Datasets:

srivatsavaasista

/

textgenerator-ds-mini-1

like 0

I don't normally write reviews, in fact, I never write reviews. This film was so atrocious it actually inspired me to start. Virtual Sexuality attempts to be a light hearted and cheeky teenage comedy regarding the usual trappings; virginity, boys etc. except the main character apparently turns into her perfect boy that she has created using the help of a machine at a technology fair. <br /><br />Sound interesting? Well, it isn't. The acting is the most half-hearted and appalling I have ever seen. The unfortunate thing is they appear to be genuinely supportive of script and movie, which probably explains why I have never seen them in any memorable production since. I have not bothered to learn the actors names, nor their characters. The lading lady does not enrapture or charm you and, thus, you do not care for her whatsoever. The leading lady's male friend raises no sympathy even when the script is vociferously screaming for you to pity him. The only rise he will get out of you is one of extreme anger and sudden violence. The only half decent actor was the blonde leading man, who, despite his miserably weak role, really gave it all he could, which wasn't much in the light of such a horrendous piece of work. I will not even talk about the acting abomination that are the 'bad guys' of the plot. But then again, what plot?<br /><br />I watched this film unfold incredulously, as I had absolutely no idea how anyone would have the foolish audacity to write such a script, nevermind produce, act in, and direct it. I can only wonder. The only reason my companion and I continued to watch such a mangled example of film was the disbelieving laughter it managed to arise out of us as cohesion, logic, class and even impotent storyline were disregarded within half an hour into the film. I have completely no idea why anyone wanted to violate the movie industry by releasing this to the public. This is a joke of a film and is best left to gather dust in warehouses for the rest of eternity. 1/2 out of 10. If that.

I love this movie. I mean the story may not be the best, but the dancing most certainly makes up for it. You get to know a little bit about each character the way THEY want you to learn about them. I just think that you won't like this movie unless you're into Broadway...

Satisfying fantasy with ships sailing thru clouds with cannons, evil plotters, strange landscapes, manipulations of time, great sets, void of reality, maybe like Never Ending Story or some Merlin stuff. If you like that, you'll love it. Christine Taylor is beautiful. Sword fighting is phoney. Music is delightful. Good wins out, they kiss, all is well, and the cook is pleased.

With a little dressing up, this movie could be served for Thanksgiving dinner. Not only is is boring, implausible, historically inaccurate and poorly directed, the best actors were the bit players (mainly because they had so few lines to say). A waste of time, even for war fanatics.

"Show me your boobies!" is not funny, and certainly not on a channel that shows cartoons if you understand where I'm coming from. I don't want my 6 and 7 years old daughters thinking like that or hearing that. I find it sad that Nick hyped this crap THAT much and then that's what we get, stupid little kids acting like stupid adults. I know it's meant to be humorous but consider we out there that have sweet little innocent girls in K and 1st Grade who can't wait to see this. I had to comment on how disappointed I was when I saw it. My daughters won't be watching it. I'd love to block Nick but don't have the heart at this point but if Nick keeps putting out this kind of crap I'll have to.

This has to be one of the funniest movies I've ever seen. The idea of a typical family leaving everything behind to live in the wilderness. When mom and dad both lose there jobs, not to mention they have green slime in their bathtub. They decide it's in their families best interest to move to Oregon. Once there everything goes wrong. An interesting cast of characters compliment this movie. Including a young Molly Ringwald,this a movie I would definetly recommend.

Contrary to the comment posted directly below, The Big Trail (1930) was not filmed in a three-camera process "much like the later Cinerama." That was the finale to Napoleon (1927), a different film entirely! The Big Trail was simultaneously shot in both 35mm and 70mm (Grandeur) versions, and both versions are shown on Fox Movie Channel from time to time, so it's easy to compare one with the other. The Grandeur version (broadcast in letterbox @ approximately its original 2-1 ratio) is more impressive cinematically with its wide angle panoramas, but suffers from the same problem that beset early CinemaScopes, a lack of close-ups forced upon director Raoul Walsh because of focus problems. Scenes involving individuals rather than crowds or long shots are much more effective in the standard version because the camera can move closer to the players thereby achieving a greater sense of involvement for the viewer. Watching the two versions simultaneously, one gets an accurate idea of which shots Walsh chose to shoot close-up, in the standard version, but could not, in the Grandeur version. There are also a couple sequences involving El Brendel: a shell game with Ian Keith, and some business with his wife & a jackass, which are in the Grandeur version, but missing from the standard version.<br /><br />For the record, The Big Trail is the only one of three Fox Grandeur films which has survived in its original wide screen format. (The other two are Fox Movietone Follies of 1929, completely lost, and Happy Days, which survives only in standard format.) Other studios also experimented with wide film at this time, but the only other one still known to exist in both formats is The Bat Whispers, filmed in both 65mm and 35mm, and released by United Artists. Other wide films were MGM's Billy the Kid (1930) and The Great Meadow (1931), RKO's Danger Lights (1930), and WB's The Lash (1930), all of which can be seen in their standard format versions on Turner Classic Movies. WB's Kismet (1930) was also filmed both wide and standard, but seems to have completely disappeared; it is rumored to be lost.<br /><br />Why did wide film fail in 1930? Theaters were reeling (pun intended) under the impact of the stock market crash of October 1929, and the spiraling costs of installing sound equipment, and so were adverse to taking on the added expense of installing additional new projection equipment and new wider screens to accommodate just a handful of films, photographed in a variety of different systems that were not even always compatible with each other. It would not be until 1953 when Fox, now Twentieth Century-Fox, would try again, and this time succeed, with the introduction of wide screen CinemaScope.

Sophmoric this film is. But, it is funny as all get out. It shows the "boys locker room mentality" being played by the "other side". It is good to see such tides turned and how silly they are. But that's probably not news to most women, 'cause (just ask one), "they've heard 'em all before".<br /><br />Watch it with a small group or party of mixed gender and 97.3% of the room will laugh for 2 hours straight. And the other 2.7%...can you ever really please them?

There are a whole lot of movies, primarily from the 80s, that are so terrible that you can't help but love them. The Last Slumber Party is one of those. I hate this movie so much, but it still remains one of the most watched movies in my collection. I have watched it countless times and get a huge laugh out of it every time. It is the prime example of how in the 80s, ANY movie could get released.<br /><br />Our killers name is Maniac Randles. (Scary, huh?) Randles is an escaped psychopathic killer running around in doctor's scrubs and a doctor's jacket hacking off people with a scalpel as he goes along. He ends up coming across a house of girls that are having a slumber party. One of the girls is the daughter of the doctor that tried to operate on Randle's, and Randle's ended up pulling him down in some kind of sexual position. (lol just watch the movie to know what I am talking about.) Now I know what you must be thinking at this point: This must be another cheesy low budget hack and slash flick like Slumber Party Massacre, or Valentine's Day Massacre, right? NO! This movie is HORRIBLE! First off, the quality of the film changes off and on throughout the film. Sometimes it will look like it could have been filmed this year, but other times it is so grainy and blurry that it isn't even watchable. The funny thing is that certain specific camera angles will be blurry and grainy, and other specific camera angles will be clear and perfect, which is absolutely ridiculous and proves that they did not care at all.<br /><br />The director played the killer (as if that wasn't funny enough) but because of the fact that he wasn't talented enough to act and direct at the same time, he just filmed one shot of him walking toward the camera with his scalpel, and then just replayed that clip over and over every time someone is killed.<br /><br />The characters in this movie are completely ridiculous and unlikable, and these people who are suppose to be ages 16-18 look more like they are 25-45. I know that slasher films commonly use adults as teenagers, but I have never seen a movie where it was THIS obvious. My guess is that the reason none of them are still in the film industry today is because they have all died of old age... Or maybe it was just because this movie was so horrible that they never wanted to show their faces again, and that is a good thing because I highly doubt that they could have gotten into any more movies even if they tried. All I can do is hope that Tyler will one day make THE LAST SLUMBER PARTY 2: THE FINAL CONFLICT and have all of the original actors return. I'm sure everyone would love that.<br /><br />The movie was directed by Stephen Tyler, (No, not the singer) who never went on to direct again, and it was released by B&S (which I am sure stands for bull and ****) Productions. Bull&S only released one more film, "Forever Evil," which was pretty awful, but not near as bad as Last Slumber Party.<br /><br />A horrible, horrible, horrible film... Highly recommended.

What we've got here is a Situation. A man is found to be in distress and people want to help him -- in contrasting ways. At the end they are forced to let it go. You can't fix people. And though in various aspects Reign Over Me is conventionally Hollywood, that message isn't.<br /><br />This story is not about Charlie Fineman (Adam Sandler), a man who lost his wife and three daughters in a 9/11 plane who's gone into a nearly psychotic state of PTSS since. It's about what meeting Charlie does to Alan Johnson (Don Cheadle), a dentist in New York who was his roommate in dental school and, knowing about his tragedy, spots him on the street and reconnects. Charlie is riding around on a little toy motorized scooter -- a pretty fanciful contraption for negotiating Manhattan traffic -- with big headphones on over a mass of unruly hair. The hair is Sandler's chief prop to show he's deranged. And the use of music as an escape must hit home to every iPod-wielding subway rider.<br /><br />Charlie is a disaster, but paradoxically Alan, stuck with a controlling wife (Jada Pinkett Smith), soon begins to envy him. Charlie is living like an nutty adolescent boy with a huge trust fund (insurance money from the tragedy), and starts dragging Alan off to "hang out," "eat Chinese," buy records, or watch a Mel Brooks marathon at a rep house. Charlie lives in a nice big apartment protected by a mean landlady, redoing the kitchen over and over, collecting old vinyl of Springsteen, the Who, etc., and playing a video game called Shadow of the Collosus on a giant screen in a big empty living room.<br /><br />Charlie's in-laws are deeply concerned about him, but also somehow resentful, as we learn later. Alan has a new patient who is propositioning him. Charlie's desperation makes us see Alan's. Trying to help Charlie partly permits Alan to escape from his own stifling realities but partly just makes him more acutely aware of them.<br /><br />Cheadle and Sandler make an odd couple, but that doesn't matter, because it's convincing that they might both need each other. Charlie is desperate for the companionship of a friend who never knew his family, because to escape his loss, he is pretending he never had one. And so what if as a roommate Charlie slept naked and sleep walked and had terrible musical taste (no Motown)? Alan wants an escape from his tidy, emasculating life. He's under the thumb not just of his wife but of his dental partners, who lord it over him though it's he who set up the practice. They're white, by the way, and he's black.<br /><br />There's also the lascivious patient from hell, who seriously disrupts things at the dental offices, but starts looking different when Charlie comes by and notices she's a babe. His libido seems to be lurking ready to revive at any minute. He's also drawn to the breasts of Liv Tyler, a psychotherapist in the same building as the dentists who starts trying to treat Charlie when he admits he might need help.<br /><br />Sandler's mad scenes are a little too theatrical, as are a lot of the plot devices (in fact this movie feels like a play at more than one point), but he has several monologues where he expresses his sorrow in ways that are deeply touching.<br /><br />Charlie's not just delusional and sad, but dangerous and violent, and all these efforts to help him start to backfire. The movie is admirable in the way it conveys a sense that people can't be made right. This is an interesting movie -- sometimes a touching one -- and it's the first time 9/11 has been dealt with in terms of survivor suffering. But there is an element of comedy that seems tasteless at times, many of the people are too broadly drawn, and the overly grand Hollywood interiors have dreadful décor; only the Manhattan streets look real. There's a courtroom scene that is preposterous, and Donald Sutherland is a judge who's too good to be true. Alan's family problem is resolved too easily with a phone call. And yet this is worth watching for the acting -- the control and subtlety of Cheadle, and Sandler in a serious role almost as good as the one he had in P.T. Anderson's 2002 Punch-Drunk Love, though that's clearly a better movie, in fact a much better one.

There is a growing trend in the media to vilify and ridicule men. One sees it in television adverts and program plots. Cheaters is a prime example, they could find plenty of female cheaters yet the vast majority shown are men, why? The prime threat to any government's power resides in the male population, they're less likely to abide by authority and are more of a physical combat threat. A way to reduce the threat is to emasculate men in society via the media. Other examples of psychological propaganda are crime dramas full of self righteous cops including big-jawed aggressive women accusing everyone they question trampling their rights and making those men feel like scum. In Australia many top male sports stars have been arrested recently for dubious assaults and drinking charges, another example of the government controlling the male populous by arresting their heroes and asserting dominance. Cheaters, aside from the political machinations is an invasion of privacy and a violation of rights, furthermore most of these women assault the men! If it were round the other way the men would be in jail!! If it were an honest show they would be finding women cheaters, because they don't normally get caught due to the fact that their male lovers are quite happy to get in no strings attached and get out without rocking the boat. Men's mistresses want the men to themselves and want to own and control the men and thus get the men caught anyway.

Playwright John Osborne's (Look Back in Anger, The Entertainer) dramatisation of Oscar Wilde's only novel positively revels in the homosexual subtext of the original, perhaps too much so. Nonetheless, the dialogue, the acting, with a cast headed by Sir John Gielgud & Jeremy Brett, and the brilliantly cerebral production (marred only by a "too quick" ending) make this worth the while of any lover of Theater, with a capital "T".

when this show first came to Disney, i love it started watching all the time. It quickly became one of my favorite Disney shows ever but this show somehow transformed into something that is disturbing and disappointing.<br /><br />I do now find any of the second and third season fun, they seem like a re-watch of some teens shows. I hat that garbage. The first season was very unique because it showed Sadie who loved science and animals and creatures. The first season was very entertaining. I mostly don't like the second season because of Ben. He annoys me and pisses the crap outta me. The plot in the second season also sucks and is just awful

I can't figure out how anyone can get a budget for a movie this bad. It's like the TV station are desperate for anything, anything at all. They're buried underneath a bunch of snow, the electricity constantly flashes on and off, yet magically there is a background light that stays constant. Where does all this (fake) light come from? That, and all that stupid bickering between the characters. They seem to be more interested in complaining to each other than trying to invent ways to survive. It tries to create that feel of emergency and people helping. But because it's such bad directing and acting, you will not your Florence Nightingale fix with this flick, sorry. I'm joining the negative feedback, and I concur that this is one of the worst movies ever.

This film exceeded my expectations. I thought and have heard that it was going to be rubbish, so i wasn't expecting much. However, i was pleasantly surprised. At first i didn't take well to the lead girl and didn't really care if she lived or died. After a while she definitely grew on me and became a likable character. It's not just some slasher film where people die for no reason. There is a background story that only takes a few seconds of the film, but explains a lot. I would recommend this film to everyone. If you're not sure just watch it anyway, it's only an hour and a half of your life. You're going to live for 80 years anyway.

This complicated western was a milestone in the career of JAMES STEWART after his return from war service, wanting to change his image by doing a western, which is largely regarded as the reason for the influx of westerns in the '50s since it's very impressive. Too bad it wasn't photographed in Technicolor.<br /><br />Stewart wins first prize for "the gun that won the West", but then has to spend the rest of the film trying to recover it when it's stolen. SHELLEY WINTERS is a shady gal with an unsavory reputation and STEPHEN McNALLY is the local bad boy gunman in Dodge City. WILL GEER is Wyatt Earp and DAN DURYEA is Shelley's bad boyfriend. And wouldn't you know that, it being a Universal-International film, TONY CURTIS and ROCK HUDSON (both quite unknown at the time) have bit roles.<br /><br />An interesting sequence features the first Indian attack, whereby CHARLES DRAKE reveals himself to be a coward who rides off, leaving Shelley alone in the horse-drawn wagon. He later redeems himself, but it's just one of the twists and turns that has the gun passing from one unsavory hand to another--but finally ending up with the rightful owner.<br /><br />STEPHEN McNALLY and JAMES STEWART have quite a final shootout that is almost as melodramatic (but not quite) as DUEL IN THE SUN's blazing guns finale. McNally makes the perfect villain and DAN DURYEA is equally treacherous in the kind of villainous role he played throughout the '40s as a low-life gunslinger.<br /><br />Tightly constructed story is extremely well directed by Anthony Mann, and it's fun to see ROCK HUDSON (credited as Young Bull) wearing Indian war paint and TONY CURTIS as a young soldier who casts longing glances at the then slim and attractive Shelley Winters.<br /><br />Well worth viewing and definitely an above average story.

This movie got extremely silly when things started to happen. I couldn't care less about any of the characters; Susan Walters was so annoying, and the leading actor (forget his name) also got on my nerves. Can't quite remember how it ended and so forth but the whole idea of aliens possessing human bodies and all just seemed stupid in this film, things didn't quite carry off. My dad told me it's s stupid movie...I should've listened to him.

I think that Gost'ya Iz Buduschego is one of the best Russians minis for teens. I think i were near 6-8 parts of the movie. "One boy form 6th grade found a time machine in the old house where nobody lived. And he goes to the 21st century, just 100 years in future. In future he meat pirates, they tried to steal a "milafon" - machine to read minds and a story started..." Soundtrack for that movie was very popular in Soviet Union. Everybody loved that movie which was on TV every year.

Personally I couldn't get into 'This is Not a Love Song', its a brilliant film and there's a great story line to it, I just found myself checking the time on my phone every two minuets to see how much was left of the film.<br /><br />I love the relationship between Spike and Heaton, there that close they depend on each other to get along in life. At the same time I wish the relationship was more than what it is. Heaton is in love with spike, but Spike Ibsen't in love with Heaton, or he doesn't know how to love him. The acts of betrayal, on both parts, have a big effect on the two men. They are both devastated by the fact that the other ran away and abandoned them, at a time when they truly needed each other for survival.

It may (or may not) be considered interesting that the only reason I really checked out this movie in the first place was because I wanted to see the performance of the man who beat out Humphrey Bogart in his CASABLANCA (10/10 role for the Best Actor Oscar. (I still would have given the Oscar to Bogie, but Paul Lukas did do a great job and deserved the nomination, at least.) Well, I'm glad I did check this movie out, because I enjoyed it immensely. I think the movie did preach a little, but not only did I not mind, I enjoyed the speeches and was never bored with them.<br /><br />The acting was outstanding in this movie. I especially enjoyed Paul Lukas, Lucile Watson (rightfully nominated for an Oscar), Bette Davis (wrongfully not nominated), George Coulouris and, oddly, Eric Roberts, who plays the middle child. I really enjoyed his character: an odd-looking boy who talks like some sort of philosopher. He just cracks me up. Even the characters name (Bodo) is funny. <br /><br />The ending, in which Lukas's character was forced to do something he considered wrong even though he was doing it for all the right reasons, worked for me as well. I agreed with why he felt he had to what he did, and I understood why he couldn't quite explain it. The message this movie makes is a good and noble one, the scenery (meaning the house) is beautiful, and the acting is the excellent. Watch this movie if you ever get a chance.<br /><br />9/10

I stopped watching this POS as soon as the snakes started "taking over" the plane.<br /><br />At first I thought maybe it should get a "one" for the comic relief. But then I realized I could just watch the three stooges for free and laugh more! <br /><br />Whatever respect I might have had for Samuel Jackson has been irreversibly destroyed. And Hollywood demonstrates once again how removed from reality they really are. When I was a kid we used to catch snakes for fun. The only thing snakes would do is huddle at the bottom of the cargo bay. And no amount of Hollywood cartoon snakes can change that.<br /><br />This movie isn't worth a trip to Blockbuster. Be warned: if you pay for it, the only "victim" is your dumb ass.<br /><br />If you want to be really scared, I suggest the Descent. If you want humor, go to your local stand up comedy club. Their worst performer will be a million times better than this trash.

This movie was pretty good. The acting was great, and there were some really great actors in it like, Buchholz and Roger Moore. This film is full of surprises. Confusing at times...yes, but the twists and turns of the plot always keeps you in suspense. The only thing that this movie had too much of was exploding cars.

I doubt if the real story of the development of Western Union would ever have gained a real audience. Instead of talking about the building of the telegraph system out west, it was the story of board rooms, dominated by one of the most interesting (and disliked) of the great "Robber Barons": Jay Gould. Gould picked up the struggling company and turned it into a communication giant - and part of his attempt at a national railway system to rival Vanderbilt's. But this, while interesting, is not as exciting as the story of the laying of the telegraph lines themselves. At least, that is how audiences would see it. Jay Gould died in 1892. Had he lived into the modern era, and invested in Hollywood, he probably would have agreed to that assessment too.<br /><br />The film deals with how the laying of the telegraph system is endangered by Indians, spurred on by one Jack Slade (Barton MacLane). Slade, a desperado, is not happy with the development of a communication system that will certainly put a crimp in his abilities to evade the police in the territories. He is confronted by the man in charge of the laying of the telegraph wires, Edward Creighton (Dean Jagger), Creighton's associate Richard Blake (Robert Young), and a quasi-lawman Vance Shaw (Randolph Scott), who is Slade's brother. Blake, an Easterner with little understanding of the West, is romancing Creighton's sister Sue (Virginia Gilmore), but finds it hard to get used to his new surroundings. But he does become a close friend of Shaw, especially in trying to confront Slade.<br /><br />Slade was a real Western criminal, by the way, and the subject of a section of Mark Twain's ROUGHING IT. He was hanged in the 1870s. But he did not have any involvement in stirring up Indians against railroads or telegraph companies. However, MacLane makes him a memorably evil, and totally vicious type. His killing of one of the major characters is done suddenly and from behind - and he views the corpse as though he has just got rid of an annoyance. But Lang is responsible for that, as well as other touches. Look at the sequence with Chill Wills, where he is on a telegraph pole repairing it. He spits tobacco juice several times while talking to Young, who gets a little splattered. Then there is an Indian attack which we watch from the ground level. At the conclusion, Young suddenly gets splattered again, but it's not brown but red that covers him. He looks up at the pole's top, and there is Wills with an Indian arrow through him.<br /><br />It is an exciting film to watch, and well worth catching.

Interesting topic. Pathetic delivery - script and direction. <br /><br />Our hero, Miles, thaws out and has his emergency world-first life restoration surgery. This is where the fun begins. The underlying issue is that Miles has NO SOUL!!! This is used to explain his quasi-erratic behaviour of being indirectly responsible for two deaths (I believe this to be the total number of deaths in 104 minutes). <br /><br />On the livlier side, Miles prefers the odd glass of brandy, blazing fireplaces and his young, maturing female cousin. The finale does indeed do justice to this film.<br /><br />Some thoughts: 1. Producer $$$ were parted with to create this tripe. J.D. Feigelson was the script writer and a (or sole) producer. Looks like he did not learn a lesson on "how not to bring an interesting idea to life" when one views his other writing credits. This will support the credibility of this script.<br /><br />2. Now available on DVD!!! This IS truly scary. Should be forever "Bottom of the Shelf" in VHS format.<br /><br />3. A re-incarnated human without a soul will default to an evil entity. <br /><br />4. The score offers minimal support. Not even an in-form Jerry Goldsmith could save it.<br /><br />5. Deserved the 0230 time slot on TV and a touch more entertaining than the infomercials + test patterns it was competing against at the time of my viewing.<br /><br />6. Thankfully did not spawn any sequels ala Wes Craven's "Nightmare" franchise. Chiller Too: The Return Return of Miles, or something like that.<br /><br />Despite my rating of 1, I still recommend this movie as a great example of how to kill an acting or script-writing career. This should apply to directing, however Wes Craven will eternally be exempt due to his sole good piece of "A Nightmare on Elm Street" 1984.

I don't really post comments, but wanted to make sure to warn people off this film. It's an unfinished student film with no redeeming features whatsoever. On a technical level, it's completely amateur - constant unintentional jump edits within scenes, dubbing wildly off, etc. The plot is completely clichéd, the structure is laughable, and the acting is embarrassing. I don't want to be too harsh: I've made my share of student films, and they were all awful, but there's no reason for this film to be out in the world where innocent fans will have to see it.<br /><br />Safe assumption that - much like the cast - positive comments are filmmakers, friends, and family.

...there was "Broadcast News," and what a good thing it was. This one just plain stands up and sounds its barbaric yawp in a manner that resonates two decades later.<br /><br />There are moments -- especially with respect to the cutesy score -- when this film becomes a bit too eighties, or a bit too "Sleepless in Seattle." Fortunately, they're few and far between.<br /><br />One-third social satire, one-third romantic comedy, one-third drama, with three flawed but endearing people at its core, it's smart and moving and almost impossibly funny. Holly Hunter in particular may never have been more fun to watch in a comedic role. (And yes, I'm including "Raising Arizona," her other star turn from that era, in this assessment.)<br /><br />A legitimate classic.

This would have been so much fun to see in a theater, back in 1996. There is a guilty pleasure corner of my movie taste which really appreciates really well done shocker movies.<br /><br />"The Dentist" is panned sometimes probably because people usually have strong feelings over dental matters. Maybe the ADA launched a campaign against it, since dentists report they have to apologize for this movie and for "The Marathon Man" (which only has one scene comparable to the many in "The Dentist").<br /><br />It's amazing to note that according to the trivia page, the movie was shot in 21 days. Of course, post production can take longer than movie shooting sometimes and the editing for "The Dentist" is picture perfect. The quick cuts heighten the tension so much that in the scene where the Dentist "takes care" of his wife there's only two quick cuts showing what is happening. The rest is left to our very fertile imaginations! Corbin Bernsen was a good choice for the role since he has lots of experience playing psychologically "off" characters and he completely sold the obsessive compulsive aspects of the dentist.<br /><br />For me the pacing of the movie was just right. The film makers reveal the wife's naughtiness in just the right way. All of the characters in the dental office look like they are actual people working in a real office. There's lots of tension while they are dealing with impatient people awaiting the dentist's arrival. Meanwhile the dentist is off on the cusp of a huge psychotic breakdown! Unlike so many movies of this genre, the script is very very tight. All the victims fall into the dentist's trap in very calculated ways. Two law enforcement types even get involved in a little subplot that ends up creating a shocker of a showdown near the end.<br /><br />Definitely not for the faint of heart or the dental-phobic but a real roller coaster ride and heavily recommended for fans of intelligent gorefests.

Vipul Shah has done some really impressive work as a filmmaker in the past. 'Waqt - The Race Against Time' and 'Namaste London' were entertaining and interesting to watch. 'Singh Is Kinng' was fun, which he produced. His latest outing as a filmmaker 'London Dreams' comes up as his careers weakest fare.<br /><br />'London Dreams' has a mediocre storyline, it's about how success turns friendship into hatred. Agreed, it has the potential but when you watch 'London Dreams' you wonder what's happening? This film has maybe the worst climax in recent times. Vipul Shah the writer puts Vipul Shah the director down. <br /><br />The first hour is boring, The second hour is better; but again the climax is horrendous. How can anyone forgive a person who decided to destroy you? I won't. Ajay Devgn suddenly decides to go to India and ask forgiveness to his diaper buddy, thanks to his uncle Om Puri. When he reaches India, rather than slapping or abusing him Salman welcomes him with band baja and says he was the reason behind the entire fiasco? Was Vipul Shah's intension to show Salman's character as a GOD? If yes, than you've failed completely. The only question I want to ask Vipul Shah is that, would you welcome a person who destroyed you with such a great reception? Write what you feel, don't fool us {the audience}, we are sensible enough to understand what's good or not. <br /><br />This is a musical but the music by Shankar-Eshaan-Loy is terrible. Not a single song stays in your mind. <br /><br />Salman is superb though. He carries the film on his shoulders and does really, really well in the emotional scenes. But again his character is shown as a GOD, which makes him look like a retard in the end. Ajay is equally good, but Salman has over-shadowed him completely. Asin is wasted, and what is a great talent like Om Puri doing in this film? Rannvijay hams, though Aditya Roy Kapoor excels. Brinda Parekh is alright as the vamp.<br /><br />On the whole, this dream remains a dream!

Extremely slow movie.There are fine performances from all actors which is why above 5 score.Surya and Jyo are supposed to be this ideal husband and wife and we are shown this till it gets to a point you start asking is there a story.Then one day Jyo discovers Surya's diary to find his failed college love story .The college love story is totally unconvincing as Surya is an arrogant Senior who is always picking on Bhoomika, beats up her friend, yells at her in public and despite being terrified of him she falls in love for him.Even after that he continues to dominate her using crude language.I certainly could not appreciate the meek character played by Bhoomika, I don't think any self respecting woman will fall for such jerks in real life.So Jyo decides to bring them together and what happens after that is the climax. The story is extremely weak in its characters.A extremely arrogant Surya to Bhoomika is the exact opposite with Jyo( and there is no reason given for the sudden change in character).Again a extremely meek Bhoomika becomes a big extrovert when she returns.Wonder, if she had turned so super confident why didn't she try to find her love as she no longer feared anyone.

Bruce Almighty, one of Carrey's best pictures since... well... a long time. It contains one of the funniest scenes I have seen for a long time too... Morgan Freeman plays God well and even chips in a few jokes that are surprisingly funny. It contains one or two romantic moments that are a bit boring but over all a great movie with some funny scenes. The best scene in, it is where Jim is messing up the anchor man's voice.<br /><br />My rating: 8/10

Well, the movie is basically about the last days of a specific Russian regiment stationed in Afghansitan, before the main troop withdrawal in 1985. The movie accurately portrays the grim realities of Russian army that have made it infamous: "dedovshina" (officers and NCOs physically harassing, beating and humiliating younger recruits), mixed character of war (you can trade with your enemy one day and kill him the next), life of women at the front lines, documentary footages of helicopter assaults, and coffins being soldered and sent home in heave C-130 Hercules class Russian cargo planes with tracer to jam Stinger missiles, fatigue, boredom, anti-war sentiment, emotional side simply put. The there's some action scenes, but they are poorly done, and often are illogical, like Major Bandura's suicidal walk and turning of his back to 10-year-old kid armed with AK-47 who's father he just killed. Also the fact that in the middle of firefight in the mountains heavy grenade launcher pops out of nowhere (and any half-bright person knows that it's virtually impossible to hump 40-50 lns launcher on the march anyone). But at the same time films shows that war is a dirty affair, where murder is sometimes condoned, wanton destruction of whole villages for little or no reason is normal, indiscriminate killing of civilians is overlooked as collateral damage inevitable during war... Some food for thought as to why Afghan war as lost.. Not the best war movie made, but profound and intelligent enough to be worth watching.

DRIVING LESSONS is a little film that sneaks up on you. What at first seems to be a bit of fluffy nonsense comedy British style is at its base a very fine story about coming of age and the needs for significant friendship of both the young and the elderly. Writer Jeremy Brock ('Mrs. Brown', 'Charlotte Gray', 'The Last King of Scotland') here directs his own screenplay and the result is a cohesive, progressively involving tale filled with fascinating and diverse characters, each performed by sterling actors.<br /><br />Ben Marshall (Rupert Grint, standing firmly on his own as a developing actor post 'Harry Potter' series) is a quiet, plain little poetic seventeen-year-old living with his bird watching Vicar father (Nicholas Farrell) and his obsessive compulsive, rigid, evangelical do-gooder mother (Laura Linney) in a home where 'needy people', such as the murderous cross-dressing Mr. Fincham (Jim Norton), take precedence over family matters: the mother is by the way having an affair with priest Peter (Oliver Milburn), using Ben as her cover! Sad Ben is among other things attempting to learn to drive a car. His mother is a poor teacher and decides he needs professional lessons AND needs to get a job to help pay for poor Mr. Fincham's needs. Ben follows an ad and meets Dame Eve Walton (Julie Walters), an elderly has-been actress who is as zany as any character ever created. She hires Ben and the fireworks begin. Through a series of incidents, including a camping trip Evie demands they take, the two learn life's lessons missing from each other's natures: Ben learns self respect and self confidence and Evie finds a true friend who will allow her to drop her stagy facade and be the dear human being she has been hiding.<br /><br />Julie Walters, always offering the finest skills of acting in every character she creates, finds a role like no other here: she is outlandishly wild and lovable. Rupert Grint is exactly the right choice for the challenged coming of age Ben. The chemistry between the two is as tender as that in the classic film 'Harold and Maude'. Laura Linney is as always a superb actress playing a role quite different from her usual repertoire. And the supporting cast is a panorama of fine characterizations. This film is a delightful surprise and one sure to warm the heart and entertain those who love fine writing and direction and acting - and message! Grady Harp

This show is terrible. I cannot get over the complete waste of great talent this show contains. This is not entertaining improvisational acting, it's just a cheap attempt to throw someone famous comedic actors onto a stage and have them perform a poorly improved scene. I have actually done improv work as an actor, and this show is not improv.<br /><br />What the audience is actually laughing at (if they're actually laughing at this show at all, it looks quite fake) is the embarrassment of the guest star being lost like a deer in headlights. The dumb, completely unrelated things they come up with are what people laugh at. And if it's not part of the scene, the actors will tell them that it's wrong! I find this show is disgrace to the art, and makes me cry for shows like Whose Line is it Anyway, which had great talent, great improv games, and on top of everything else, didn't make me want to change the channel.

Warner Brothers produced this 3D extravaganza that was the biggest commercial success for westerns in 1953. Guy Madison leads a band of guardhouse soldiers and misfits to rescue two white women being held by Indians, which essentially all there is to this film. The 3D format was in its early stages as a Hollywood gimmick to compete with the growing popularity of home television, and the effects work very well here. The rescuers make off with the ladies and are pursued by the Indians until the white men make their stand at an island in a creek bed. The Indian weaponry comes at the audience non-stop throughout, and a spray of tobacco juice aimed at a rattler is thrown in for good measure. Madison was quite popular as television's Wild Bill Hickock and is good as a displaced cattle rancher who is given his thankless task by the army. For all the film's polish and presentation, the movie was made in just three days.

After the overrated success of Amenabar and Balaguero, Spanish Horror Movies spread like a disease in the increasingly sad world of horror movies. The result is all in films like El segundo nombre, a TV-like production bad written, but acted and directed even worse. I didn't read the Ramsey Campbell book, but I'm sure that the author of The Doll Who Ate Its Mother didn't have much in common with this terrible production. Avoid it at any cost, unless you're searching for a quiet sleepy night in a fresh movie theater. 2/10

It seems everyone wants to jump on the bandwagon and say "Maha Go Go Go"....The word is MACHA........Like "Mach".....Pronounced maa - ka"...<br /><br />I grew up with this series in the early 70's here in LA on the late and VERY lamented channel 56...Before that there was Tetsuwan Atomu (Astro Boy), dating from 1963 on ol' KHJ TV. Astro Boy was the first TV example of anime we got here in the states...I was into anime as a kid and followed it until the late 80's when, by then it'd become a series of badly animated "talking heads", a phenomenon which has only gotten worse. 'Nuff said.<br /><br />As for "Speed Racer", I really enjoyed the basics there, the POV shots, the cinematic aspects of live action skillfully adopted to animation...That was fairly typical of most Japanese anime back then...Graphics graphics graphics! Take note sometime how obviously the series was inspired by Stanley Kramer's film "Grand Prix" (1966), especially the redone American credits....<br /><br />Oh yeah, I have the original comics from which the series is based, so I know of which I speak.<br /><br />What were we doing animation-wise besides crap like Johnny Quest?.....Th' same ol' stuff we'd been doin' since the 20's....Ho-hum!<br /><br />I guess the real problem I had/have with the way anime was/is shown on American TV is the hatchet job done on the scripts, credits, etc to "sanitize" them for American audiences...I won't go into other programs as we're talking' Speed here.<br /><br />Look at clowns like Peter Fernandez as one of the culprits here, as he was 99% responsible for the re-writes of the series...Not to mention the voice of Speed, Racer X and others...Between him and the goofs at Trans/Lux ( Think Felix the Cat and the Mighty Hercules - oy vey!) they took a slick, very sophisticated show and dropped it down to the level of Sesame Street. Think "Cruncher Bloch", The "Forthebird Company", "Skull Duggery"...If I go on I'll puke.<br /><br />This series dates from 40-odd years ago but I, at the time, was keen enough to feel insulted by the dumbing down of this and other Japanese programs...I mean it's obvious when someone's getting' killed but they either remove it or gloss it over........Pleeeeeze!<br /><br />Good show - originally. Sadly all the more recent incarnations of the series have that CRAPPY "made in Korea" look, not to mention being nauseatingly "pc" in content. Even the Japanese outsource their animation now..<br /><br />Try watchin' the original Japanese opening on YouTube sometime...It sends chills up my spine.....If only......Oh well. Robert

This movie is really BAD, there is nothing appealing or worth of commentary in it except for the beautiful settings: Chilean landscape. I know I must supply four lines as a commentary for this movie, but the thing is that it is such a bad movie, that I can only say that is actually BAD. Michael Ironside is the only one who saves the money in the film.

Combine good casting, bad writing, good orchestral scoring, bad dialogue, and good story idea with lots of potential but is never realized then you have Slipstream. <br /><br />Just bought the movie for a buck, it is worth it, but not much more. <br /><br />Good to see Mark Hamill act again. <br /><br />There should be a decent sequel made to remedy the damage from the original. Or at least give it the proper attention it should have received in the first place. <br /><br />Berstein's score gave demanded your attention from the opening credits, however, the long shots of slipstream planes and the even longer revealing of interesting plot points mutes his attention getting score. <br /><br />It is really easy to dog a movie like this, after all it is by the producer of STARWARS and the director of TRON and a tremendous cast but it is what it is. And that ain't much.<br /><br />Favorite Line- "We're going to make it, ha-ha!...(BOOM!)"

Emilio Miraglio's "The Red Queen Kills Seven Times" (1972) is just about the most perfect example of a giallo that I have ever seen, mixing all the requisite elements into one sinister stew indeed. First of all, and of paramount importance for me, it has a complex, twisty plot that ultimately makes perfect sense, and the killer here does not come completely out of left field at the end. The story, concerning a series of gruesome murders (you already know how many from the film's title, right?) that takes place in seeming fulfillment of an ancient prophecy concerning two sisters, is an involving one, and the murderer, a red-cloaked figure with the insane laugh of a madwoman, is both frightening and memorable. Every great giallo requires some lovely lead actresses, and here we have quite an assortment, headed by the ridiculously beautiful Barbara Bouchet as one of the two sisters and, in one of her earlier roles, Sybil Danning, as a lustful tramp at Barbara's fashion house. Another necessary ingredient of a superior giallo is a catchy, hummable score, and Bruno Nicolai provides one for this film that should stay with you for days. Gorgeous scenery? Check again. Filmed largely in Wurzburg, Germany, the picture is a treat for the eye indeed. OK, OK, but what about those murders? After all, isn't that what gialli are all about? Well, I'm pleased to report that most viewers should be well satisfied with the various knifings, shootings, impalements and other carnage that this film tastefully dishes out...not to mention the crypts, freaky dream sequence, rats and bats (and LOTS of 'em, too!), the drug references, a rape scene, the obligatory red herrings and, in the person of Ugo Pagliai, a hunky leading man for the female viewers. As I said, a perfect giallo. And even better, this DVD is from the fine folks at No Shame, and you know what that means: a gorgeous print and loads of extras, to boot! Thanks, guys!

As a Long Island independent film maker myself, and having have had two theatrical releases under my producing/directing belt I had always been told of how much I could learn by viewing a FRED CARPENTER production so I was lucky enough to have his "Eddie Monroe" as my initiation to his superb budgeting, production, casting, settings and masterful directing talents. My heart went out to it's characters, it's story and was totally won over by the trick/switch ending that brought the film's plot to fruition! Location's were marvelously chosen and human emotions in it's characters brought a realistic link to my bonding with all the elements that Mr Carpenter utilized throughout, to his and his film's benefit!

it's a lovely movie ,it deeply reflects the Chinese underground bands' current lives. if you chinese culture ,traditionaled rock n roll music, there you go, i will highly recommend this one .but one thing i am wondering is whether this movie has been showed in Mainland ? i sorta doubt it ,:D

This is one of the most stupid and worthless movies ever. It really does not qualify for movie status. It is VERY cheap (apparently shot on videotape), horribly acted, and just plain rotten. I could not believe how cheap and inept this piece of crap was. It looked like a home video! I mean I believe a guy I know a few houses down must have dug out his video camera and made this crap in 2 or 3 hours. It is that bad. I noticed the name from whence this came…Asylum…and I will NEVER rent anything with that name on it again!!! When you rent a flick, check to see if it is from this "company." One thing is true though--if you like horribly acted, amateur movies, then you might like this loser. It is absolutely boring and terrible!!! You have been warned!!!

To a certain extent, I actually liked this film better than the original VAMPIRES. I found that movie to be quite misogynistic. As a woman and a horror fan, I'm used to the fact that women in peril are a staple of the genre. But they just slap Sheryl Lee around way too much. In this movie, Natasha Wagner is a more fully-realized character, and the main bad guy is a gal! Arly Jover (who played a sidekick vamp in BLADE) is very otherworldly and deadly. Jon Bon Jovi... okay, yeah, no great actor, but he does OK. At least he doesn't start to sing. Catch it on cable if you can. It's on Encore Action this month.

I could only get through about 25 mins of it. Not one laugh in the 25 minutes I gave it, one of the most painful films I've ever had to endure. Chris Kattan is so nervous on screen that it made me nervous to watch him. Just a horrible movie.

I thoroughly enjoyed this film when it was first released, and on each occasion I've seen it since. The political drama is effective, if not especially new or inspired. The decades since the release of the film have demonstrated that the willingness to cut costs at the expense of public safety is definitely not just something imagined by a screenwriter.<br /><br />However, I think the most impressive element of this film is Jack Lemmon's performance. It is absolutely astonishing to watch him at work. He has the gift to be able to communicate so much, at times without saying a word. Next time you watch this film, check out Jack's face at the times he is not saying anything. He does not need to speak (or worse yet, to mug) to let you know what's going through his mind.<br /><br />I am calling this a spoiler, because of the impression it made on me when I first saw the film: in Lemmon's last scene in the film, as he is lying on the floor, he feels a slight vibration. The terror in his eyes is one of the most frightening images I have seen in any film. It is perfect acting, because it conveys instantly the threat about to occur--if Jack's character is so terrified, there is certainly something awful about to happen. And it does.

looks like the bet movie I've ever seen. not too much for intelligent perception but so rich for perception sensitive. Antonioni is comparably wise to his movie. Malkovich's so organic, roles are so true, situations are so real. I've change my world outlook after this cinema. I'm a beginner literati in Russia -- country of Tolstoy and Dostoevskiy -- and I'm quite sure watching Antonioni is good and fun for russkies, because I and we do understand his point of view. so I don't understand his lesser raiting on IMDb. I'm sure, speaking from Russia and our people, we like Antonioni because of his romantic soul and positive sensation of surrounding reality

Very nice action with an interwoven story which actually doesn't suck. Interesting enough to merit watching instead of skipping past to get to the good parts. Having Jenna Jameson and Asia Carrere helps liven it up, too. Jenna in that sweater and those glasses is just astounding! Worth picking up just to see her!

One word for it. Hilarious. I haven't watched at movie like this in a long time. At points in the movie, I totally forgot it was a movie, I just felt like I was back watching Viva La Bam, or even watching say, my own friend going through something like this. It was realistic and I liked how Bam, Ryan, Raab, Rake, and Brandon and the rest of the guys didn't try to hard too actually act. They, to me, were just acting like their famous idiot selves. There were a few scenes that I adored more than others, like Raab in the shower, holy, I laughed so hard. He honestly was probably my favourite character besides Bam's. He really, in my opinion, made the movie just a bit more hilarious. It's basically a must see for any fans of the CKY crew:]

There is no artistic value in this movie to deserve any award. Well, it does not deserve an audience as well. Ironically, one of the awards is for cinematography but frankly, the camera movements are disconcerting to say the least. Every frame, you feel you are getting the "full picture", its like someone is "cropping your view" from the edges. The story is pathetic. Well, I will be honest, I could not bear to watch the entire movie. The part that sucked the most was when I saw the soldiers partying in their barracks and one of the soldiers coaxed to drink liquor. These and many other similar scenes reminded me so much of Steven Seagal.<br /><br />Take my advice, stay away from this piece of crap.

I won't go to a generalization, and say it's the best love story of all time, as some have said. That's fine, people feel very deeply about this film, you either love it I believe...or you simply hate it. I don't want to say, the best of all,because that is simply too 'broad' for me to make a statement like that. However, I feel very passionately about The English Patient, as well as millions of other people do. <br /><br />The awards say it all. <br /><br />I don't agree with critics, on many levels, however, the ones that picked this one, I couldn't agree more.<br /><br />9-Oscars. <br /><br />41-wins.<br /><br />37-other nominations, makes this love story,on the top of the bunch. <br /><br />From the director, Anthony Minghella, the story that bursts onto the screen and as Mr. Peterman (from T.V.s Seinfeld) said, "Elaine, I simply can't take my eyes off of it!" In this instance, I don't agree with Elaine's response. But the story builds and takes the right time, needed to make it's case beautifully. The cinematography,(John Seale) won multiple awards as well, as it ought too. I have not really paid much attention to Juliette Binoche, until now. Well, not entirely true I loved her performance in "Sabrina" Lovely story of a somewhat complicated relationship, next to Harrison Ford. But this was simply an incredibly differing character for her, and as deeply talented as she is, she simply shined in her own subtle and graceful way, she was just what this film was looking for, I'm truly glad that it was her performance and not another actress. Ralph Fiennes, was also spectacular in portraying Count Laszlo De Almasy. I had a new respect for his ability, after seeing this one! What can you say except, see this picture again. (*****)

Growing up in the late 60s and 70s I could not help but become a fan of science fiction. With America's space program in top gear, sci-fi books, movies, TV shows, and comic books fueled my imagination and opened my mind to the possibilities that exist in the universe. Farscape is so unlike any other sci-fi show yet it has all the ingredients that made shows like Star Trek, Battlestar Gallatica, X-Files, and Deep Space Nine personal favorites. One of the criticisms of Farscape is that the casual viewer can't just jump in and watch one episode and understand what is going on. There have been other very successful shows that used multiple episode story arcs and complicated characters. This for me is one of the charms of the show. I don't need or want to have the story all tied up neatly at the end of every episode like the various incarnations of Star Trek have done. All in all, Farscape has wonderful and funny characters and a running storyline that says that although humans may be the least evolved or advanced intelligent species in the universe, they still have unique qualities and abilities.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the shortsighted people at the Sci-Fi channel have canceled Farscape's 5th season. They have stated that the cancellation was based on sagging ratings. Yet just a few years ago it was their top rated original series and a critical favorite. It's a shame that all of the artists who help create this show will be unable to continue their labor of love because of the fiscal problems of the very channel/company that made it all possible in the first place.<br /><br />Hey, don't take my word for it, watch the show, watch the re-runs and make up your own mind. Help save Farscape!

This is one of the funniest and most excellent movies ever made! Although I've only seen forty minuets of it and I must say this is a good movie. The plot if funny and because there's sex around pretty much every corner of this movie. It's really funny and I don't see how anyone could NOT like this film. I really really really want to watch the rest of the movie. It has one slightly sick scene in it (trust me, it's not very pleasant) but apart from that this is a great movie. I rate this movie an 7/8 for comedy, 10/10 for sexual content and 10/10 for the plot. PLease if your a fan of American Pie and you want to watch a movie where there's pretty much all sex in it the buy this movie. It WILL please you.<br /><br />10/10

A very slick modern (keeping it sensually hip) revamp on the Dracula story (although staying with the traditional customs) with quite an interesting, if not fully grasped back story of the prince of darkness. The first time I tried watching it I could only make it halfway through, before losing interest. Again it gets off to a good start (especially the scenes with the thieves and then their encounters with Dracula), but then for me it got less involving when it hits New Orleans to focus on Van Helsing's daughter. A great place to set it, but never took advantage of its settings (despite etching a paradise in damn, where Dracula could flourish). Produced by Wes Carven (and yeah they throw that name out there), but written / directed by Patrick Lussier. Artistically it had its moments with few dreamlike visuals, but some kinetic editing and cheap jolts don't help. The messy script does get considerably silly. Lussier does a polished job that remains rather glassy, inserting a lot of blood (the make-up is suitably achieved) and a lot of "Virgin" advertising. No I don't mean virgins, it's the music company, as it does get in numerous shots and Helsing's daughter works there too. Oh that wasn't obvious planting. The soundtrack is an amusing choice of rock tunes. Now the performances are all over the shop, but there are few familiar faces to spot (Danny Masterson, Sean Patrick Thomas, Nathan Fillion, Shane West and Lochlyn Munro). Gerard Butler as Dracula just didn't come off, as not much of a presence was formed. He was simply out-shined by the succulent ladies of the night; Jennifer Esposito, Colleen Fitzpatrick and Jeri Ryan as Dracula's brides. The likes of Jonny Lee Millar and Justine Waddell are respectably okay. Christopher Plummer gives out a grizzled turn as Van Helsing and Omar Epps has fun with his role.

This film with fine production values features secrets and how friends use each other. Henry May Long is a very well-acted, dimly lit, depressing turn-of-the-century period piece about a friendship between a fatally ill man and a melancholy, indebted junkie. Talky drawing room dramas are not my cup of tea, and all the crying wears thin. Recommended if you like independent, slyly intellectual, slow-paced Merchant Ivory-type features. <br /><br />I suspected that the main characters were in love, but their connection was so intimated, it didn't really have the emotional impact of 'Brokeback Mountain.' It features some good writing with a scene discussing how to disappear in life, but it is truly a dark and depressing film.

Come on. Anyone who doesn't understand the greatness of this here cartoon should be kicked off any critic's panel. They should not be allowed to be heard, because they obviously have no sense of humor whatsoever. <br /><br />Anyone who does not love this here animated cartoon directed by Tex Avery should be chained to a chair and forced to watch "Huckleberry Hound" episodes for 20 years straight! <br /><br />The takes and double-takes by the Wolf in this cartoon are the finest examples of this important past of comedy that have ever been captured on film. <br /><br />Tex Avery should receive a posthumous Academy Award for this cartoon. It's the best.

God bless Randy Quaid...his leachorous Cousin Eddie in Vacation and Christmas Vacation hilariously stole the show. He even made the awful Vegas Vacation at least worth a look.<br /><br />I will say that he tries hard in this made for TV sequel, but that the script is so NON funny that the movie never really gets anywhere. Quaid and the rest of the returning Vacation vets (including the orginal Audrey, Dana Barron) are wasted here. Even European Vacation's Eric Idle cannot save the show in a brief cameo....<br /><br />Pathetic and sad...actually painful to watch....Christmas Vacation 2 is the worst of the Vacation franchise.

This documentary was interesting, but it was also long (so long it lasts a total of 225 minutes), like Ben-Hur long. But if your into that, this is for you. But only if you have a passion for movies, like I do. Being that Martin Scorsese is my favorite director (live and maybe even ever), this is quite fascinating, especially if you know the style of Scorsese's works. Because then you can understand where he got his inspiration for many of his films. Not the best documentary film ever made, but it is a leap for Scorsese, which is always good to watch. A

please why not put this fantastic film on DVD,i have been searching just like the previous writer for years, whats the hold up, or show it on TV. its so underestimated its one of the most romantic and beautifully written books i have ever read, and believe i have read some.I seem to think it was read on radio 4, but i can't find that either. Why not try and remake it even, i promise it will be top earner, people love those sorts of stories, So please either release it and take us out of our misery or remake it,although i doubt if it could be improved upon. Has any one read gone to earth by the same author or seen the film with Jennifer Jones, this is superb, but not to the same extent may be.

First off, this is the worst movie I've ever seen. That may make you want to see it, but it is not bad in a good way. It's boring, implausible, poorly shot, ridiculously scripted, and lacking in cool disaster effects.<br /><br />Worse, it is intensely patriotic without a trace of irony or fun, wallowing in a sense of Japanese uniqueness and victimhood. Everyone abandons the Japanese in their hour of need. Particularly the Koreans. The most noble characters choose seppaku -- going down with their ship as their beloved island sinks. "Only Japanese would think this way," says the prime minister.<br /><br />If this movie in any way reflects the Japanese opinion of their place in world opinion, the first thing they should do to rectify the problem is stop making movies like this.

For only doing a few movies with his life the Late Great Chris Farley. Farley died at the end of 1997 and will be missed mostly by his co actor in Tommy Boy, David Spade. From the lame Police Academy 4 Spade really has done good with his career in films. Tommy Boy is a classic and we will always remember Chris Farley when we watch it. From appearing on Saturday NIGHT LIVE to doing Tommy Boy, Black Sheep, Beverley Hills Ninja, Almost Heroes, Billy Madison, and Dirty Work. I think Chris Farley had a short and successful career. Tommy Boy was his best in my case and I would watch over and over again and laugh at the same part each time. Thank you Chris Farley.

The only thing it has to offer is the interesting opposites of Tru and Jack, their choices and viewpoints, and the philosophical questions that it raises. Tru feels that she is helping people who aren't supposed to die, and Jack feels that they are supposed to die, and she is messing with fate's plan, or the universe's plan, or such-whatnot.<br /><br />But she is obviously able to change things, so there is obviously no such thing as fate in the series' metaphysics. Jack has no basis for believing that there is. And very conveniently, Tru never asks him the right questions. Nobody does. Which obviously proves that the makers of the series don't have an answer.<br /><br />There simply is no plot!<br /><br />Instead, they leave it murky in order for the series to be able to continue with it's boring girl stuff, only occasionally interrupted by Tru and Jack's racing against each other towards ends that are unknown...<br /><br />It turns out that there is nothing to any of it. A teenage pop series with that pretends to be something else.<br /><br />Your time will be better spent sleeping.

Where this movies differs from traditional Hollywood movie is that it shows a true depth of feelings. In Europe for example we've had years of war and though one nation could never eradicate the other, the old enemies always ended living next to each other or WITH each other at the end of the conflict. In the US, the immigrants white population exterminated the aboriginal population to near extinction. the US citizen never had to live with its enemy. This explains in my view the often simplistic nature of Hollywood movie when they try and explain a foreign country's strife. But in this movie, the director and screenplay did not fall into this cliché. It turns out everyone in the story has some right and some wrong. it's a great story of morality, hidden truth and compromise.

I have seen this movie at the cinema many years ago, and one thing surprised me so negatively that I could not see any redeeming virtues in the movies: Dennis Quaid was cast as a policeman that never smiles or grin, while his smile and grin are two of his trademarks. Danny Glover was cast as the bad guy, but - again - most viewers' imagination could not go far enough as to believe him in that role. Also, Jared Leto was not believable as the former medicine student. The tension was just not there, since the killer was known very early. The finale was, again, neither dramatic nor tense: nobody around me cared about what was going to happen next. All we could wait for was the end of the movie. All in all, a disappointing evening spent at the cinema.

I couldn't even...I mean...look....okay...<br /><br />Wow.<br /><br />Not even a bunch of my drunk friends trying to make fun of the movie could enjoy themselves in the least bit.<br /><br />I can only think...how. How do independent film makers everywhere go years without getting noticed (or even their lives) and con-artists like the guy who made this get a DVD on a shelf? It seriously looks as if some guy with a home movie camera went out with some guys he met at Subway and made the worst thing he could think of.<br /><br />"Hey guys, give me some ideas. Start with a corn-field and work backwards." "Well, you've gotta have actors straight out of high school, and some broken corn stalks with shreds of clothing attached. And boobs." Thanks, guy, I'm sure that you and Windows Movie Maker will be side by side on your next anxiously awaited project.

Never cast models and Playboy bunnies in your films! Bob Fosse's "Star 80" about Dorothy Stratten, of whom Bogdanovich was obsessed enough to have married her SISTER after her murder at the hands of her low-life husband, is a zillion times more interesting than Dorothy herself on the silver screen. Patty Hansen is no actress either..I expected to see some sort of lost masterpiece a la Orson Welles but instead got Audrey Hepburn cavorting in jeans and a god-awful "poodlesque" hair-do....Very disappointing...."Paper Moon" and "The Last Picture Show" I could watch again and again. This clunker I could barely sit through once. This movie was reputedly not released because of the brouhaha surrounding Ms. Stratten's tawdry death; I think the real reason was because it was so bad!

As this happens to be one of most favorite novels , I was very excited to see the move. I was not disappointed! Yes of course there are a few things that I could pick on , but I think that the movie stuck true to the book, and was a really good movie. It seems that Stephen King films mostly get a bad review , but this is one of the good ones. It is such a dark story , which I guess is why I like it .. and what is better than the dead coming to life.. and something about animals returning from the grave is quite creepy too. If you have seen the movie do yourself a huge favor and now read the book!! It is a well written screen play , the actors could have done a better job ( I only say this for Rachel , and Ellie .. she was so whinny ) I liked everyone else a lot.. and most important to me .. it stuck true with the novel.

this movie is honestly the worst piece of rubbish i have ever seen. this is slow, plot less and boring. the cinematographer deserved to be shot. There were various aspects of unintentional comedy, one of which was Jared being oddly camp. Raised many laughs but also many yawns. don't watch with anyone, anytime any place. If u hate someone, recommend they buy or rent this. big waste of time and money. Thanks Gus Van Sant...not. i cant think of anything else to say except Don't ever see this movie, it will make u want to jump off a cliff. Hope Gus and his mates read this comment before it's too late and he makes a sequel or some other catastrophe with what appeared to be shot with a camera phone.

The writer/director of this film obviously doesn't know anything about film. I think the DP on this project was tied up and replaced with a monkey, because every seen was either too dark or had the hotter hot spots than the sun. <br /><br />The story was awful, the characters were very one dimensional. For someone to have said that this film was made for poker fans and not film fans, that someone is kidding their self (it was probably the writer/director). No poker fan in this world likes this movie. Even your money man hates this project. To go into a casino and play a few hands doesn't give you the experience to write about poker. Keep your day job. And if it's playing poker, then you must be hurt'n.

One of Chaplin's longest films up to that point, Burlesque on Carmen is a clever and surprisingly complex parody of what was then "Prosper Merimee's" well-known story about "Carmen." I was a little confused about the difference between the IMDb's listing of the 1915 Burlesque on Carmen and the 1916 version. Based on the running time I assume that it was the 1915 version that I saw, since the 1916 one is a good 20 minutes longer, and from what I've read, those are 20 unnecessary and unimpressive minutes. <br /><br />From the very beginning, it's clear that Burlesque on Carmen is one of Chaplin's most complex and ambitious efforts to date, starting off with a long back story, told through inter-titles, about the tragic love story of Carmen. <br /><br />Carmen is sent by a band of gypsies ("A band who put the GYP in gypsy."), to seduce a Spanish officer so they can pull off their smuggling operation. It's a clever, Chaplinesque band of criminals, the leader of whom, Lillas Pastia, has "spent 50 years learning to steal, thinking he might be offered a job in politics." <br /><br />On a side note, I've seen some almost misogynistic messages and jokes in some of Chaplin's earlier work, but probably none quite as overt as in this one. Near the beginning of the movie, as the band of gypsies are traveling, there is a scene where the mules and women are loading, and an inter-title explains that "the mules are the ones with long ears." In case you couldn't tell, I guess. <br /><br />Chaplin plays the part of Don Jose, the hapless officer who is to be seduced by Carmen. He is described as "a brave soldier and lover of women." Not exactly a stretch for Chaplin who removed any doubt about his ability to play a convincing comic soldier a few years later in the brilliant Shoulder Arms. And of course, he didn't have to act about being a lover of women.<br /><br />What is different here, of course, is his polished military uniform and straight-backed disciplinary manner, interspersed, of course, with some of his traditional slap-stick moves. He strikes me as a little guy in a position of authority, struggling to maintain the respect of his subordinates by exerting a gruff, stolid exterior.<br /><br />Soon Carmen enters ("Loved by all men under the age of 96…"), and she immediately begins flirting with Charlie. I should mention that for a good majority of the movie, it is surprisingly faithful to the original story, which was full of jealousy and tragedy. Chaplin is strangely convincing as a jealous lover, able to evoke a jealous passion that I've never seen from him. There's at least one scene where he is genuinely a little scary. <br /><br />Chaplin has some great sight gags in the movie, like a hilarious table dance and some classic sword fighting near the end. And his boyish charm and the role of a soldier is also definitely a winning combination, although there is another peculiar stunt involving a group of men pushing a huge door back and forth that wasn't very effective to begin with but just kept going on and on and on, probably about five times longer than it was worth. Although it was interesting that when it finally fell over it clearly was revealed as a movie prop. I always appreciate such glimpses at the old movie sets.<br /><br />The end of the film is it's strongest part. It bears striking resemblance to Romeo and Juliet, but just when you think that Chaplin is going to conduct a major thematic experiment by diverging distantly from his traditional style, there is a hilarious twist that is as vintage Chaplin as anything I've ever seen. Nice work!

Okay.. this wasn't the worst movie I've ever seen, but I had heard lots of good things about it and I was sorely disappointed. I could see where the film makers were coming from and that they were trying to express the fact that the two sides in this battle weren't a whole lot different from one another, that the individuals were getting lost in the fighting, etc, etc. (well, that's my presumption, anyway =^_^=)<br /><br />At any rate.. the movie kind of bored me. I've watched a lot of really long movies, but this one just seemed to drag on and on and on.. basically because I just couldn't bring myself to care for any of the characters. I just kept thinking.. who cares??? I also found the acting to be rather dead pan and the dialogue strained. I understand that this was the 1800s and all, but most of the conversations just seemed rather unnatural. No one seemed to have any emotion throughout most of the film except during melodramatic events.<br /><br />The "romance" in the story didn't seem to be supported by anything other than "I'm a guy and you're a girl", which I don't consider much of a romance, and yet I felt I was being steered to the belief that these people were in love. Oh well.. I guess it's the whole "all this horror around us, we have each other to cling to" type thing, or whatever. I was also hoping for some sort of dynamic between the two best friends (who both initially seemed to have an interest in the girl) but that was just sort of dropped. Maybe avoiding a cliche love triangle. I don't know.<br /><br />Oh well.. Daniel Holt was about the only character I really truly liked. And Sue Lee was all right. I didn't exactly dislike Jake, but he seemed a bit too... spineless, I guess. Jack Bull I did not care for at all. And I'm pretty sure you're *supposed* to hate just about everyone else, with the exception of the poor normal people who just get mowed down left and right. It was pretty graphic and had that whole "the horrors of war" thing down, but I've seen plenty of other movies with the same theme, done better. (I enjoyed The Patriot a lot, for instance, even if it was a bit emotionally manipulative) But, as I've already stated, I'm a cynic. What can I say? :)

When I bought this DVD I though: "It seems to be a nice light comedy about love and relationships made up in Portuguese standards… let's give it a chance…" I was TOTALLY WRONG! What a disappointing movie! First, it's not a comedy; it's a cheap drama which can be so melodramatic that it's even worse than many Portuguese soap operas! Second, the plot is so boring, and leads nowhere… It has no structure, it just flows, like the wind, in one or another direction… The production is also bad! The sound mixing is horrible, because sometimes the voices are disconnected. It made me remind some old Portuguese movies from the 80's… The acting should have been better too… Well, to sum up, it's not with films like this one that Portuguese cinema will improve! In fact, it was one of the worst Portuguese movies I have seen in the last years! Bad argument, bad acting, bad production… I had no high hopes for this movie, but it was much worse than I've ever imagined! Just forget about it!

Vincent Cassel plays the part of Paul, an ex-con assigned to an office job where he meets Carla, a secretary who is ‘quite deaf', when she has her hearing aids in ‘very deaf‘ when not (played by Emmanuelle Devos). Together they help each other to develop as people.<br /><br />What was particularly interesting about this film was the complexity of the characters – not fitting into obvious stereotypes. Paul appears uneasy in the office environment, is it that he's just not cut out for work? This belief is dispelled when he gets a job in a bar and shines.<br /><br />The film has a certain amorality which I find refreshing and showed how easy is to act criminally, even if we think it is harmless or justified.<br /><br />Finally, it is a film full of great ‘moments' both touching and humorous. One is when Carla is babysitting and is trying to comfort a screaming baby. She continues to cuddle it – but takes her hearing aids out for her own comfort.

Kubrick meets King. It sounded so promising back in the spring of 1980, I remember. Then the movie came out, and the Kubrick cultists have been bickering with the King cultists ever since.<br /><br />The King cultists say Stanley Kubrick took a great horror tale and ruined it. The Kubrick cultists don't give a damn about King's story. They talk about Steadicams, tracking shots, camera angles.This is a film, they insist: It should be considered on its own. As it happens, both camps are correct. Unfortunately.<br /><br />If one views it purely as an adaptation of King's novel, "The Shining" is indeed a failure, a wasted opportunity, a series of botched narrative gambits. <br /><br />I used to blame that on Kubrick's screenwriter. The writer Diane Johnson (author of Le Marriage, L'Affaire, Le Divorce, etc.) has a reputation as an novelist of social manners. Maybe she was chosen for her subtle grasp of conjugal relations or family dynamics. But the little blue-collar town of Sidewinder, Colorado doesn't exist on any map in her Francophile universe. <br /><br />Kubrick the Anglophile probably found her congenial, however. He, of course, is the real auteur. And considered on its own merits, his screenplay for "The Shining" -- with its mishmash of abnormal psychology, rationalism, supernaturalism, and implied reincarnation -- just doesn't stand up to logical analysis.<br /><br />I'm willing to consider Kubrick's "Shining" on its own terms. I'm even willing to take it as something other than a conventional horror-genre movie. But it doesn't succeed as a naturalistic study of isolation, alienation, and madness either. Parsed either way, the film pretty much falls apart.<br /><br />Are the horrors of the Overlook Hotel real? Or do they exist only in the mind -- first as prescient nightmares suffered by little Danny Torrance, then as the hallucinations of his father? One notes how whenever Jack Torrance is seen talking to a "ghost" he is in fact looking into a mirror. One notes how the hotel's frozen topiary-hedge maze appears to symbolize Jack's stunted, convoluted psyche. Very deep stuff.<br /><br />But if indeed the Overlook's "ghosts" are purely manifestations of Jack Torrance's growing insanity, then who exactly lets the trapped Jack out of the hotel kitchen's dead-bolted walk- in closet, so that he can go on his climactic ax-wielding rampage?<br /><br />And can ANYONE explain, with a straight face, that black-and-white photograph (helpfully labelled "1921") of Nicholson as a tuxedoed party-goer that pops up out of left field and onto a hotel-ballroom wall during the film's closing seconds? Are we to seriously conclude that Jack Torrance's Bad Craziness stems from a some sort of "past life" experience? (And if you swallow that, since when are reincarnated people supposed to be exact physical replicas their past selves?)<br /><br />Maybe Kubrick didn't care about his storyline. Maybe only wanted to evoke a mood of horror. Whatever the case, the film tries to hedge its narrative bets -- to have it both ways, rational and supernatural. As a result, the story is a mess. This movie hasn't improved with age, and it certainly doesn't improve with repeated viewings.<br /><br />I don't deny that a few moments of fear, claustrophobia, and general creepiness are scattered throughout this long, long film. But those gushing Elevators o' Blood, seen repeatedly in little Danny's visions, are absurd and laughable. And Jack Torrance's infamous tag lines ("Wendy, I'm home!" and "Heeeeeere's JOHNNY!") merely puncture the movie's dramatic tension and dissipate its narrative energy. (I know: I sat in the theater and heard the audience laugh in comic relief: "Whew! Glad we don't have to take this stuff seriously!") Finally, Kubrick is completely at sea -- or else utterly cynical -- during those scenes in which Wendy wanders around the empty hotel while her husband tries to puree their son. A foyer full of mummified guests, all sitting there dead in their party hats? Yikes, now I really am afraid.<br /><br />Given Jack Nicholson's brilliance over the years, one can only assume that he gave just the sort of eyeball-rolling, eyebrow-wiggling, scenery-chomping performance that the director wanted. The performance of Shelley Duvall, as a sort of female version of Don Knotts in "The Ghost and Mr. Chicken," is best passed over in silence.<br /><br />This movie simply doesn't succeed -- not as an adaptation, not on its own terms. It probably merits a 3 out of 10, but I'm giving it a 1 because it has been so GROTESQUELY over-rated in this forum.

Manipulative drama about a glamorous model (Margaux Hemingway) who is raped by a geeky but unbalanced musician (Chris Sarandon) – to whom she had been introduced by her younger sister (played by real-life sibling Mariel), whose music teacher he is. While the central courtroom action holds the attention – thanks largely to a commanding performance by Anne Bancroft as Hemingway’s lawyer – the film is too often merely glossy, but also dramatically unconvincing: the jury ostensibly takes the musician’s side because a) the girl invited assault due to the sensuous nature of her profession and b) she was offering no resistance to her presumed aggressor when her sister arrived at the apartment and inadvertently saw the couple in bed together. What the f***?!; she was clearly tied up – what resistance could she realistically offer? <br /><br />The second half of the film – involving Sarandon’s rape of the sister, which curiously anticipates IRREVERSIBLE (2002) by occurring in a tunnel – is rather contrived: Mariel’s character should have known better than to trust Sarandon after what he did to her sister, but Margaux herself foolishly reprises the line of work which had indirectly led to her humiliating experience almost immediately! The climax – in which Sarandon gets his just desserts, with Margaux turning suddenly into a fearless and resourceful vigilante – is, however, a crowd-pleaser in the style of DEATH WISH (1974); incidentally, ubiquitous Italian movie mogul Dino De Laurentiis was behind both films.<br /><br />It’s worth noting how the two Hemingway sisters’ lives took wildly different turns (this was the film debut of both): Margaux’s career never took off (despite her undeniable good looks and commendable participation here) – while Mariel would soon receive an Oscar nomination for Woody Allen’s MANHATTAN (1979) and, interestingly, would herself play a glamorous victim of raging violence when essaying the role of real-life “Playboy” centerfold Dorothy Stratten in Bob Fosse’s STAR 80 (1983). With the added pressure of a couple of failed marriages, Margaux took refuge in alcohol and would eventually die of a drug overdose in 1996; chillingly, the Hemingway family had a history of suicides – notably the sisters’ grandfather, celebrated author Ernest, who died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound in 1961.

Probably one of the prime examples of following a suspenseful, dramatic episode (in this case, the superb Balance of Terror) with a lighter affair, Shore Leave is the first true attempt on behalf of the Star Trek writers to produce a more entertaining piece of sci-fi, and while the formula isn't quite right yet in this entry (the true triumph is Trouble with Tribbles, in Season 2), the laughs come pretty fast as long as the viewer is willing to allow for all the silliness.<br /><br />Diverting from the show's tradition, the Enterprise isn't on any proper mission in this episode. Instead, Kirk has found a perfect planet for his crew to spend some time off duty: a well deserved break after three months of incessant work. The Earth-like planet (a budget-related fact) is very appealing, but it only takes a few minutes before something weird happens: Dr. McCoy starts having visions of a white rabbit that seems to come straight out of Lewis Carroll's work. Soon, other people begin experiencing similar things: a woman meets a Don Juan-like character, Sulu has a run-in with a samurai, and Kirk faces a double encounter with the past, in the shape of almost love and the guy who used to pick on him at the Academy. Throw in a freakishly real-looking tiger, and it's easy to see why Kirk and Spock are determined to figure out what's going on before anybody gets hurt.<br /><br />The idea is a classic one: idyllic place turns out to be far from heavenly. The episode's humorous take on the topic is rather successful, weren't it for a dark turn of events that doesn't sit well with the rest (of course, everything works out fine again come the end) and the cast's general unwillingness to show a funnier side of themselves (most notably, and ironically, the otherwise hilarious William Shatner). And yet Shore Leave deserves recognition for being another good example of the writers trying new, previously unseen things: the definition of Star Trek's success.<br /><br />7,5/10

an excellent, thoughtfully produced historical drama--well played, artfully written, shot in ways that convey accurate visual images of the congo, and with more than a few moving moments, especially for those who care about the history of Africa and imperialism. however, a fair amount of worthwhile content gets lost in translation, and because names, acronyms, and so forth are hard to follow. so i would strongly recommend checking a neutral source such as wikipedia to get a basic sense of the story being depicted (and the subsequent history) before enjoying the film. if you have the DVD version, there is also some useful historical background. there is a point towards the end of the film where the name of a character who then speaks with an American accent is actually beeped out--a simple google search of "lumumba film censor" or something similar will reveal a truly fascinating (and perhaps disturbing) twist regarding the production of this important film. this film, if coupled with a little outside research, helps contextualize dozens of other films relating to central/east Africa and/or imperialism, e.g. hotel rwanda, shake hands with the devil, various adaptations of conrad's heart of darkness, and even "ali" when mohammed ali visits kinshasa.

A brutally straightforward tale of murder and capital punishment by the state. So painfully slow and accurate in the description of capital punishment (from the preparation of the gallow to the victim p***ing in his own pants before dying) it has the power to change your mind about death penalty. The whole Dekalog originated from this story: the Dekalog screenwriter was the powerless lawyer unsuccessfully trying to defend and then console the accused.

I was lucky enough to have seen this film at it's Seattle Film Fest screening, and was blown away by how great it was. This is without a doubt one of the best music documentaries I've ever seen, (and I've seen a lot!) This is a loving look back at the life and times, music and relationships of one of music's true legends. Harry Nilsson deserves to be up there with the likes of Gershwin, Cole Porter, and all the other great song writers of 20th century standards. He was considered a peer by all four members of the Beatles, who all called him a 5th Beatle, and one the same wavelength as themselves.<br /><br />Harry refused to tour, so many today don't remember him, and those born after his heyday, are unaware of who he was. This is tragic. Everyone should have the opportunity to be exposed to this wonderful talent. This film is a step in the right direction, to finally give the man his due. Unfortunately, the film has yet to have wide distribution, or even a DVD so for the time being, good luck in getting to see it.<br /><br />If you are someone with the power to put together a DVD distribution deal, PLEASE contact the film makers. This film needs to be available. Hey VH-1, how about screening it on air, then maybe putting it out on DVD? Harry Nilsson deserves nothing less.

I just watched this movie today and not only is it, terrible and awful but it looks like the director just got a few friends together to make a movie about a sick man. I also think that this movie has the look of a porn video with it's clear crisp just filmed view.<br /><br />Thank heavens I work in a video store and I didn't have to pay for it cause this movie is crap x infinity..DO NOT BUY OR RENT THIS MOVIE!!!!! You'd have a better time watching Dude Where's My Car than this piece of crap! And that's not saying a lot for that movie either.<br /><br />The acting is lousy and the movie is just very unwatchable. I was watching this movie and I wanted to kill myself during and after the movie.<br /><br />I walked home and threw up after watching this piece of dirt movie, I then took a shower and burnt my clothes. <br /><br />If I had half a mind I would of took the movie outside and burned it too cause no one should be subjected to it...well maybe members of Al Queda..especially the ones we have in custody and also child rapists who are in prison on life sentences with out parole....just make a set up like a clock work Orange, And then force these cheese head to watch it over and over again.

Daniel Day Lewis in My Left Foot gives us one of the best performances ever by an actor. He is brilliant as Christy Brown, a man who has cerebral palsy, who then learned to write and paint with his left foot. A well deserved Oscar for him and Brenda Fricker who plays his loving mother. Hugh O'Conner is terrific as the younger Christy Brown and Ray McAnally is great as the father. Worth watching for the outstanding performances.

Trust me, this is one let down movie that you want to avoid and this comes from one huge Denzel Washington fan. The frustrating part is that it's 1/3 of a GREAT film. The first part of this movie does an exceptional job of setting up the characters and the new relationship between Creasy and the girl he's paid to protect. The trailers to this movie all mention that she is kidnapped. So, I'm giving nothing away when I say that the film degenerates into an almost unwatchable mess after she's kidnapped. Whatever the director was trying to accomplish, all he succeeds in doing is making the audience literally nauseous. Rapid, frantic and choppy cuts follow for the next half-hour as Creasy tracks down the perpetrators. These cuts are so unnatural and nauseating that all they do is to jolt you out of the story. I'm sure the director thought that this unsettling way to present the story signified a change in Creasy's character and signified that a different movie was to follow. Well, he was right. The movie that followed was complete and unsatisfying crap. The result of which is a depressing ending that ruins even the quality first forty minutes of the movie.

Hardly a masterpiece. Not so well written. Beautiful cinematography i think not. This movie wasn't too terrible but it wasn't that much better than average. The main story dealing with highly immoral teens should have focused more on the forbidden romance and why this was... should have really gotten into it instead of scraping the surface with basically "because mom says we can't." Some parts should have been dropped altogether or reworked to have more importance to the plight of the two main characters. Couple times i was wondering if the writer/director was a fan of George Lucas' classic American Graffiti. Not that it's wrong to be a fan of that movie but to make your movie at times look like that, i mean come on! Worst part of this was that Madchen Amick had such a small part, i mean double come on!! She was the only one, in one or two lines, who actually tried a southern accent. (Take a good listen, it was there even though her character was from California! DOH!!) Maybe if she was the star others could have followed and we would have had a more authentically sounding movie. Oh well, what can ya do when you have a director who's just a director and not an artist, also. Too bad. Overall i give this a B- and that's being a little generous 'cause i'm partial to Ms. Amick.

This movie documents the Harlem ball circuit of the mid eighties. Much more fun than than Palazzo Volpi, though just as diseased, this movie is a true gem of squalor. One cannot help but sympathize with the characters because of their freakness . The sole purpose of middle class intellectuals is to document the phenomenons of the trash and the glitz. Here the most genius of trash is extremely well documented and duly glamorized. The characters' penchant for idolatry of all that is glamorous inspires even more adoration of the characters themselves on part of the viewer, creating a "phenomenon of a phenomenon" effect which makes this movie a piece of art.

Here's a well-made war story, nicely shot and well-acted. The portraying of the Italian and German occupancy of Greek island Kefalonia is well-done. John Hurt as Pelagia's father and the island doctor is superb, Nicolas Cage does a good job as the Captain from the title, Penelope Cruz does a good job of being beautiful and batting her eyelashes at Cage. There's heroics and humor, there's drama and romance, and it is all set on an idyllic island.<br /><br />Oddly enough, a very similar, or should I say almost identical, storyline, with the same characters going through the same series of events, is told in a novel by the same title, written by Louis de Bernieres. This wonderful historical novel tells the story of beautiful Pelagia, daughter of doctor Iannis, and their life on Kefalonia during WWII. Pelagia's fiancee, local fisherman Mandras, enlists when the Italian Army invades northern Greece from Albania under false pretenses. When the Axis finally prevails, with a lot of help from the Germans, a garrison of Italian soldiers is stationed on the island, and Captain Corelli plays a big part in keeping the occupation a peaceful time. As Mandras joins the partisans, charming Corelli and his mandolin are quartered with the doctor and his beautiful daughter. Of course, this makes it a novel about love. But it is also a war novel, a summary of Greek history, a tale of Communist uprising in post-war Greece, a portrait of the madness of Mussolini, and, most importantly, an ode to island life on Kefalonia.<br /><br />Some of these elements return in the movie, but in general, it is an impossible book to film. I am glad nobody ever tried.<br /><br />The movie 'Captain Corelli's Mandolin', however, is worth seeing. Just make sure you read the book *after* you see the movie.

Put simply, this mini-series was terrible. Let me count the ways. 1. Absurd plotting. 2. Over-acting. 3. Scattershot approach to characters. 4. Annoying narration. 5. Inability to create viewer interest.<br /><br />This film can't even pass the "Soap Opera for Dummies" test. I'm sorry I have not read this award-winning novel, so I am judging it only as a film, but it really stinks. Imagine going to a party where they show you dozens of appetizers. You look at the wide variety and want to taste them, but suddenly they are withdrawn, and you wonder where they went. That's like this film, with way too many characters introduced and never drawn out. There are enough stories and characters in this film to create a 20 episode series, yet we are given less than four hours to digest it all.<br /><br />There are more facial expressions and reaction shots of Ed Harris than you'll find on 10,000 monkeys. The pace is extraordinarily slow. <br /><br />Dennis Farina and Helen Hunt are so far over-the-top that their characters are not believable. Joanne Woodward's character is one-dimensional. <br /><br />The persistent river metaphor becomes trite.<br /><br />And, probably the most absurd part of the film--the cat. This evil and vengeful cat who follows the hero around to scratch him and his seat covers--well, come on now---it's not even good Stephen King!<br /><br />Probably the most interesting character in the film, and one who is not drawn well, is John Voss, the disturbed boy whose final act of desperation accounts for the only plot device that works in this film.<br /><br />Just about everyone in this film is unbelievable.<br /><br />To sum up, there's little here to inspire. The drama is poor melodrama. It's just a terrible effort.

This is one of my favourite films; a delightful comedy; so I was thrilled to learn it is about to be released on DVD in the UK, September 2007.<br /><br />Romuald, played by Daniel Auteuil is a rich company president of a dairy firm. Juliette, played by the excellent Firmine Richard, is a cleaner of the company's Paris offices.Juliette, a black mother of several children, discovers a plot against Romuald who initially ignores her attempts to warn him. Slowly he grasps what this charming lady from the Parisian underclass has been trying to tell him. 'he seeks shelter in her crowded apartment as his marriage and career fall apart. An unlikely love blossoms. Cultures clash in what is a truly delightful light-hearted comedy.

Starting with a tearjerking poem and images of american missiles, starving children and mutilated palestinians I quickly realised that this was not going to be a objective documentary. 5 youths convicted after the gothenburg riots are interviewed and give a very confused explaination why they had to trash the citycenter and then (oh my god) actually have pay for what they have done. I kept watching and many questions are raised, were the trial properly done and did the cops have the right to do what they did? Lots of questions asked... and then dropped. No interviews with judges or going through documents about the trial.. nothing.<br /><br />In short: Nothing new from what every Swede has seen on tv a hundred times - just poor propaganda.

I have been collecting Iron Man comics since the early 70s and always enjoyed the character who is far far from the average clean cut hero and his many and varied enemies. There have been no less than three attempts at an animated series for Iron Man and only the original and part of the second have ever done the character justice. So I was somewhat hopeful that this newest version would be good. Boy was I wrong! The DVD art is VERY misleading and presents an image that is not the movie. Fist off the good, what little there is... The art and animation are well drawn and the writing and dialog are generally good, though with notable exceptions. Character voices are very well selected and each character is distinctive and well acted. Now for the bad... Unfortunately the writers opted to totally screw around with both Iron Man's origin and especially the Mandarin's. On top of that they decided to do Iron Man and his opponents all in CGI. Bad CGI. This makes them stand out almost as badly as live actors would in a cartoon. The CG work is often repetitive and glaring shortcuts are taken at times. The CG battles are clumsy as well, further enhancing the fact that CG and line animation do not mix well. The movie would certainly have fared better had they opted to actually DRAW all the characters. Another problem is that Iron Man is in his traditional Red and Gold suit for all of ONE battle! And its not even the big fight at the end. All this drags the movie down and it never picks up.<br /><br />************ SPOILERS (or warnings) MAY FOLLOW ************<br /><br />The movie starts off with an interestingly unusual stop motion credit sequence of machinery, welding and gears. Then we are introduced to what looks like a Chinese temple in the process of being restored, and prominent is a statue of what fans will recognize as the Mandarin. Things go strangely, impeding progress in restoring the temple. Overseeing it is James Rhodes, Tony Stark's long time friend. Seems they plan to actually raise the temple up from the earth, despite opposition by a group who insist that raising the temple will bring about a terrible disaster. Rhodes is captured in a raid. Stark, shown in a hot tub with a lovely lady, is informed of the problems and sets out to personally oversee the project and rescue his friend while in the background his father deals with Board Executives who are pushing to have Tony removed. Tony arrives only to have his armored escort ambushed and blown to pieces. Tony later awakens mortally wounded in the heart and a prisoner of the rebels. He is saved only by quick action from Rhodes and a scientist. Eventually Stark must build the prototype gray iron armor and makes good an escape, but only after some loss of life. While with the rebels he meets a troubled girl named Li Mei, and the two fall in love. The Temple is raised and four elemental beings (all done in CG) appear and proceed to start collecting hidden rings of power. Stark and Rhody find trouble back home but manage to confront the elementals without success in really stopping them, First using the Aquatic Armor, then the more classic Red and Gold Armor and finally everything returns to the temple and Stark is back in the bulky gray armor for a final showdown and a run in with what may be Fin Fang Foom (also in CG.) Here the story takes a major twist as it turns out that the Mandarin needs a host body to manifest. This leads to a somewhat tragic final battle marred by the fact that the Mandarin is little more than a ghost and isn't seen till the last 5 minutes of the movie. ugh...<br /><br />If you are an Iron Man fan then you will likely not enjoy this outing. And even non-fans may well find the movie somewhat lacking or not.

Hailing from 1988, Touch Of Death is probably the most frustrating Fulci film I've seen to date, prompting me to join the chorus of horror fans who generalise that his films get worse as you get later into his career. Considering the plot synopsis, I was expecting some bloody bad-natured fun with this one, but for all its bizarre flourishes, it feels tedious even at a running time of just 80 minutes, and suffers from nauseatingly shabby production values and film-making craft (or lack thereof).<br /><br />El Story: A gambling addict widower wines and dines rich (and strange) women he finds via lonely hearts columns before offing them in gruesome fashion - sometimes eating them or feeding them to animals - and stealing their money to keep his debtors at bay. Sure, it's unlikely that just one man would be the host for so much screwed-up pathology all at once (addict, psycho/sociopath, cannibal), but this is Fulci!<br /><br />Touch is actually the cheapest and sparsest looking Fulci film I've seen. There's almost nobody in it, even in the background of shots out on the street, for instance. A newsreader who keeps appearing on the film's televisions to warn the non-existent cast about the maniac's latest doings operates out of the most pathetic TV studio on the planet. He never even gets to look at the camera because has to read all the headlines off misaligned sheets of paper.<br /><br />Some scenes just go on and on with the protagonist muttering to himself about what he's done or what he's about to do, but the acting is nowhere near good enough to sustain this kind of thing, so the main outcome is viewer boredom. The film also looks bland and ugly in general. I've read that it was intended to be an Italian telemovie (did it ever screen in that venue? With the amount of gore involved, it seems unlikely), and it does reek of crappy old telemovie production values.<br /><br />This is also Fulci's first foray into outright black humour, but he's just too graceless a director to make it work. Sometimes conspicuously cheerful or 'wacky' music is used to play against a gruesome scene, for instance while the hero/villain is carving up a dead body in his basement. The effect isn't really chilling or funny or ironic anything that you'd like it to be - it's mostly just hamfisted and crappy.<br /><br />There are of course some redeeming moments of gore (that you'll be waiting for while trying to stay awake), including the eventual murder by oven(!) of a woman who just won't quit life, even after her face has been totally bashed apart with a bloody great club, and a homeless guy who gets a car run back and forth over him about five times. The most outrageous element of Touch, however, is all the physical deformation on the widows courted by the crazy guy. Beards, hairy moles, messy harelips - it's not like he sought out women with these features, it's just the way all lonely hearts widows are, apparently. There are plenty of shots of Mr Crazy secretly grimacing while he's smooching up these women. The black humour of such garish misogyny might have some staying power or resonance if the film wasn't so poorly executed in general. In the end, Touch Of Death just seems like a really lazy, inarticulate mess.

`In the tradition of 'Carrie' and 'Heathers'? Try `a shameless ripoff of not only those two films, but 'The Evil Dead' and 'The Shining' as well.' That said, they really don't make bad horror movies like this anymore, and that's a shame, 'cause it's a gas.<br /><br />Rainbow Harvest is the Winona substitute here, and although she barely does more than mumble her lines (and occasionally scream, `YOU'RE UGLY!!!' into her haunted mirror), she's Goth way before it's fashionable, so you have to respect her. (And she's quite creative about it too, accessorizing with black leather scarves and a kind of black-spray-painted Hawaiian-Punch-guy hat. Eat your heart out, Cher.)<br /><br />Karen Black overacts a bit, but she's not totally without dignity, and you can't help but sympathize with her. (Unless you're a certain friend of mine, who asked, `Who is that, Horse Lips from 'M.A.S.H'?' the first time she came onscreen.)<br /><br />There are decent supporting performances by Kristin Dattilo (as the square chick who befriends Rainbow), Ricky Paull Goldin (in his trademarked wisecracking hunk role), and William `Larry, Darryl and Darryl' Sanderson (as some kind of pet undertaker, or something). But it's sad to see the once smokin' Yvonne DeCarlo reduced to playing what can only be thought of as the Charlotte Rae part.<br /><br />The eighties were the heyday for hilarious, mindbogglingly dumb horror movies like this, and `Mirror, Mirror' was one of the last of its kind. Definitely worth a look.

Without a doubt, the WORST movie I have ever seen in my life. There was nothing entertaining about this film. I know it was supposed to be a comedy, but it actually made me cry at the thought of losing the $4.75 admission price.

<br /><br />I tuned into this movie not because I am a fan of U.S. High School basketball (in fact I only rarely watch NBA games) but rather because I am a fan of Gene Hackman, who usually manages to bring an impressive depth to his performances. In this case, however, I was sorely disappointed. This was not one of the bright shining stars of Hackman's career.<br /><br />In fairness to him, he didn't have a lot to work with. As Norman Dale, the new coach of a small town high school basketball team in Indiana, he wasn't called on to do much acting. Basically his performance consisted of pacing up and down basketball sidelines ranting at the referees. I didn't find him particularly believable in the role to be honest. I also was unimpressed with the requisite romance between Dale and Myra Fleener (Barbara Hershey). Quite honestly there was absolutely no chemistry between Hackman and Hershey. The romance never captured my attention, and neither did the basketball "action," which was altogether too predictable.<br /><br />There were far too many problems with this movie to make it worthwhile. I never did understand the depth of the sheer hatred that so many of the townsfolk had for Dale, almost from before the time he arrived. The character development was poor and the story itself was poorly developed. Too much basketball and not enough human interaction, in my opinion. How many shots of kids shooting baskets do we need to see to get the point that this is a basketball movie? There was no suspense: is it even possible to doubt that Hickory is going to win the big one? I realize that this is based on a true story, but I guess it proves that not every true story should be a movie. Quite frankly, it just wasn't a very interesting movie. Definitely a movie Gene Hackman would like to forget.<br /><br />No better than a 2/10 in my opinion.

Not as bad as 1992's "Nails" (where Hopper plays an "unstable" cop) but pretty bad. How can a movie with such a great cast go so wrong? This film manages to find a way. The story was pretty stupid and Hopper's direction seemed like he had never directed before. All of the long shots in the beginning were bothersome. Lots of meaningless scenes with a lot of meaningless dialogue.

Piece of subtle art. Maybe a masterpiece. Doubtlessly a special story about the ambiguity of existence. Tale in Kafka style about impossibility of victory or surviving in a perpetual strange world. The life is, in this film, only exercise of adaptation. Lesson about limits and original sin, about the frailty of innocence and error of his ways.<br /><br />Leopold Kessle is another Joseph K. Images of Trial and same ambiguous woman. And Europa is symbol of basic crisis who has many aspects like chimeric wars or unavailing search of truth/essence/golden age.<br /><br />Methaphor or parable, the movie is history of disappointed's evolution. War, peace, business or lie are only details of gelatin-time. Hypocrisy is a mask. Love- a convention. The sacrifice- only method to hope understanding a painful reality.

I do agree that though this story by Melville just might be unfilmable, this isn't even a credible try. To move the story into the 20th century just outrages the original story's intent and nature; possibly you might have been able to move it over to England, but it must be a period piece. Even our story narrator--the proprietor--tells it in a flashback, going back even further, somewhere around 1800. Towards the end of the 19th century, a strangely disobedient worker would be discarded without a thought. And the 20th century? Come on! Give me an expletive deleted break!!! Even around 1800, such behavior didn't work very well, in view of the ending. And the movie's ending? I don't know what it was, because I didn't watch the entire travesty--I had to stop. This was like setting "Streetcar Named Desire" in Elizabethan England.

i think that new york is a big fake, i mean her whole guidelines of this show is stupid. i enjoyed flavor fl av more better, she acts like a slut, and a hoe put together. her mother is out of this world, i think she is the devils daughter. i mean what does she think she is doing these men already have girls and i believe once you have been with her you will be to ashamed to go back to your girl. she is nasty, spoiled and a big fat fake.the show is very interesting to watch, how much money is she getting to do this awful show, and whats up with her mother,i thought her and new york did not get along, but now it seems as though she is just as fake as her crazy daughter.and where is the so called husband, he is no where to be found,i would not to be with them either.

The first half hour of "Homegrown" was rather boring and not absorbing, but as the film progressed, so did my interest in the characters and the plot. Several scenes are really scary and you fear for the main characters who you actually grow attached to. The story is about three hired hands on a hidden illegal marijuana farm in southern California. They witness the murder of the farm's owner, Malcolm (John Lithgow), and they take over the weed for their own. The three rather simple-minded farm hands soon get swept up into a scary world of mafia and local interest, while all of the time trying to convince everyone that Malcolm is still alive. While the movie had several faults and a slow beginning, it turned out to be worthwhile. 7/10 stars.

WRITTEN ON THE WIND, directed by Douglas Sirk and released in 1956, is like all of Sirk's mid 50's films- pure melodrama. Yet it is engrossing, richly developed melodrama, and Sirk's trademark lurid colour expressionism, throbbing, barely repressed emotions, symbolism and juxtaposition of the classes make this a film to crave.<br /><br />The film opens brilliantly, with the four central characters and the plot being introduced as the credits are still rolling. Sirk uses a clever flashback structure to take us into his world...<br /><br />Robert Stack and Dorothy Malone are magnificent as the two Hadley "kids", Kyle and Marylee. He drinks and sleeps around with women. She drinks and sleeps around with men. They both are worth millions, thanks to the Hadley oil business. Hunky, yet poor, Mitch Wayne (Rock Hudson) is Kyle's lifelong friend, and Marylee's dream lover. Enter into this sordid mess Lucy Moore (Lauren Bacall), a slim, attractive young woman who falls under Kyle's charms after he picks up a phone and flies her across the countryside one evening. Mitch loves her too, but Kyle wins her. They quickly marry, and Kyle stops drinking. But fate seems to be written on the wind, and it is not long before a conniving Marylee (who will "have Mitch", marriage or no marriage), a secretly smitten Mitch, the confused Lucy and the sad drunk Kyle come to blows....<br /><br />Malone is just wonderful as Marylee Hadley, thoroughly deserving her Best Supporting Actress Oscar. She steals every scene she is in. Stack is almost just as good, amping up the melodrama, while still maintaining subtly and quiet desperation. Hudson and Bacall are a lot more restrained than those two, yet it is in keeping with the characters they play.<br /><br />So, what's all this melodrama really about it? Well, a lot of things. Stack's powerful portrait of male inadequacy and fear, for one thing. Sirk surrounds Stack with phallic symbols throughout the film- note his tiny little gun, the oil derricks and the ultimate phallic symbol, Kyle's seeming inability to conceive children. Stack seems to be suffering from a massive male superiority complex, made worse by his father's preference for Hudson, his sister's desire for Hudson, and his suspicion that his wife is carrying on with Hudson. With all this wealth Kyle Hadley still ends up at the wrong end of town, buying cheap corn liquor like a "bum".<br /><br />It's about impossible dreams, and having to let go of them. The river where Kyle, Marylee and Mitch used to play when they were kids is constantly referenced throughout the film, symbolising Kyle and (especially) Marylee's wish for the innocence and simplicity of youth. In an excellent melodramatic scene, perfectly pulled off by Malone, Marylee's stands by the river and imagines herself again as a child, with voice-over of Mitch telling Marylee that she will always be his girl. This is where Sirk strikes a huge emotional chord with the viewer. Who hasn't dreamed about going back to that special place in childhood? Who hasn't, at some point, lived on a treasured memory? Who hasn't wanted something they couldn't have? And Hudson's last line of the film (yes, he gets no dialogue in the last 10 or so minutes, only close-ups) recollects on how "far we've come from the river, Marylee". Amazing.

Seeing as Keifer Sutherland plays my favorite character in the history of TV, it was a foregone conclusion i was gonna go to the movies and spend $15 on this. I also think this applies to Eva Longoria fans.<br /><br />The movie revolves around a leak that a Secret Service agent is planning to assassinate the President. As the investigation unfolds, it seems the only likely candidate is the highly decorated Pete (Michael Douglas). Pleading innocence, Pete goes on the fun, fugitive style, to search for the truth.<br /><br />It's solid, but certainly not spectacular. A decent cast, a decent story but it left me feeling a bit empty, but you could certainly do far worse.

Sonny Chiba, as everyone knows, is the man. In this film, he portrays Mas Oyama (1923-1994), a real martial artist who fought over 50 bulls with his bare hands…and won (interesting guy…look him up). Anyway, Chiba only kills one bull in the film but it's a memorable scene and as the liner notes say, right up there with the zombie vs. shark scene in Zombi! The film also offers up loads of hand-to-hand combat and a decent plot to boot, though I don't believe all of it is true. This film is the first of the Oyama trilogy Chiba made and is recommended for fans of martial arts action. Finally, three neat little tidbits; part of the opening theme was used in Kill Bill Volume 1, Oyama himself appears in the opening sequences, and that is because he trained Chiba in real life for five years!