hope that by some miracle all remaining copies of this movie are lost forever and Trent Harris never lays his hands on a camera again...

A film with very little positive to say for it.<br /><br />Firstly it has zero pace and is positively lacking in any drama.<br /><br />Besides being remarkably slow The Empty Acre seems dedicated to using the same stock footage again and again. I lost count of how many times I had seen "that" field at night or that bit of cracked earth.<br /><br />It also has the fundamental flaw of thinking that if the audience don't know about things they will be gripped rather than just confused. So with no signs that there are any issues we suddenly find the marriage is not what it seems to be despite being given the impression that it's fine. We find Jacob is possibly the worst farmer in the universe as he seems to spend no time on the farm and also seems to have bought land with a wholly useless acre. Beth has a key to a warehouse of books? There are innumerable other questions some of which are resolved later in the movie, much later, in fact too late.<br /><br />And on the point of the acre. Horror filmmakers note that large inanimate objects are inherently not scary – and also if they're meant to be an acre big then make them so.<br /><br />There is also a frightening lack of reasonability as Beth (the best performer in the piece, followed by Jefferson – the cop) suddenly appears to be accused of everything under the sun just because she is on "medication".<br /><br />With the full ten minutes plus of running round the fields looking for the missing child (did he crawl out of the window? He's six months old) the film descends into badly written scene after badly written scene. Bad plinky plonk "horror" music fails to add atmosphere.<br /><br />Often bad films can be amusing but not The Empty Acre, which is just bad.

Over Christmas break, a group of college friends stay behind to help prepare the dorms to be torn down and replaced by apartment buildings. To make the work a bit more difficult, a murderous, Chucks-wearing psycho is wandering the halls of the dorm, preying on the group in various violent ways.<br /><br />Registered as one of the 74 'video nasties' listed by the U.K. in the 1980s, The Dorm That Dripped Blood had a good reputation built up for it prior to first viewing. The term 'video nasty' strikes into mind some images of some great explicit gore, violence, sex, etc.: All the things a horror fan dreams of. So, after hearing all of that info, I settled into Pranks (alt. title) expecting a sleazy slasher experience. . . and that's what it tried to be, but failed pretty much completely. Visually, the film's not great. The cinematography, gore (except for a couple scenes), and overall direction all fail. It's simply not enjoyable to watch. The unoriginal script is lacking and often throws in random things without any real reason (like the opening kill). There are some cool death scenes, including a pretty nice face melt (which can be seen on the poster), but that's about it for the positive. The acting is pretty bad, the story seems unimportant, the killer isn't cool or scary, and it suffers the one major error that any slasher flick should always avoid: it's a bit boring. Overall, for a film done by a few UCLA film students for $90,000 (which would be over double that today), The Dorm That Dripped Blood isn't a total mess. It has a couple good things, and is fairly watchable. . . But, as a slasher flick looking to be on the level of films like The House on Sorority Row and Pieces. . . it just cannot compare. Don't expect much, and you may at least be entertained. I hate to say it, but this is one of the few films I've seen that would actually be better with a remake. . . and yet, they go after great works like Black Christmas. Oh well. . .<br /><br />Obligatory Horror Elements:<br /><br />- Subgenre: Slasher<br /><br />- Violence/Gore: There are some brutally cool kills, and the gore is okay for the most part. . . but nothing special. Also, they off-screened some of the best murders.<br /><br />- Sex/Nudity: There's a little unappealing (to me) nudity, but not very much.<br /><br />- Cool Killer(s): Nah. The ending monologue(s) of the killer made him/her pretty uncool.<br /><br />- Scares/Suspense: A jump scare or two, but nothing too effective.<br /><br />- Mystery: I suppose, yeah, but I simply didn't care enough, and it's as obvious as the nose on the killer's face.<br /><br />- - -<br /><br />Final verdict: 3.75/10. Bah! Humbug! <br /><br />-AP3-

"I Am Curious: Yellow" is a risible and pretentious steaming pile. It doesn't matter what one's political views are because this film can hardly be taken seriously on any level. As for the claim that frontal male nudity is an automatic NC-17, that isn't true. I've seen R-rated films with male nudity. Granted, they only offer some fleeting views, but where are the R-rated films with gaping vulvas and flapping labia? Nowhere, because they don't exist. The same goes for those crappy cable shows: schlongs swinging in the breeze but not a clitoris in sight. And those pretentious indie movies like The Brown Bunny, in which we're treated to the site of Vincent Gallo's throbbing johnson, but not a trace of pink visible on Chloe Sevigny. Before crying (or implying) "double-standard" in matters of nudity, the mentally obtuse should take into account one unavoidably obvious anatomical difference between men and women: there are no genitals on display when actresses appears nude, and the same cannot be said for a man. In fact, you generally won't see female genitals in an American film in anything short of porn or explicit erotica. This alleged double-standard is less a double standard than an admittedly depressing ability to come to terms culturally with the insides of women's bodies.

Worst mistake of my life.<br /><br />I picked this movie up at Target for $5 because I figured, "Hey, it's Sandler I can get some cheap laughs". I was wrong, completely wrong. Mid-way through the film all three of my friends were asleep and I was still suffering. Worst plot, Worst script, Worst movie I have ever seen. I wanted to hit my head up against a wall for an hour, then I'd stop, and you know why? Because it felt damn good. Upon bashing my head in i stuck that damn movie in the microwave and watched it burn....and that felt better than anything else I've ever done. It took American Psycho, Army of Darkness, and Kill Bill just to get over that crap. I HATE YOU SANDLER FOR ACTUALLY GOING THROUGH WITH THIS AND RUINING A WHOLE DAY OF MY LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jamie Foxx is my favorite comedian. However, I feel that he sold out in order to gain his first big budget lead role. Foxx follows in the footsteps of the likes of Chris Tucker, Martin Lawrence and Dave Chapple, who have all seen their talents wasted by stereotyping producers who think black males who commit pretty crimes is a funny concept (See: Money Talks, Blue Streak).<br /><br />Okay I laughed a few times and granted all of these comedians continue to pick up hilarious roles, but I would love to see these guys branch out ala Marlon Wayans portrayal in Requiem to a Dream. Or In Living Color's Tommy Davidson and Damon Wayans moving performances in Spike Lee's satire Bamboozled.

If I had not read Pat Barker's 'Union Street' before seeing this film, I would have liked it. Unfortuntately this is not the case. It is actually my kind of film, it is well made, and in no way do I want to say otherwise, but as an adaptation, it fails from every angle.<br /><br />The harrowing novel about the reality of living in a northern England working-class area grabbed hold of my heartstrings and refused to let go for weeks after I had finished. I was put through tears, repulsion, shock, anger, sympathy and misery when reading about the women of Union Street. Excellent. A novel that at times I felt I could not read any more of, but I novel I simply couldn't put down. Depressing yes, but utterly gripping.<br /><br />The film. Oh dear. Hollywood took Barker's truth and reality, and showered a layer of sweet icing sugar over the top of it. A beautiful film, an inspiring soundtrack, excellent performances, a tale of hope and romance...yes. An adaptation of 'Union Street'...no.<br /><br />The women of Union Street and their stories are condensed into Fonda's character, their stories are touched on, but many are discarded. I accept that some of Barker's tales are sensitive issues and are too horrific for mass viewing, and that a film with around 7 leading protagonists just isn't practical, but the content is not my main issue. The essence and the real gut of the novel is lost - darkness and rain, broken windows covered with cardboard, and the graphically described stench of poverty is replaced with sunshine, pretty houses, and a twinkling William's score.<br /><br />If you enjoyed the film for its positivity and hope in the face of 'reality', I advise that you hesitate to read the book without first preparing yourself for something more like 'Schindler's List'...but without the happy ending.

Films starring child actors put themselves on the back foot from the very beginning. While there are some exceptions, the majority of kids just cant act and even the ones that can normally become annoying after a few minutes. The kids in Paperhouse have managed to capture the worst of both worlds, as they're both very annoying and they don't have an ounce of acting ability between them. In short; they're rubbish. This isn't good considering that they're the leads, and it especially isn't good when you consider the fact that it is virtually impossible to take this film seriously because of the rubbish actors. It's a shame that this film is such a dead loss as the plot isn't (not completely). It follows a young girl who, after drawing a picture of a house in her notebook, wakes up in the fantasy world that she has created. It soon becomes apparent to her that she can manipulate this world through her drawings, and so sets about making various changes, until her dream eventually becomes a nightmare. Oh dear.<br /><br />As you can see, this plot line gives a nice base for a good fantasy horror movie. However, it is squandered through a number of fatal faults. First and foremost, in spite of the premise being an excellent premise for lots of inventiveness; the movie is extremely stale. The central plot is hardly played with at all, and the result is an entirely boring experience. The lack of tension is another huge gaping flaw in the movie, as it sees fit to drag every sequence out to a point that you just don't care any more (which is due to a lack of ideas). Thanks in part to it's lead characters, the film feels like a kids movie throughout. This is to be expected as it stars kids, but Bernard Rose should have decided the slant that he wanted to put on the story; as the horror in the movie is laughable at best. The film is also very cheesy, and the 'romance' between the two leads is extremely cringe-worthy, and makes for very painful viewing. In fact, if I had to sum this travesty up in one word, I would choose 'painful'. Paperhouse is poorly acted, laughably plotted, very corny and dull on the whole. Save yourself the pain, see something else.

Protocol is an implausible movie whose only saving grace is that it stars Goldie Hawn along with a good cast of supporting actors. The story revolves around a ditzy cocktail waitress who becomes famous after inadvertently saving the life of an Arab dignitary. The story goes downhill halfway through the movie and Goldie's charm just doesn't save this movie. Unless you are a Goldie Hawn fan don't go out of your way to see this film.

Bad movie for sure. It's such a ridiculous fantasy with a lot of poor special effects, a lot of hasty scenes (the airport one for example), and a real unfunny time. (Charles Dance) is awful as the evil guy and he is much better in (Last Action Hero). (Eddie Murphy) is doing a non-comic joking, and I heard that this sunk had already succeed, big time success??!! I'll never understand why or how ?! In one TV interview I've heard (Eddie Murphy) himself, when he was nominated for an Oscar 2007, regretted it in a comic way !! <br /><br />One of the comments said (Hey...It's the 1980s !). Well, no my friend. It's the cinematic foolishness which made a lot of RAZZIE movies all over the years whether it's the 1980s or the 1950s ! <br /><br />There are 2 reasons made me write about this movie. The first is that I'll never forget the long tan fascinating legs of (Charlotte Lewis) especially when she was on bed before the bad guys attack her house, wearing just a blue shirt and OH BOY the camera was versifying about her naked legs as it should be. But how odd ! As I've watched her in following movies and she wasn't that beautiful again ?!! Anyhow the second reason is that I've found this movie's title lately at my list of the worst 100 movies ever!<br /><br />The bottom line: Bad movie, Greeeeeat legs.

This one probably does not fit in the bottom of the barrel of mediocre Slasher movies but it's surely a damn bad movie.<br /><br />The Holiday premise made it kind of interesting but after the first scenes the movie demonstrates it's poor production values and stupid plot. I mean, the sub-genre was at the moment all about an unseen maniac slashing teens for no apparent reasons but this one took it too far. There is absolutely no coherence in the events or nothing else to add.<br /><br />The clichès are more than boring, the gore is minimal, and so does the mystery.<br /><br />This is a fairly mediocre slasher entry that shouldn't be hyped even if it has a video nastie label.<br /><br />I am truly disappointed by this overrated piece of trash.

This movie appears to have been made by someone with some good ideas but who also never had made a movie before nor had they considered that a script should be edited or even funny. When I saw this film, I saw it for John Candy and assumed, incorrectly, that it would be hilarious. Instead, there was a stupid plot about mind control and so many flat, unfunny moments. And, to top it off, Candy delivered some of the crudest lines I had ever heard up to that time. So, despite a potentially funny cast and story idea, we are left with an amateurish and crude movie that will probably be too stupid for the average adult, though teens will probably find a few laughs. It's really a shame--it could have been so much better. I mean, with Eugene Levy, Joe Flaherty and John Candy it SHOULD have been wonderful.

(aka: The Bloodsucker Leads the Dance)<br /><br />Lots of naked babes in this one with a couple of lesbo scenes thrown in. The film is supposed to take place in Ireland but it looks more like Rome and the Adriatic to me.<br /><br />Gothic lesbians get invited to a Count's island castle for the weekend. One by one they seem to be missing their heads due to a madperson running around.<br /><br />It's not very scary or bloody and the rooms look like they are lit with floodlights even though candles are lit. Go figure...(sic)<br /><br />Dubbing is worse than usual and the plot only serves as an excuse for the eroticism and nudity. Directed by euro horror actor Alfredo Rizzo, this is one snoozer.<br /><br />Pretty boring 2 out of 10

Lillian Hellman's play, adapted by Dashiell Hammett with help from Hellman, becomes a curious project to come out of gritty Warner Bros. Paul Lukas, reprising his Broadway role and winning the Best Actor Oscar, plays an anti-Nazi German underground leader fighting the Fascists, dragging his American wife and three children all over Europe before finding refuge in the States (via the Mexico border). They settle in Washington with the wife's wealthy mother and brother, though a boarder residing in the manor is immediately suspicious of the newcomers and spends an awful lot of time down at the German Embassy playing poker. It seems to take forever for this drama to find its focus, and when we realize what the heart of the material is (the wise, honest, direct refugees teaching the clueless, head-in-the-sand Americans how the world has suddenly changed), it seems a little patronizing--the viewer is quite literally put in the relatives' place, being lectured to. Lukas has several speeches in the third-act which undoubtedly won him the Academy Award, yet for the much of the picture he seems to do little but enter and exit, enter and exit. As his spouse, Bette Davis enunciates like nobody else and works her wide eyes to good advantage, but the role doesn't allow her much color. Their children (all with divergent accents!) are alternately humorous and annoying, and Geraldine Fitzgerald has a nothing role as a put-upon wife (and the disgruntled texture she brings to the part seems entirely wrong). The intent here was to tastefully, tactfully show us just because a (WWII-era) man may be German, that doesn't make him a Nazi sympathizer. We get that in the first few minutes; the rest of this tasteful, tactful movie is made up of exposition, defensive confrontation and, ultimately, compassion. It should be a heady mix, but instead it's rather dry-eyed and inert. ** from ****

This flick was a blow to me. I guess little girls should aspire to be nothing more than swimsuit models, home makers or mistresses, since that seems to be all they'll ever be portrayed as anyway. It is truly saddening to see an artist's work and life being so unjustly misinterpretated. Inconcievably (or perhaps it should have been expected), Artemisia's entire character and all that she stands for, had been reduced to a standard Hollywood, female character; a pitiful, physically flawless, helpless little creature, displaying none of the character traits that actually got her that place in history which was being mutilated here. Sadder yet, was to see that a great part of the audience was too badly educated in the area to comprehend the incredible gap between the message conveyed in the film, and reality. To portray the artist as someone in love with her real-life rapist, someone whom she in reality accused of raping her even when under torture, just plain pisses me off. If the director had nothing more substantial to say she should have refrained from basing her story on a real person.

I saw this DVD in my friends house and thought that this was a Turkish action movie with some Hollywood-not very big-names in it. Interested enough I decide to give it a shot later.. It was a tough to bear experience believe me. Then, after finally seeing the credits roll I tought 'We Turks really suck at Hollywood style film making.. This is an insult to the heist|hostage movie genre..' but then wait! I checked some names and no, they were not Turkish names and no, this was not a Turkish movie; on the contrary it was literally shot in America with an American director & crew! That made me thinking-again!- How on earth can you persuade names like Micheal Madsen, Edward Furlong or even Arnold Vosloo to take part in such a project? with money probably.. That kept me thinking further.. How can you raise such amount of money to offer them and a supposedly international cast? Then all my meditation paid off and I came to find the answer.By hiring the cheapest equipment and crew that you can find. And if you still have to difficulty in adjustin your budget then: by writing and directing the movie you are trying to produce-or vice versa I don't have any information on that-. So bottom line this is not a bad movie as everybody are so anxious to present as.. It makes you think -in my case even meditate- and there are a lot of movies outthere that doesn't give even that affect.. This one at least makes you think; It makes you wonder.. It leaves you with disbelief.. and then It makes you wonder again..

"Valentine" is another horror movie to add to the stalk and slash movie list (think "Halloween", "Friday the 13th", "Scream", and "I Know What You Did Last Summer"). It certainly isn't as good as those movies that I have listed about, but it's better than most of the ripoffs that came out after the first "Friday the 13th" film. One of those films was the 1981 Canadian made "My Bloody Valentine", which I hated alot. "Valentine" is a better film than that one, but it's not saying much. The plot: a nerdy young boy is teased and pranked by a couple of his classmates at the beginning of the film. Then the film moves years later when those classmates are all grown up, then they're picked off one-by-one. The killer is presumed to be the young boy now all grown up looking for revenge. But is it him? Or could it be somebody else? "Valentine" has an attractive cast which includes Denise Richards, David Boreanaz, Marley Shelton, Jessica Capshaw, and Katherine Heigl. They do what they can with the material they've got, but a lackluster script doesn't really do them any justice. There are some scary moments throughout, however. <br /><br />** (out of four)

I saw this film opening weekend in Australia, anticipating with an excellent cast of Ledger, Edgerton, Bloom, Watts and Rush that the definitive story of Ned Kelly would unfold before me. Unfortunately, despite an outstanding performance by Heath Ledger in the lead role, the plot was paper thin....which doesn't inspire me to read "Our Sunshine". There were some other plus points, the support acting from Edgerton in particular, assured direction from Jordan (confirming his talent on show in Buffalo Soldiers as well), and production design that gave a real feel of harshness to the Australian bush, much as the Irish immigrants of the early 19th century must have seen it. But I can't help feeling that another opportunity has been missed to tell the real story of an Australian folk hero (or was he?)....in what I suspect is a concession to Hollywood and selling the picture in the US. Oh well, at least Jordan and the producers didn't agree to lose the beards just to please Universal...<br /><br />Guess I will just have to content myself with Peter Carey's excellent "Secret History of the Kelly Gang". 4/10

This video nasty was initially banned in Britain, and allowed in last November without cuts.<br /><br />It features the Playboy Playmate of the Month October 1979, Ursula Buchfellner. The opening cuts back and forth between Buchfellner and foggy jungle pictures. I am not sure what the purpose of that was. It would have been much better to focus on the bathtub scene.<br /><br />Laura (Buchfellner) is kidnapped and held in the jungle for ransom. Peter (Al Cliver - The Beyond, Zombie) is sent to find her and the ransom. Of course, one of the kidnappers (Antonio de Cabo) manages to pass the time productively, while another (Werner Pochath) whines incessantly.<br /><br />The ransom exchange goes to hell, and Laura runs into the jungle. Will Peter save her before the cannibals have a meal? Oh, yes, there are cannibals in this jungle. Why do you think it was a video nasty! Muriel Montossé is found by Peter and his partner (Antonio Mayans - Angel of Death) on the kidnapper's boat. Montossé is very comfortably undressed. Peter leaves them and goes off alone to find Laura, who has been captured by now. They pass the time having sex, and don't see the danger approaching. Guts, anyone? Great fight between Peter and the naked devil (Burt Altman).<br /><br />Blood, decapitation, guts, lots of full frontal, some great writhing by the cannibal priestess (Aline Mess), and the line, "They tore her heart out," which is hilarious if you see the film.

Silly, simplistic, and short, GUN CRAZY (VOLUME 1: A WOMAN FROM NOWHERE) goes nowhere.<br /><br />This brief (just over sixty minutes) tale isn't so much inspired by the classic spaghetti Westerns as it is a rip-off of Sam Raimi's THE QUICK & THE DEAD (his admitted homage to the spaghetti Westerns) brought into a contemporary setting. In QUICK & DEAD, Sharon Stone's character seeks revenge against the dastardly sheriff (played by Gene Hackman) who, when she was but an urchin, placed the fate of her father (a brief cameo by Gary Sinise) in her hands; she accidentally shot him through the head. In GUN CRAZY, Saki (played by the nimble Ryoko Yonekura) seeks revenge against the dastardly Mr. Tojo (played with minimalist appeal by Shingo Tsurumi), who, when she was but an urchin, placed the fate of her father in her hands; she let her foot slip off the clutch, and dear ole dad was drawn and quartered by a semi truck. The only significant difference, despite the settings, is the fact that Tojo sadistically cripples Saki with … well, I won't spoil that for you in case you decide to watch it.<br /><br />In short, Saki – a pale imitation of the Clint Eastwood's 'Man With No Name' – rides into the town – basically, there's a auto shop and a tavern alongside an American military base, so I guess that suffices for a town – corrupted by Tojo, the local crimelord with a ridiculously high price on his head for reasons never explained or explored. Confessing her true self as a bounty hunter, Saki takes on the local gunmen in shootouts whose choreography bares more than a passing similarity to the works of Johnny To and John Woo. Of course, by the end of the film Saki has endured her fair amount of torture at the hands of the bad guys, but she rises to the occasion – on her knees, in a laughable attempt at a surprise ending – and vanquishes all of her enemies with a rocket launcher.<br /><br />Don't ask where she gets the rocket launcher. Just watch it for yourself. Try not to laugh.<br /><br />The image quality is average for the DVD release. There is a grainy quality to several sequences, but, all in all, this isn't a bad transfer. The sound quality leaves a bit to the imagination at times, but, again, it isn't a bad transfer.<br /><br />Rather, it's a bad film.

(some spoilers) - as if you wouldn't know how it'll end<br /><br />My expectations for HOLLOW MAN were high. A very good commercial, a director like Paul Verhoeven and actors like Kevin Bacon and Elisabeth Shue, plus a very interesting theme - invisibility. Every premise for a great movie was accomplished. Unfortunately these things didn't matter at all. The movie was very very week, without suspense and awfully predictable. <br /><br />It's all about a bunch of scientists who discovered invisibility. After the tests on animals succeeded, Kevin Bacon decides to test it on himself. Once he's invisible, he changes completely, realizing the advantages of not being seen. From this to murder there's a very thin line.<br /><br />Hollow Man is an ill movie. It suffers of the disease that many new movies have: the special effects. From a challenging theme that could have lead the producers to a great tensed psychological thriller, Verhoeven ruins everything focusing only on special effects, without giving a damn about the real value of the movie. I must admit, the fx are awesome, probably the best i have seen since Matrix, but that's not enough to make a movie good. Actually that's the problem with the movies today. Just like Verhoeven, most directors care only about spectacular scenes - and nothing more. The exceptions are very few, and probably the Matrix is the only movie that combines perfectly fabulous special effects and great plot.<br /><br />After Starship Troopers, Verhoeven disappoints again. In stead of a great film, HM is cr*p. There are only 2 reasons why you could watch this movie: 1. the special effects 2. the joke with Superman and Wonder Woman (i won't spoil this moment for you...)<br /><br />Okay, so what went wrong with the movie? Everything. Let's see what i can remember.<br /><br />--- It's not tensed at all. It should've been, but it's not.<br /><br />--- It's too predictable . You know from the beginning who will die and who will live.<br /><br />--- In stead of focusing on the psychological part, Verhoeven cares only about the effects.<br /><br />--- Very many cliches. <br /><br />--- Of course the bad guy wakes up a few times before dying.<br /><br />--- Just like in every low quality horror, the first rule is to let the characters separate as much as possible. Every time there is somebody alone in the lab, perfect victim for Bacon.<br /><br />--- Some holes in the plot. Example: at the beginning, Bacon has to scan his finger to enter the lab. After he's invisible, how can he do that?<br /><br />--- The ending: absolutely horrible.<br /><br />--- After Shue hits Bacon in the head, Bacon falls down to the ground. Then Shue and Brolin leave quietly and slowly, without looking back. Is that normal? Then Bacon gets up, attacks them, they "kill" him again. And then Shue screams "I heard an explosion" (happened minutes ago), and they suddenly run inside. Didn't she hear that explosion some time before?<br /><br />--- There's a scene in which you can see the microphones hanging above the actors. Come on, Mr Verhoeven , i expected much more from you!<br /><br />So that's about Hollow Man. What was supposed to be a great movie turned into a scam. <br /><br />Vote: 4 out of 10 (for the special effects)

I'll admit I've only watched a handful of episodes, but each one seemed completely different from the next. It seems after the first season, the producers decided to completely retool the show, drop characters, introduce new ones, and rewrite the entire show dynamic.<br /><br />As you have probably surmised already, the show is about quirky, unpredictable teenager Holly (Amanda Bynes) who moves in with her high strung sister Valerie (Jennie Garth) in New York City. Decent enough premise: odd couple + fish out of water + high jinx.<br /><br />While I miss the sitcoms of yore, this show unfortunately misses the mark on funny repeatedly, and it's sad because they have some decent talent.<br /><br />On top of everything, they insisted on changing the show (Val was living with a cast regular bf one season, then he was suddenly gone, so she opens a bakery? what?) When things change that drastically, you get the feeling that even the *show* knows it's bad. I mean, completely new sets, characters written off and new show regulars!<br /><br />On a side note (this is just nitpicking), I know this is a television show and not real at all, but Val and Holly end up living in a HUGE loft duplex (there are stairs) with a terrace... in MANHATTAN! Are you serious!?

Chances are if I watched this again I might get physically sick, the film is so annoying.....unless you believe in psychics, re-incarnation and the other hocus- pocus which this promotes big-time. The "re-cycling of souls," they call it here. Puh-leeze.<br /><br />This story has been done several times before with such films as "Heaven Can Wait." It's also been done a lot better. Too bad they had to waste the talents of Robert Downey Jr., Cybill Shepherd, Ryan O'Neal and Mary Stuart Masterson.<br /><br />At least it's a pretty tame film, language-wise. That's about the only redeeming quality of this movie.

Nu Image, UFO and others produce films for the SCI FI channel that come in with budgets of roughly $2 million. Some feature extensive effects work, others feature recognizable casts and still others feature both -- for $2 million.<br /><br />Mr. Hines initially claimed that this film was budgeted at $20 million dollars but it's painfully obvious that this was probably produced for $750,000 if not considerably less than that. Few sets are utilized, a number of scenes are shot against green screen and most effects seem incomplete and amateurish.<br /><br />It's painful to watch. Not so much because it is poorly directed, poorly executed and misguided but because many of us have been following the progress of this production for quite some time and had high hopes for this film despite its relatively modest budget.<br /><br />Those of us who believed in this movie when it was originally announced have joined the legions of those spoken of by P.T. Barnum.

1st watched 8/3/2003 - 2 out of 10(Dir-Brad Sykes): Mindless 3-D movie about flesh-eating zombies in a 3 story within a movie chronicle. And yes, we get to see zombies eating human flesh parts in 3D!! Wow, not!! That has been done time and time again in 2D in a zombie movie but what usually makes a zombie movie better is the underlying story not the actual flesh-eating. That's what made the original zombie classics good. The flesh-eating was just thrown in as an extra. We're actually bored throughout most of this 3-part chronicle because of the lame(twilight-zone like) easily understood and slow-pacingly revealed finale's. The last story is actually the story the movie started with(having a reporter investigating a so-called ghost town) and of course we get to see flesh eating zombie's in that one as well. Well, I think I've said enough. Watch the classics, not this 3D bore-feast.

My interest in Dorothy Stratten caused me to purchase this video. Although it had great actors/actresses, there were just too many subplots going on to retain interest. Plus it just wasn't that interesting. Dialogue was stiff and confusing and the story just flipped around too much to be believable. I was pretty disappointed in what I believe was one of Audrey Hepburn's last movies. I'll always love John Ritter best in slapstick. He was just too pathetic here.

I guess I was attracted to this film both because of the sound of the story and the leading actor, so I gave it a chance, from director Gregor Jordan (Buffalo Soldiers). Basically Ned Kelly (Heath Ledger) is set up by the police, especially Superintendent Francis Hare (Geoffrey Rush), he is forced to go on the run forming a gang and go against them to clear his own and his family's names. That's really all I can say about the story, as I wasn't paying the fullest attention to be honest. Also starring Orlando Bloom as Joseph Byrne, Naomi Watts as Julia Cook, Laurence Kinlan as Dan Kelly, Philip Barantini as Steve Hart, Joel Edgerton as Aaron Sherritt, Kiri Paramore as Constable Fitzpatrick, Kerry Condon as Kate Kelly, Emily Browning as Grace Kelly and Rachel Griffiths as Susan Scott. Ledger makes a pretty good performance, for what it's worth, and the film does have it's eye-catching moments, particularly with a gun battle towards the end, but I can't say I enjoyed it as I didn't look at it all. Okay!

The same difficulty I have with the musical version of "Les Miserables" applies equally to "Oliver." Instead of the composers' writing in the stylistic period of the play settings, they merely wrote Broadway-type melodies, which were historically unidiomatic and stylistically skewed.<br /><br />Too, the blatant brutality and unsavory activities of the dramaturgy do not mix well with some of the sunny ditties which permeate the score. It's a uncomfortable mixture that leaves a decidedly sour undertaste.<br /><br />The casting of the boy Oliver doesn't help matters: tentative of timbre and vexingly precious, there's something less than solid here. Fagin performs his traditional routine adequately, though the tunes he's obliged to sing have little basis in period manner.<br /><br />"As Long As He Needs Me" is given a strident rendition, throaty and strained. The two big production numbers, "Who Will Buy" and "Consider Yourself" seem over-produced, with everything but the kitchen sink thrown in. It's one thing to go all out, yet another to cross over the line into excess. <br /><br />The gloom, despair and depravity of much of the novel does not seem to lend itself to such ditties and choreography. While the novel is considered a classic, I must confess I have trouble with Mr. Dickens' consciousness, in that his works tend to emit a negative vibration. This may be due to the extension of his joyless personal life, which was full of disappointment and regret. <br /><br />Not all the combined talent of this production, either on- or behind camera, can overcome the unconstructive nature of the basic material. All this results in an uncomfortably downer experience for me.<br /><br />

Shecky, is a god damned legend, make no mistake. Until recently I worked for a UK HiFi & Video retail chain, running their testing department. We would go through many new starters, they would be expected to to learn how to fault find the various detritus that returns as non functional in one way or another from the stores. Now to tortu^^^^^ test the resolve of these new staff members, we would issue them with a copy of Going Overboard. We had hundreds of copies of this film because whenever someone who had bought a particular model of Goodmans DVD player that had this film as a free gift, got round to sending their DVD player back, they never failed to send Shecky back also. Our new staff would be forced to use only Going Overboard to test these machines for faults until they had found a disc or two of their own to test with.<br /><br />Now, as to why this film is so bad, where do I begin?<br /><br />Adam Sandler, who can be so, so very funny, as in Happy Gilmore, or the Wedding Singer, must have been having one hell of an off day. The rest of the crew stank, and what is it with Billy Zane? His name crops up in several of the worst movies of all time, and he is a decent actor. Crazy. The production quality is absolute zero.<br /><br />I would have been inclined to give this a zero if I could, because they didn't even have the guts to call it by it's full name 'The Unsinkable Shecky Moskowitz' on release. Even so it is worth a watch so you can see just how far Sandler has come, and just how low he can go.

I can't stand most reality shows and this one is worst than the one with Paris Hilton, and sure it's his company. But "you're fired" or "you're hired", for how many seasons now? After watching the show I wouldn't want to work for the guy with his ego and all and I think watching paint dry has more entertainment valve.<br /><br />I'd love to hear just one person get up and say "Donald I quit and take some of your money and buy a decent hairdo". I see he's even trying to buy fame in the wrestling WWE. I hope he gets hurt so I don't have to see his pathetic face anymore. It must be sad to want fame so bad and have no talent and make an ass of yourself trying to buy it. I'd give this show a negative mark if I could but it gets a 1 and it doesn't deserve that.

I'm going to write about this movie and about "Irreversible" (the (in)famous scene in it). So you are warned, if you haven't seen the movie yet. This are just my thoughts, why I think the movie fails (in the end - pun intended).<br /><br />Acting wise, Rosario Dawson is really good and almost conveys portraying someone almost a decade younger (a teenager in other words). The villain guy is good, but loses his "evil" touch right before the end. If he really never changes, then why would he let a woman tie him up? He wouldn't, period. Then we also have the bartender/2nd rape Dude. Actually I don't think you would need him. At least not for the 2nd rape, but more about that later on.<br /><br />Let's reprise the story. Rosarios character is sexually insecure, might even have lesbian tendencies (see her scene with a female friend). This wasn't intentional, as Rosario states herself, but there is sexual tension between them. Rosario's character meets a guy, who is a sexual Predator, in all the bad senses. But he makes an impression on her.<br /><br />Rosario commented that her character had a boyfriend before. I beg to differ. Because she acts, as if it is her first boyfriend, which also underlines her phone conversation with her mother. Talking about her mother, here's another problem. After the first rape takes place, Rosarios character doesn't tell anyone what happened. Seiing that her relationship with her mother is a very close one, nothing of that gets explored after that. If Rosarios character wouldn't call her mother anymore or would behave strangely, the mother would be worried like crazy. There was so much potential here. Also her female friend: We see her at the party, it's obvious there is something going on and "boom" she is gone.<br /><br />The first rape is almost unbearable to watch. But feels like a pinch, when you compare it to the ending (rape), which feels like you're getting hit with a sledge hammer! After rape no. 1 we get too stretched out scenes. Threads are opened (such as her construction work is an indication that she might be lesbian, as one guy states who tried to hit on her ...), but left in the open. No real social contact is established, if you leave the bartender guy out, who is involved in the 2nd and last rape scene. It's apparent that he isn't a "nice" guy and his character get's fleshed out a bit. But when Rosarios character meets her rapist in class again, his being in the movie seems pointless. We get the point that Rosarios character isn't the same anymore, that she went "bad" and is able to hurt people. (Too) Many scenes show exactly that, her being without emotion just doing drugs and other stuff. Back to Rapist #1 who cheats on a test, gets caught by Rosarios character and they decide to hang out together again (really?). As absurd as that sounds, the guy meets up with her, not without us having seen him beforehand, with another girl (very likely that he raped her too, although we never see anything of that, fortunately) and his football career. Well career is a stretch and he is bullied. This is an attempt to give his character some depth and it almost works, but then again is too cliché to stay with you. So Rapist #1 submits to Rosarios character ... why exactly? Because he promised her, it was her day? Again, really? A guy like that never loses control, especially with a woman he raped before ... I guess this is supposed to show us how stupid he is. The bartender guy would have worked as someone who could have hit him over the head or something, but letting him submit like that, just feels wrong. Another possibility would have a drug in his drink.<br /><br />So rapist #1 undresses and get's blindfolded and let's Rosarios character tie him on a bed .... seriously, that's just crazy! But what comes next, is even crazier. First she talks to him, then she "shuts" him up and forces an object into him. This is as difficult to watch as rape scene number one. This isn't about what this guy deserves or not, it's just intense. And of course that was what they were aiming for. Now after she is "done" the bartender guy comes in and rapes ... rapist #1. If this really should work as a revenge movie, it would have been better if Rosarios character herself would have been doing all the "revenge". Having a henchman doing the job, takes away everything that was built up.<br /><br />This isn't supposed to be entertaining/enjoyable, it's a hard watch & it is Art-house. But the 10 minute (I didn't count ) rape scene at the end, just smashes everything. Rosarios character is more or less, only watching what happens. Which brings me to the biggest disappointment.<br /><br />Irreversible comparison: "Irreversible" had the rape scene, but the movie went on (even if it was back into time). Rosario is looking into the camera in the end and says something about having to get over this. First, that comes a bit too late, that should see her say that after the initial rape. And secondly and most importantly, this is where the Art-house movie should've come in. It is more interesting seeing were Rosarios character would go after the second rape scene and how she would cope, with what she had done. But then again, she didn't actually physically do that much (see above) ... a broken character that the movie cuts off ...<br /><br />Good intentions (Talia and Rosario had worked before), but failing to convey most of the things, they set out to do (even if you can see what they meant, it has to be convincing, otherwise it doesn't work) ... not to mention the overlong rape scenes as they are ...

Ok, first the good: Cher's performance and the cinematography. Although I'm no Cher fan, she gives an excellent performance and her part was well written. The cinematography was well done and captures a sense of romance.<br /><br />The Rest: a thin plotline, Nicholas Cage's performance, and a totally unhumorous and weak attempt to portray an Italian-American family from New York. Firstly, everytime time Cage opened his mouth I cringed. I don't know what kind of accent he was trying use. I honestly don't, it sure wasnt any New York or Italian accent I've ever heard. It was quite surreal. And it wasn't because I'm some stickler for accuracy, his voice just cloyed in my ears. And I like Nicholas Cage in other performances. Secondly, and this is purely anecdotal, but I have many Italian relations, friends and acquaintances in New York City, and frankly I've gotten more laughs and felt more joy in the appreciation of the Italian ethnic family by far than this movie provided. And that would be on a boring night at the house. What a let down.

"Happy Go Lovely" has only two things going for it. And those two things are Vera-Ellen's legs. This is a British (Excelsior Films) version of an M-G-M musical complete with second tier stars. I would imagine that Vera-Ellen took this role thinking that it might finally propel her to the status of a major musical star. But, I'm sorry to say, Ms. Ellen's chance did not pay off.<br /><br />Opening with a horrible Scottish number and stumbling thru awful dialog to the next dull tune, this movie seems very heavy handed and sloppy. The predictable mistaken identity plot is very thin, and with the exception of David Niven, Cesar Romero (who is way over the top in his role of a Producer) and Bobby Howes (who is totally wasted in a nothing role) the rest of the cast is totally forgettable.<br /><br />The choreography is boring, but Ms. Ellen gives it her all. She was never as famous as most of the other musical stars(and she shouldn't be since she couldn't sing and even had a "dancing stand in" in several of her pictures". But when she did dance, it was just entrancing.<br /><br />It's too bad that this film that could have made her a star did not give her the tools she needed to shine.<br /><br />4 out of 10

What has Ireland ever done to film distributers that they seek to represent the country in such a pejorative way? This movie begins like a primer for film students on Irish cinematic cliches: unctuous priests, spitting before handshakes, town square cattle marts, cycling by country meadows to the backdrop of anodyne folk music. Quickly, however, it becomes apparent that the main theme of the film is the big Daddy-O of Irish Cliches - religous strife. It concerns a protestant woman who wants to decide where her Catholic-fathered child is educated, which would seem like a reasonable enough wish, though not to the '50's County Wexford villagers she has to live with. Rather than send them to a Catholic school, she decides to up and leave for Belfast, then Scotland, where a few more cliches are reguritated. While she's there, her father (who looks eerily like George Lucas) and family back home are subjected to a boycott, which turns very nasty. I'm not going to give away the ending, not because I think people should go see this movie, but because it's not very interesting. One of the problems with the film is the central character: we're supposed to sympathise with her but end up instead urging her to get a life. The villagers are presented as bigots whose prejudices should be stood up to, but traumatising your kids seems an innappropriate way to go about it. In addition, it takes on burdens which it staggers igniminiously under when it tries to draw analogies with the current Northern Ireland peace process: the woman is told by her lawyer that she "must lay down preconditions" for her return. The film is allegedly based on a true story but it's themes have been dealt with much more imaginatively, and with less recourse to hackneyed cliches, in the past.

The original book of this was set in the 1950s but that won't do for the TV series because most people watch for the 1930s style. Ironically the tube train near the end was a 1950s train painted to look like a 1930s train so the Underground can play at that game too. Hanging the storyline on a plot about the Jarrow March was feeble but the 50s version had students who were beginning to think about the world around them so I suppose making them think about the poverty of the marchers is much the same thing. All the stuff about Japp having to cater for himself was weak too but they had to put something in to fill the time. This would have made a decent half hour show or they could have filmed the book and made it a better long show. It is obvious this episode is a victim of style over content.

OK its not the best film I've ever seen but at the same time I've been able to sit and watch it TWICE!!! story line was pretty awful and during the first part of the first short story i wondered what the hell i was watching but at the same time it was so awful i loved it cheap laughs all the way.<br /><br />And Jebidia deserves an Oscar for his role in this movie the only thing that let him down was half way through he stopped his silly name calling.<br /><br />overall the film was pretty perfetic but if your after cheap laughs and you see it in pound land go by it.

I saw this when it was in the theater, it started out so strong I mean back in 1980 this was a bold movie and the special effects were excellent AT THE time. Now you would have to of been at least 30 or so in 1980 to really understand this point because studying film historically misses the mind set at the time the expectations, and other related psychological factors. Now as I said the movie was engaging suspenseful and very entertaining. It builds to an excellent climax then.... IT ends I mean the person that described it as having a water balloon break in your hand before throwing it, besides being a very poetic description. In my experience, it was just not strong enough. My wife and I were well... how can I say this? We were upset, I mean we paid money, invested the time to watch the movie which was excellent. "We both felt we were robbed with an ending that convinced us both the production company must of run out of money and could not raise enough to finish it correctly. In fact my wife said it best, it did not end, IT JUST STOPPED!

I rented this on DVD and I kind of feel bad since Dawson and Lugacy are so earnest about it in the DVD comments. It's not a bad movie exactly, but it's one of those films that desperately wants to be a deep comment on human nature while not realizing that its story is practically a genre. Plus, it is a little simplistic about the issue in a lot of ways, and the characters' behavior often strains belief. I'd say its a film that you would get something out of if you don't have a lot of film/TV/literature/life behind you (to be honest, I've seen almost exactly the same story in horror comics even). Otherwise, its point has been made before and more artfully. And that gets to the big problem, which is that it really doesn't have much of cinematic interest to it besides the point. It ends up being a fairly bland movie overall that invests everything in the idea that the basic story will be shocking and compelling, and it doesn't really pay off.

I have not seen the first film and if it anything like this have no great desire to. <br /><br />Having just watched it a few hours ago I am struggling to remember a thing about it. <br /><br />From what I remember it's main plot seems to be a group of very annoying people stay at a house with that dodgy old woman from Friday the 13th and are stalked by plank of wood man.<br /><br />Some people die, the film ends, I am starting a law suit against the person who sold me this film as I want compensation for the missing time in my life. <br /><br />I will pay u £1 to take this film off my hands......oh wait I already gave it away to a "friend".

For those who'd like to see this movie? I'd say: go! Without the narration it might be a very good movie/documentary. But the music, the narration and some of the implemented story lines make it very hard to watch for a sceptic person like me. Following several animals, their life in several seasons one gets the feeling that it is an animal soap we're watching. But the melodramatic point of view just doesn't cut it for me, moreover if a predator finally catches up on a prey (one exception left there) the camera zooms out or skips to another scene. I ask myself why that happens, if they were to show reality, why cut the scenes that a melodramatic fairytale remains? I think the moral is important for the mass of the crowd, cause after all: it would be a waste to destroy this beautiful planet.

Jill Dunne (played by Mitzi Kapture), is an attractive, nice woman, over-whelmed by a smart-mouthed teenage daughter, Liv (Martha MacIsaac) and a petty, two-timing husband, Sean (Rick Roberts), both of which were tediously self-centered, and obnoxious.<br /><br />This was advertised as a troubled family stalked by a crazed killer during a relentless storm.<br /><br />The storm doesn't even happen until about the last 5 minutes of the film, and then it isn't anything to send anybody running to the storm cellar.<br /><br />The stalking, likewise doesn't get intense until almost the end of the film.<br /><br />Most of the film we spend listening to Jill and her insufferable daughter, Liv, argue until I just wanted to back slap the daughter into next week.<br /><br />Jill's problem with Liv is that she has taken up with Zack, a boy of questionable character, and they are constantly making out--in fact Jill comes home to find the two of them on Liv's bed.<br /><br />The rest of the time we spend listening to Jill's husband Sean either whine at Jill or criticize her.<br /><br />Sean was not at all appealing--since his face is so covered in freckles you could play connect the dots.<br /><br />The story begins with Jill being notified of an out-standing bill on their credit card for a hotel she has never been to, and that she thought Sean had never been to either.<br /><br />Jill goes to the hotel where she meets the owner & manager, Richard Grant (Nick Mancuso), a very nice, older, divorced man, who is sympathetic to her. In fact, when he spots her husband there again, he phones Jill and tips her off.<br /><br />Jill returns to the hotel, sees Sean with another woman. She is upset, leaves without Sean seeing her, and does absolutely nothing. In fact, she doesn't even say anything to Sean when he arrives home. This made no sense to me.<br /><br />Jill has given Richard her business card, and so he calls her and she is apparently in real estate. She shows him a condo. Afterwards they have a drink, and things get cozy between them.<br /><br />Richard and Jill are getting it on, hot and heavy. In fact, he seems a bit more aggressive than necessary, when Jill suddenly decides to cut out.<br /><br />Jill and Sean have a confrontation about his cheating. Sean whines about how Jill has been letting him down since her father died. Apparently his lack of any morals is all her fault. Eventually Jill confesses her own lack of morals and near adultery to Sean--and of course that's all her fault too, as far as Sean is concerned.<br /><br />The little family decides to go on a camping trip--which means more whining and grousing among them, especially from the spoiled daughter.<br /><br />I was so rooting for the stalker to get everybody, but Jill.<br /><br />3 stars

Those of you who, like me, were disappointed with the original 1995 horror yarn, "The Fear" will find more to be disappointed with in this silly little sequel. It sort of follows a similar plot, but it is impossible to connect to the original, with the exception of the presence of Morty, the mannequin monster made of wood. Here is a brief overview.<br /><br />Twenty years after Mike Hawthorne (Gordon Currie, in a decent performance) witnesses his father brutally murder his mother and then take his own life, Mike is still suffering from the fear of that day. In hopes of ridding his fear, Mike takes his girlfriend and a bunch of friends up to his grandparents' home. His plan is for everyone to dress up in costumes that represent their fears, and then present the fears to the mannequin Morty. According to an Indian friend, this process is supposed to magically take away one's fear. What Mike doesn't know is that Morty is possessed with his father's spirit, and begins killing off the friends...or is it really Mike himself doing the killings? Who cares?<br /><br />A have a few troubles with this film. The first lies with Morty. I thought the original made Morty look rather convincing. This time, it is painfully obvious Morty is a man (actor Jon Fedele) in a fake looking suit. This can especially be seen in early scenes, where Morty is still supposed to be inanimate, but if you watch closely you can see him blinking. Another trouble is that most of the characters don't try hard enough. Some of them do, namely Betsy Palmer, of Friday the 13th fame, who was excellent in this film. But most of them don't make the effort or weren't given the chance. Finally, there are the killings. The opening scenes involving ax murders were very convincing. Actually, when I saw them I thought I was in for a good movie. When the second half of the movie arrives, and the killings really start, everything falls to pieces. Deaths are either uncreative, unseen, or foreseen (glimpses of the next scene as Currie has a blackout). One character dies in the end and no one, including the viewer, even notices. While more characterization was needed in the beginning half, it wasn't too bad. The second half was. I think new director Chris Angel got to this point and really didn't know how to shoot the violent scenes, so they turned out real sloppy and pedestrian. A silly ending doesn't help either. Thus, unless you really loved the original and enjoy plucking splinters out from under your skin, you should probably skip "The Fear 2: Halloween Night." Zanatos' score: 4 out of 10.

Before starting to watch the show, I've heard it was great and aesthetically very interesting. What a deception, the scripts are so dumb that I am quite sure the authors are son and grandson of Scoobidoo writers. And what about the SFX and colors, they are so extreme that it is painful to watch, colors are not saturated they are over saturated, like scripts are overwritten and show is overrated. This show is like a bad pie in which a child would have put only sugar and butter thinking that because these ingredients are the best, they are sufficient. Unfortunately for this show, the only two ingredients of this show are finally vacuity and a total lack of credibility.

Don't get me wrong, the movie is beautiful, the shots are stunning, and the material is dramatic. However, it was a big disappointment and I actually left very angry at what Disney had done.<br /><br />BBC's Planet Earth was all of the above and more. It was subtle. It had an overall feeling of balance and showed the full circle of life and death. There was tragedy and triumph, loss and gain. It was balanced.<br /><br />Disney's edit of Earth is none of this. They tried to make it a movie us Americans would talk about. They made it DRAMATIC. They put an over the top musical score there to frighten us. They made predators evil. They made WALRUSES evil. They showed every encounter as negative. It tried to be suspenseful and succeeded, but at the expense of the lesson of balance. The movie was an hour and a half of negative portrayal and only about 10 minutes of positive.<br /><br />I am all for preventing global warning, but this was over the top political and environmental junk.<br /><br />That's another thing, I went to see it on the big screen, but was disappointed in the picture quality. It looked better on my TV at home.<br /><br />If you want to see something like this and get the whole picture, go out and buy, rent, or borrow the BBC's Planet Earth series. It is better lessons, better sound, and (if you have Blu-Ray)better picture quality.