Datasets:

srivatsavaasista

/

textgenerator-ds-mini-1

like 0

I'm a sucker for a good romance, but this one doesn't qualify as either good or a romance. I had the plot nailed down before the credits were through. With such poor dialog, plot and character development, I suggest investing your hour and a half elsehere. I had to rush out and rent Serendipity for the third time so I could get the bad taste of this one out of my mouth.

Deep SH.. is more like it! The eels are just cartooned in over the film. Think "The Incredible Mr. Limpet" meets "Leviathan". Very tacky.<br /><br />No character or relationship development. So called "romantic" scenes very corny and predictable. An interesting idea, but a poorly written script and LOUSY special effects make this a definite must-miss!

To be honest, I've never been to the Congo or even Africa, and after watching the made for television movie Heart of Darkness, I do not think I'd want to. The movie completely shames the book to the highest level possible. Though the book was not the best I have read, after watching the movie, I seemed to appreciate the book a hundred times more. Nicolas Roeg, the director of the movie, did a horrible job portraying Joseph Conrad's novella into a movie. I give Roeg some credit for trying to attempt the impossible by making the book into a movie, but this may not have been the job for him. The movie was unsuccessful to express any part of the novella other than the basics of the plot. The set and scenery also lacked the beauty Conrad portrayed of Africa in the book. In the book Marlow had seen so many great wonders, but in the movie you did not get that same experience. No, I'm not blaming everything on the director; the acting in the film was just terrible. All of the actors were dull and uninteresting. Throughout the whole movie I felt as if the actors were not putting forth any emotions, as if they were reading from the script the entire time. Tim Roth, who plays Marlow, did not portray Marlow's sense of adventure for his journey into the Congo well. Marlow's journey to find Kurtz was supposed to venturesome, but I didn't experience that in the movie. I would not recommend watching this movie, especially if you have read the book already. It does not come close to doing justice for Joseph Conrad's novella. Conrad's words capture the reader and take them on the journey with Marlow, on his quest to find Mr. Kurtz, where as the film did not. A great novella, but a very poor film. Heart of Darkness, the movie, is based on the book written by Joseph Conrad also called Heart of Darkness.

Myron Breckinridge (Rex Reed!!!) gets a sex change from a doctor (John Carradine--dead drunk) and comes out as Myra (Raquel Welch). She then decides to destroy male masculinity (or something like that) and proceeds to teach film history at an acting college run by lecherous John Huston (don't ask) and break up a young happy couple (young, handsome, hunky Roger Herren and Farrah Fawcett--yes THE Farrah Fawcett). <br /><br />They took a great novel by Gore Vidal that was unfilmable and, naturally, tried to film it. They also hired an English guy with a decidedly Anti-American attitude and hired a bunch of actors with questionable "talent" (Welch, Reed) and embarassed old professionals (Huston, Carradine, Andy Devine, Jim Backus, Mae West), threw it all together and....SURPRISE!!! An absolute disaster. <br /><br />The film got an X rating at its release (it's been lowered to an R), mostly because of a truly tasteless scene in which Welch sodomizes Rusty (Roger Herren) and a scene in which Welch attempts to have sex with Fawcett.<br /><br />The movie is very scattershot...scenes jump all over the place and people say and do things that make no sense. It's not good at all but I was never bored. <br /><br />Acting varies wildly...Reed is horrible...really sad. Huston chews the scenery again and again and AGAIN to a nauseating extreme. Welch is actually not bad as Myra but her lines make no sense so you never know what to make of her. West is hardly in the movie (a blessing) and it's really kind of sick to hear a woman almost 80 years old cracking sex jokes. Roger Herren (whatever happened to...) was very young, handsome and not bad as Rusty. Fawcett is OK.<br /><br />It's hard to find things to say about this...you just watch it in disbelief. A must see movie--to believe!!!!

I'm torn about this show. While MOST parts of it I found to be HILARIOUS, other parts of it I found to be stupid and simply shock for shock sake. The off the wall parody of some of the cartoons are brilliant as indeed are a lot of the scenes with the children. However, I don't think it's clever getting little children to say rude things. It's not that I think "oh poor children, they're being exploited" - it's just that it's really not clever!! It's something that ANYONE could do, therefore making it as simple and pointless as making a paper airplane. In order to make this show better they would have to stick to the natural responses from children, which I think can be funnier than the scripted at time. <br /><br />By far the funniest part of Wonder Showzen is Clarence, the blue puppet who wonders around the streets talking to and annoying strangers. It's really funny and it's mostly improvised. Seeing him in a long scene about the importance of patience test the patience of an EXTREMELY patient man, was by far the funniest scene in my opinion. <br /><br />You should watch this show though because all in all it's very funny, even if it is stupid at times.

Rose – Does anything actually happen in this episode? It introduces our two leads, a slow-witted grinning idiot of a Doctor and an utterly un-interesting companion. There's no plot to speak of, childish humour, mixed with some extremely bad pacing and incidental music. What else is there to say, really?<br /><br />The End of the World – A marginal improvement, in that we see our first outer-space scenario. Subsequently brought down by poor contemporary humour, paper-thin logic, very poor pacing, and tired SF clichés.<br /><br />The Unquiet Dead – Best episode to date showing what can happen when someone knows how to structure an episode, write interesting character dialogue, AND integrate an intriguing plot. Let down solely by the Doctor and Rose.<br /><br />Aliens of London/World War Three - Doctor who degenerates into farce. What more can be said. Penelope Wilton brings the proceedings a little gravity, trying her best in dire circumstances. Some poorly written, and out-of-place soap opera elements come to the fore in these two episodes, and a return to poor pacing, bad plotting and cringe worthy humour/satire.<br /><br />Dalek – Not great, however still far above the RTD fare to date. The pacing and script are all fine (though the Doctor and Rose still irritate). The effects and menace of the Dalek are introduced well. The finale, however, took an interesting premise that reduced the Doctor's most notorious foe, into a cuddly touchy-feely mess, and turning a previously un-seen menace, to a blue rubber squid that looked like a child's toy.<br /><br />The Long Game - The first RTD script to show any plot, even if it was in a clichéd 80s style. Still, it was marred somewhat by his usual over-reliance on juvenile jokes, placing it too far in the future to make logical sense, and again poor pacing. Not as bad as his previous efforts, but instantly forgettable.<br /><br />Father's Day – The initial premise could've been vaguely interesting, but common sense and logic abandon this episode from the very beginning. Also, we are treated to a whole episode of Soap Opera. Before you start thinking this is all about characterization, remember, there's a big difference between lame Soap Opera and characterization. On the plus side, it does prove RTD isn't the worst script writer so far.<br /><br />The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances - This started off in a mediocre way, with some cringe worthy moments, and some illogical mistakes that even a primary school pupil wouldn't make (Well lit windows in a blackout, anyone?). After this, the first part takes a more interesting and sinister turn. Florence Hoath truly steals these episodes, showing us what an interesting companion could've been like. She could also act. Instead we get the annoying and politically correct Captain Jack as the new companion. The conclusion was a little hasty, but sufficient. The pacing and script improved with a reasonably good storyline, making these two episodes quite atmospheric and intriguing. <br /><br />Boom Town - I have to be honest, except for a few examples, I had been so disillusioned by the current series, that upon seeing the trailer for another 'Slitheen' episode, I gave up and didn't subject myself to the torture.<br /><br />Bad Wolf - Reality TV, arguably the worst facet of the modern media, is basically used as the premise. There's no subtlety whatsoever. Do we get any interesting social commentary as in the likes of The Running Man or Truman Show? No, of course not. This in an RTD episode, so they're basically here to cynically try and pull in the audience of said shows. Once again, logic goes out the window, as we're placed 200,000-something years in the future. RTD tries pointlessly to shoe-horn in some 'over-arcing' story here, with no relevance other than it's own existence and when the villains are revealed at the end... They make empty threats, and the Doctor grins once more like an idiot for the climax! Faster paced for the most part, than RTD's other efforts, this has one or two interesting moments. Otherwise, another lacklustre instalment.<br /><br />The Parting of the Ways - The big finale. More of a damp squid, literally. All of the Dalek menace set up in 'Dalek' is brought crashing down, as they become rather pathetic. So many plot holes riddle this episode, with typically poor contrivances. Daleks want to harvest humans as Daleks, but then vaporize entire continents? Dalek's can vaporize said continents, but not destroy the Tardis in space? The Tardis is now indestructible and can land anywhere, even over people so they can be saved in it? This ability can't be used to easily destroy the Dalek 'god'? The Daleks can vaporize entire continents, but don't just nuke satellite 5 to destroy the doctor, and instead let him play around? The doctor is a pathetic coward without the conviction of his actions, after eradicating his whole species to try and eliminate the Daleks? These and many other holes aside, we are treated to the lamest dues ex machina solution ever conceived, joined with a near pointless story arc.<br /><br />So what can we say about the new series, all-in-all?<br /><br />Would this have gained a second series if it were anything other than Doctor Who, with RTD behind it? Would most of the episodes have been seen as anything other than un-original and forgettable, if they were anything other than Doctor Who, and had RTD's name attached? I think not.<br /><br />Some people would have us think we can't say anything against RTD, since we owe him for bringing Doctor Who back to our screens. However, this at the expense of good characters and stories. Personally, I'd rather not have a poorly planned, ill conceived product, churned out at that price. I'd rather wait till someone could come along and make a genuine effort. For the most part, this is the kind of puerile rubbish that gives SF a bad name, marring what is otherwise the most creative genre.

Alright lets break it down. Why is this one of the worst films ever? Because there are so many answers to that question I'm having a headache. Come on...Cracker World? Mr. Honkee? The part with the Arab guy? its just awful, i didn't really care about the whole white racism crap, but when they did that thing with the Arab guy, i wanted to get the names of all the writers. Its really not worth watching 3 seconds of this movie. It isn't even funny-bad which was my first interpretation. I hope the person who directed this movie doesn't commit suicide, but it seems likely, i don't see any other options.Don't EVER watch this movie, if you watch it, u cant say u died with no regrets.

This movie was very good, not great but very good. It is based on a one man play by Ruben Santiago Hudson..yes he played most of the parts. On paper it looks like stunt casting. Yes let's round up all the black folks in Hollywood and put them in one movie. Halle Berry even produced it. The only name I didn't see was Oprah's ,thank god because it probably would of ended up being like a Hallmark movie. Instead this movie was not some sentimental mess. It was moving but not phony, the characters came and went with the exception of her husband, Pauline and the writer in question. The movie revolved around the universe of Nanny, Mrs Bill Crosby and how she raised the writer and took in people. Now being a jaded New Yorker when he said she took in sick people and old and then we see them going to a mental institution to pick up a man, I'm thinking looks like sister has a medicare scam going. Getting folks jobs and taking the medicare/caid checks But no she explains to Lou Gosset she just wants 25 bucks a week and did not want the money ahead of time. I think that part was put in the movie just for us jaded New Yorkers so we know she is not scamming the poor folks.(g) It was written by a New Yorker so he knows the deal(g).. She almost seems angelic and looking through a little boys eyes I can see why. She is married to a ne'er do well who is 17 years younger and fools around on her. Terrence Howard was born to play these type of parts. He was good but I would like to see him play something different. Markerson who plays Nanny is also very good. But for some reason the person who stood out to me was a small role played by Jeffery Wright. Where is this mans Oscar? He already won a Emmy and a Tony. He was in Shaft and he stole the movie. I did not even know who he was in this movie. He is a chameleon never the same. I never seen him play a bad part yet. This was a 5 minute role and he managed to make me both laugh and cry. I re-winded the scene few times ..one time because I didn't know who he was. His wife Carman Ejogo was excellent. I have seen her in roles before mostly mousy stuff. But she is so good here. I actually know people who act just like her. So it was very real to me Macy Grey who had one of the bigger parts was also very good. I was very happy that they did not kill Nanny off. I thought she was a goner in the beginning of the movie. BUT she was able to go home and start her old routine of taking care of people. There are women like that in most of our lives. People we might know or even lived with. Thank god for them, I do not know how they do it all of the time. I have a friend who lost 2 children and been through a lot of stuff but whenever I am feeling selfishly sorry for myself I call her and she always puts me in a good mood. THis movie is a tribute to all of those people. I only wish they they told us what happened to some of the characters like the the one armed man, Paulines boyfriend who is played by one of my favorite actors on HBO's The Wire, Omar, Rosie Perez's character and Richard the lesbian and Delroy Lindo's one arm man, he was mesmerizing in another small role.

If you like detective and police shows and you like suspenseful movies, then you will love this movie!! This movie is great! Christopher Meloni has amazing acting skills. You may think you know who the killer is in the beginning, but you don't. This movie is about the true story of the murder of Martha Moxley. Watch the movie!!

It was probably just my DVD---but I would not recommend that anyone try to watch this picture on a DVD.<br /><br />I had to turn up the volume on my TV to the highest possible level, in order to hear about 80 percent of the dialog. Some of the talking still remained sub-audible. If you're from Scotland, you might have a chance, albeit a slim one.<br /><br />Peoples voices were drowned out by nearly all ambient sounds, including unwrapping a package, footsteps, even puffing on a cigarette. <br /><br />With the volume turned up to a level at which voices can be heard, I can guarantee that at least one of your neighbors will phone the police when the scene changes to a loud environment, such as a disco. And that you will injure yourself diving for the remote to turn it back down.<br /><br />There is art and there is art, even in the field of audio mixing. But this effort, in a time of war, would meet international criteria to be classified as an atrocity.<br /><br />After about a half hour, I gave up, having seen nothing else redeeming in the picture, either.

"Dutch Schultz", AKA Arthur Fleggenheimer, was a real person and his rather nasty life is fairly well documented. This movie which purports to depict his life should have used a fictional character, because the overdramatized events are too strong a departure from the facts and the chronology. Not only that, it ignores some interesting details which other versions have included such as the public relations fiasco in upstate N.Y. and his religious conversion. It is true that he was executed by Luciano, Lansky, et. al. but that's as far as it goes. The exploding plate scene which represents Luciano carrying out the execution of Bo Weinberg in his own home, assisted by his own mother is rediculous. Also, there is the scene in which Dutch approaches his own mother to pay protection to Legs Diamond. It just doesn't work. The character of Mrs. Fleggenheimer doesn't work either. This movie does not need a doting Jewish mother for comic relief. The lame representation of Legs Diamond was humorous enough. I'm sure the man is turning in his grave. And, by the way, Dutch did in fact personally kill people, but, he was not Rambo or 007. The scene in which he wipes out the brewery is absurd. I don't know. Maybe it was supposed to be a comedy and I just didn't get it.

Isabel has just gone out of jail. She is decided to not return again, but life is difficult for ex-convict, specially if they are homeless, as Isabel. When she finds the one that was her boyfriend Rufo, she can see a light of hope, but Rufo is now not only a junkie but also an AIDS ill. This will not make Isabel surrender, because, if there's a will there's a way and she is going to fight for her future, to have normal life, with a house and a family. A very hard and touching film that has passed unaware by most of the Spanish cinemas, actors are great and the story is very touching, maybe a better treatment of the secondary characters would have made the movie better, but it is really good. I highly recommend it to watch it, but be aware that this is not a Disney happy film, it is hard and dramatic.

A dreary, hopelessly predictable film set in a most unpleasant setting (lower Coachella Valley). Acting is as amateurish as any I've seen. Looks like a screenwriting 101 script. However, it does function as a great sedative.

Distributor: GOODTIMES home video <br /><br />Plot: A pretty high school student is marked for unrelenting terror in this suspense filled made for TV movie. Gail Osborne is new in town. She makes friends, has a boyfriend and everything seems to be going her way. That is until she gets an ominous and frightening phone call while babysitting. After more and more phone calls, she is raped. throughout most of the movie, she tries to find proof that the person did rape her.<br /><br />Audio/Video: This 1987 VHS edition from Goodtimes stinks. There are constant lines at the bottom and top of the screen.<br /><br />Extras: No extras from Goodtimes home video.<br /><br />Final thoughts: This suspense filled made for TV movie was made in 1978, so don't expect many deaths (there are none). If you can find this movie with the Worldvision home video logo on the front, then buy it. But the Goodtimes version is pretty crappy. This can be a little boring, but if you are patient, the ending is pretty good.

This film got less attention than "League of Their Own," possibly because it has only one "name" star. But whereas women's professional baseball had only an eight year, Midwestern town existence, Japanese baseball is a vastly bigger entity, both in financial underwriting and popular support. That alone would make it the better movie.<br /><br />"Mr. Baseball" shows the facts of life of Japan-ball: the regimented cheering, the deference to umpires, the pressure of corporate owners on managers, the extreme conservatism of play - and no hot dog players welcome.<br /><br />It also touches upon the isolation that any gai-jin - but especially an American jock, not the people most versed in foreign cultures - feels living in Dai Nippon. And the Japanese, for their part, are not comfortable around foreigners and let it show in various ways ("the gai-jin strike zone," one American player complains, "bigger than a Buick.")<br /><br />The script may not have won any awards, playing once again on the "redemption by improved play" theme, but I found it considerably more enjoyable to watch than the pokey "League." Definitely recommended for those who want to see another angle on this great sport.

After two brief scenes that at first seem unrelated to the rest of the film, we see a dark-haired, obviously rich beauty in the back of a limousine. Her driver stops at an odd location on Mulholland Drive, which is a twisting, thickly wooded two-lane road full of mansions overlooking Los Angeles. Just as her driver and another man in the passenger seat turn around to kill her, two drag racing cars from the opposite direction come crashing into the limo. Only the dark-haired woman survives. She works her way down the ridge to Sunset Boulevard and hides in a vacationing woman's apartment. Shortly after, Betty (Naomi Watts), the vacationing woman's niece, shows up at the apartment and runs into the dark haired woman, who now has amnesia. The bulk of the first part of the film is Betty and the dark haired woman trying to figure out who she is, why people were trying to kill her and why she had thousands of dollars and a strange key in her purse. This is interspersed with oddly surreal threads about Hollywood producers and directors, with occasional forays into a land of hoodlums and prostitutes.<br /><br />The above may sound a bit complicated and disjointed, but that's not the half of it. The film is constructed so that the meaning will always be open to interpretation. It's basically guaranteed that you will not understand this film and you will not have very much confidence arriving at your own interpretation the first time around. Even if you have a lot of experience with like-minded films--such as Memento (2000), Donnie Darko (2001), The I Inside (2003) and The Butterfly Effect (2004)--you may not understand it on a second viewing, either. The studio was aware of this to the extent that they had director David Lynch write "10 clues to unlocking this thriller" and they put it on the back of the chapter listing insert in the DVD. Lynch being of a particular disposition, these clues are almost as cryptic as the film itself. It doesn't help when trying to figure it out in the early stages that the structure is extremely complex. It takes a very long time to figure out what parts are supposed to be "real" and there is a complex nesting of flashbacks in some sections, with only contextual clues that they're flashbacks.<br /><br />But is the film worth watching, or worth trying to figure out? That depends on your tastes, obviously. On a surface level, the film is certainly attractive if you are a fan of surrealism, although it will tend to seem a bit slow and overly disjointed to some viewers. But those qualities, and many other surrealist aspects of the film, are typical of Lynch. A prime Lynchian moment is the old couple in the beginning bizarrely smiling almost as if they're alien pod people trying to put on a front. If you're familiar with that style and like it, you'll find much to love here, although in many ways, Mulholland Drive is fairly understated for Lynch. It's also worth noting, for viewers who'll primarily be interested in it or who enjoy it just as much as other aspects, that Mulholland Drive has a quite steamy lesbian scene. It's not gratuitous, although I have no problems with gratuitousness, but is instead an important hinge in the film.<br /><br />Like all of Lynch's films, it's easy to become enraptured in his unique approach to every aspect of filmic art and his attention to detail. Any serious student of film (including "armchair students"/"cinephiles") should study Mulholland Drive; many will love it. Lynch doesn't let anything pass unmanipulated. He includes brilliant color schemes (such as the plethora of reds and pinks) with important symbolism. He makes unusual use of sound, such as the ringing telephone carrying over into the section of score that follows it (when Betty first arrives at the airport). He directs his actors to deliver their lines in a plethora of bizarre ways, such as his characteristic odd pauses. He lets his odd and surprising sense of humor poke through, such as the name "Winkie's", and the "Hot Dogs--made for Pinks" sign that provides a clue to some of the color symbolism.<br /><br />Lynch's attention to detail in production design provides important, subtle clues throughout the film to help one unlock the meaning. It's interesting to note that Lynch even apparently demands that the DVD programming be unusual--there are no chapters on the disc; you must either watch the film in real time or fast forward or rewind to get back to particular points.<br /><br />If the surrealism and veiled meaning of the film are attractive to you, or if you're just fond of "puzzles", then Mulholland Drive is well worth watching for that aspect. There is a fairly accepted interpretation of the film, at least on a broad, generalized level. I won't recount the standard interpretation here--it is worth researching, but only after you've seen the film a couple times and have reached your own conclusions. Many articles and monographs have been written on the film and interpretations; there are even websites dedicated to it.<br /><br />For my money, however, although I generally love Lynch and find many things about Mulholland Drive attractive, it is not quite a 10 for me, at least not yet (I have a feeling that my score could still rise on subsequent viewings). To me, though, the "twist" aspect of the film is done much better in other works such as The I Inside and The Butterfly Effect. Mulholland Drive is more attractive to me for its surface surrealistic touches, but the plot doesn't carry them as well as some of Lynch's other films.<br /><br />Still, Mulholland Drive is certainly recommended for the right crowd. If you're serious about film and do not mind having to think about what you watch (as if those two would not necessarily coincide), you shouldn't miss this one.

a friend gave it to me saying it was another classic like "Debbie does Dallas". Nowhere close. I think my main complaint is about the most unattractive lead actress in porn industry ever. Even more terrible is that she is on screen virtually all the time. But I read somewhere that back in those days, porn had to have some "artistic" value. I was unable to find it though. See it only if you are interested in history of development of porn into mainstream, or can appreciate art in porn movies. I know I am not. But the director of the movie appears to be a talented person. He even tried to get Simon & Garfunkel to give him permissions to use his songs. Of course, they rejected.

Jim Henson's Muppets were a favorite of mine since childhood. This film makes me feel like a kid again. Okay, the Muppets are back with Miss Piggy and Kermit the Frog and their friends. The premise is that they are trying to get on Broadway in a musical show in where else but New York City. You will see cameos by the then New York City Mayor Ed Koch. Anyway, the film turns 25 this year and I hope the kids of today will learn to appreciate the lightheartedness of the Muppets Gang. The problem with the show is Kermit goes missing and the gang has to find him in New York City. It's worth watching for kids and even sentimental adults like myself.

This apocalyptic zombie film tries to be vicious and shocking; but FEEDING THE MASSES comes off lame as some of the stiff-legged zombies stalking the streets. In Rhode Island, a zombie epidemic known as the Lazarus Virus is being played down by the government manipulated newspapers and television stations. A couple of brave, but dumb, souls at Channel 5 TV News feels its audience is being given false hope and no idea of the real danger at hand. An eager reporter(Racheal Morris)and her cameraman(William Garberina), with the aid of a military escort(Patrick Cohen), risk life and limb to present a 'live' broadcast to show the doom at hand. Do yourself a favor and don't watch. This thing is obviously very low budget and comes across with the feel of a high school play gone bad. Acting is atrocious and the flesh-hungry zombies are almost comical. Also appearing are: Michael Propster, William DeCoff and Brenda Hogan. FEEDING THE MASSES should be left to starve.

I am a huge fan of warrior movies. Some of my favorites are Braveheart, Troy, The last samurai and Gladiator. And after watching Mongol, which is absolutely awesome, and which i strongly recommend, i had high expectations from a Sergei Bodrov movie. But it was terrible, awful, even pathetic is not a strong word in this case. The whole movie i was waiting for something exciting to happen, but it didn't, then i was at least expecting a big epic battle at the end, but even that was a huge disappointment, just some random running around, waving with the swords... There are so many good warrior movies, this one is not one of them.

As a rule, a Full Moon production logo is a warning sign to avoid a film. But because I've enjoyed Jeffrey Combs in other films, I gave it a shot.<br /><br />It's not bad. Not great, but that's something else. The film involves a struggle with a mystic (evil) "brother" who wants to dominate the worlds, and the title character. Dr. Mordrid also has to deal with people, and authorities in the mundane world, which he does successfully.<br /><br />Possible spoilers follow.<br /><br />Dr. Mordrid can travel between "dimensions," and does so to find a companion guarding a fortress; however, the guard has been blinded. His eyes are ruined pits. So the wizard passes his hands across the other's eyes, and hey, presto! His eyes have been restored! This sort of healing apparently only works with eyes.<br /><br />Later, Mordred and his "brother" animate a couple of animal skeletons in a museum to fight. Guess which one wins.<br /><br />However, side from that, the picture isn't at all bad, though much like a comic book. Dr. Mordred's more "human" adventures are okay, and Combs plays the role convincingly.<br /><br />I've seen lots worse.

I can never fathom why people take time to review movies that they have not understood fully. I know people will read scathing reviews on these pages of this film, and it will keep them from seeking copies of this quite forgotten, late '20s style but 1932 movie, which should probably be referred to as "Indecent," as that is the name on the main titles.<br /><br />Myrna Loy, best known as a comic actress in countless genteel roles, shows herself to be miscast in all of them. She was a true dramatic actress, something that I did not know before watching this film, which predates all of her famous roles. She is exciting and moving here, two things she never was opposite the graceful and refined William Powell. I'm still rather in shock over how good she was.<br /><br />Becky Sharp (1935), the first three-strip Technicolor feature, is more familiar but this one is far better artistically and an adaptation. It is also very poignant as an expression of a film style that was about to die. You cannot take my word for it, you must see it.

A lot is dated in this episode (just like most Twilight Zone episodes), such as the Woman's incredibly sexist military "uniform." And some things are so unbelievable, like the easy availability of clean water. Still, consider the year this was made and the time, and you quickly understand why this episode is so special as you watch. It has a nice sense of hope, something missing from a lot of Twilight Zones, as well as an interesting female character (despite the fact that she rarely speaks), something else rare on the Twilight Zone. "Two" is a great example of how the Twilight Zone, in just over 20 minutes, could pack more emotion and drama than most two hours movies today. And it's great to see two people who became American icons so early in their careers.

Canthony is correct that this little short is just an excuse to hear a very young Judy Garland (fourteen years old!) singing with a slightly older (by one year) Deanna Durbin. But I must disagree with everything else he or she said, including the running time -- which is only about ten minutes, not twenty (a single-reeler).<br /><br />The song is not her best, obviously; but it's enjoyable and definitely worth the ten minutes to watch on Turner. The duet with Durbin is quite interesting: two conflicting styles that nevertheless dovetail reasonably well.<br /><br />The short is just a throwaway, but it's nowhere near as bad as the other reviewer made it out to be. Honestly, I enjoyed it.<br /><br />Dafydd ab Hugh

Why am I so convinced there's actually another film version of this novel out there somewhere? I saw the film again this year as I am teaching the novel and find the changes in the film annoying - there is no appearance of the little boy in the novel and the ending has been changed. They kill him off in the film but the whole point is that he is haunted by the events at Eel Marsh House for many years but does remarry and eventually put the events behind him. Mr. Bentley is a far more sympathetic character in the novel, the scene in the film where Kipps sets fire to the office is plain daft, and the constant appearance of the toy soldier to signify the presence of the child is genuinely creepy but pointless - Kipps is haunted by the woman seeking revenge, not the child. I am sure I've seen a film which is better and closer to the novel and actually scarier. Have I just imagined this?

Fulci is one of my all time favorite Italian splatter directors. He is also a very good story teller mixing horror, the supernatural, and psychedelic themes altogether very well. This film was truly his last great story before he directed such disappointments as "Voices From Beyond". The story is simple as Fulci plays himself, a horror director. After years of filming splatter and gore films it seems that Fulci starts to suffer a breakdown in which he starts hallucinating about people being slaughtered. He decides to see a psychiatrist who only makes matters worse when he convinces Fulci that he is killing people.<br /><br />Fulci used gore scenes from several pictures around the same time. These films I don't believe he directed but certainly produced. Some of those films are "Massacre" directed by Andrea Bianchi (Burial Ground), "Touch of Death" directed by Fulci, "The Murders Secret" and I can't remember the rest of the films.<br /><br />Nightmare Concert is a very underrated film, even by Fulci fans. But I loved this movie and have watched it many times already. It is sad that Fulci didn't get a chance to direct anything worth while after this but nonetheless this is a great film and I do recommend it to any Fulci fan, whether you like it or not. 9/10 stars

If one would see a René Clair film with the kind of distracted semi-attention which is the rule in TV watching - one might be better off doing something different.<br /><br />Watching "Le Million" with all attention focused upon what takes place before eyes and ears will reveal a wealth of delightful details which keep this musical comedy going from the beginning to the end with its explosion of joy.<br /><br />In the Danish newspaper Berlingske Tidende a journalist once wrote: "In my younger days I saw a film which made me feel like dancing all the way home from the cinema. This film is on TV tonight - see it!"

This, like Murder She Wrote, is one of those shows, that after a stressful day at school, I sit down in front of the TV, and watch. Why? Because I genuinely enjoy it, and it's a shame it's not on the air anymore. Dick Van Dyke is amazing as Dr Mark Sloan, a doctor-turned-detective, who with his son, solves murders. He is joined by a largely unknown but very competent supporting cast, namely his real-life son, Barry Van Dyke. Victoria Rowell is also good, but I noticed that every series her hairstyle changes. i also liked Scott Baio and Charlie Schlatter, but I particularly loved Michael Tucci as Norman, and was puzzled how he suddenly disappeared. This show is so entertaining,with great guest stars, it's a bit obvious at times, like Colombo, but in every episode, there is always something to chuckle about. In conclusion, a great series, with two thumbs up and a 10/10. Bethany Cox

Shocking!<br /><br />In 1965 I saw Jury Gagarin alive. He was sincere, unpretentious and kindly, he was at ease and looked like well-educated and intellectual person. In this movie I saw a clown! The actor looks like dummy with affected gestures and mimicry. They made a cartoon! The real Gagarin was someone else! Don't believe in this movie!<br /><br />I saw this movie after the movies like "Taming of Fire" and "Apollo 13" and after reading books "Rockets and People" by Chertok and "Korolev: Myths and Facts" by Golovanov. I was shocked by tiresome scenario, poor acting and producing, and a lots of inexactitudes of "Space Race".<br /><br />The movie is the tedious rendering of well-known in Russia historical facts. A lots of interesting known facts of the space projects was not demonstrated. Some facts and details were perverted. For example, in 1945 Korolev was already not a prisoner (liberated in 1944), and in 1940 he was already not in Kolyma prison gold mine, but in special prison design bureau. Korolev was the designer in prison design bureau and he was not buried the dead prisoners. But in the movie Korolev worked as grave digger after 1940 (because jailer have shoulder straps on uniform). IMHO, the authors of movie have no profound knowledge about this part of the history and they can't to make interesting movies.

A fantastic musical starring Gene Kelly and Rita Hayworth. He owns a nightclub where she dances. She's no star yet, but she gets a big break when she's chosen as a cover girl for Vanity, whose owner was actually in love with her grandmother. When he sees the resemblance, he picks her right away for a contest his maganzine is running. Hayworth's newfound fame at first works wonders for Kelly's club, but her star rises so quickly and so high up that his grasp on her begins to falter. This isn't the most original of plots, but the two leads really make it work. It also helps that the screenplay is great. Kelly's not yet at his peak, especially his peak as an actor. His dancing, however, wow. Hayworth is the star, but Kelly claims the film's most memorable moment as he dances passionately with his own reflection. It's obviously a take-off of Fred Astaire's shadow dancing in Swing Time, but I think Kelly one-ups it, which is hardly believable. In fact, this has got to be the most amazing dance sequence in film history, save perhaps the finale of An American in Paris several years later. The rest of the songs are also excellent, and the musical numbers are even better. Too bad Rita didn't sing her own songs (well, she may have a couple of them, as her singing voice seemed to be different sometimes). Her dancing is wonderful, as is the rest of her acting. It's hard not to love her in anything. She's really one of the few truly beautiful women from the classic era. Not plastic like many of them; no, you can really see the warmth in that woman. Her smile is so disarming. Phil Silvers has the role as Kelly's best friend, and he is also very funny. The trio of Kelly-Hayworth-Silvers is obviously the kernel which became the Kelly-Reynolds-O'Connor trio in Singin' in the Rain eight years afterwards. One of the biggest musical numbers in the film seems almost completely pilfered with the "Good Morning" number in Singin'. I do think Singin' in the Rain is the better film, as Cover Girl is a little rough around the edges. This roughness, though, just adds to the charm. There are aspects of this film that beat Singin' in the Rain, and even An American in Paris. For instance, the central relationship is more emotionally involving. Instead of the dominant older man chasing the little girl (Leslie Caron and Debbie Reynolds were just teenagers, after all), we have a very nice relationship with two people who seem more like equals. There is no chasing around - an aspect that does unfortunately turn a lot of the best musicals a little sour, you have to admit. Kelly and Hayworth are a couple from the start, and when that begins to fray, I really felt it. 9/10.

A fey story of a Martian attempt to colonize Earth. (Things must be pretty bad back on Mars.) Two state troopers investigate the scene of a reported UFO crash. Whatever landed is buried under the ice at Tracy's Pond but there are footsteps in the snow leading to a nearby diner.<br /><br />The diner has had no customers since eleven o'clock that morning. Now there are a handful of bus passengers sitting around waiting for permission to cross a structurally weak bridge. The bus driver insists that six passengers were aboard the bus, although he didn't notice who they were. The problem is that there are now SEVEN people waiting for the journey to be resumed. One of them is an alien, but which one? All of them are suspect. There's the crazy old man (Jack Elam), of course, who seems to exercise a sub rosa wit. There's a blustering businessman who must get to Boston (John Hoyt). A young couple on their honeymoon. (Execrable performance by the husband, Ron Kipling.) Except for the couples, nobody has noticed anyone else. And even the couples are suspicious of each other. Bride to newly minted husband: "I could have sworn you had a mole on your chin." The story continues in a sprightly but slightly spooky way -- the phone rings for no reason, the lights go on and off, the juke box turns itself on -- and none of it is to be taken seriously.<br /><br />It's a thoroughly enjoyable ensemble play and the climactic revelation is worth a chuckle. There is no discernible "depth" to it. It's not a moral message about pod people masquerading as normal citizens. It's not a warning of any kind, just a fairy tale that diverts and amuses.<br /><br />I always enjoy it when it's on. It's especially interesting to see John Hoyt as the irritable and impatient businessman, knowing that in 1954 he was the Roman Senator who masterminded the assassination of Julius Caesar in MGM's version of Shakespeare's play. And here he is -- with three arms.<br /><br />Oops.

I grew up watching the old Inspector Gadget cartoon as a kid. It was like Get Smart for kids. Bumbling boob can't solve any case and all the work is done by the walking talking dog Brain and his niece Penny. I had heard the live action movie was decent so I checked it out at the library. I rented this movie for free and felt I should have been paid to see this.<br /><br />Broderick comes nowhere near the caliber of acting Don Adams had as the voice of gadget. His voice was all wrong. The girl who played Penny looked nothing like the cartoon Penny. She is brunette where the cartoon version was blonde with pigtails. But she does do a decent job given what she had to work with. Dabney Coleman gives a good performance as Cheif Quimby. Saldy he never hid in any odd place or had exploding messages tossed at him accidently by Gadget.<br /><br />The gadget mobile was wrong. It never talked in the series and it did fine. Why did they do this?<br /><br />Gadget was too intelligent in this film. In the show he was a complete idiot. Here he had a halfway decent intellect. It would have worked better if he was a moron.<br /><br />Also the completely butchered the catchphrase. Borderick says "Wowser". It is and should always be "Wowsers". It sounds lame with out the 's'. I got upset when they showed the previews and they didn't have the correct phrase.<br /><br />The ONLY decent gags were during the credits. The lacky for Claw is in front of a support group for recovering henchmen/sidekicks. Seated in the audience is Mr. T, Richard Keil aka Jaws of Bond movie fame, a Herve Villacheze look alike, Oddjob, Kato and more. This is about the only part I laughed at.<br /><br />The other is at the end where Penny is checking out here gadget watch and tells brain to say somethin. Don Adams voices the dog saying that "Brain isn't in right now. Please leave your name at the sound of the woof. Woof." of course this isn't laugh out loud funny, just a nice piece of nostalgia to hear Adams in the movie. He should have at least voiced the stupid car.<br /><br />Kids will like this, anyone over 13 won't.<br /><br />

The remarkable, sometimes infuriating, often brilliant films of John Cassavetes occupy a unique position in American cinema… Low-budget, partly improvised, inspired by cinéma verité documentary, and related to underground film, they have nevertheless frequently managed to reach a wide and profoundly appreciative audience… <br /><br />After drama studies, the young Cassavetes quickly made his name as an unusually unrefined, intense actor, often appearing in films about disaffected, rebellious youth such as "Crime in the Streets" and "Edge of the City." <br /><br />Setting up an actors' workshop, he worked to transform an improvisational experiment into his feature debut… The result, "Shadows," taking three years to complete and partly financed by his performances in TV's Johnny Staccato, was a breakthrough in American cinema… About the effect of racism on an already fraught relationship between two black men and their sister, two of whom pass for white, the film is impressive for its irregular, seemingly formless style and naturalistic performances… Plot was minimal, mood and emotional apparent truth were everything…

This is one of the most boring horror films I have ever seen, as it's absolutely god awful, John Carradine has very limited screen time. All the characters are boring, and the story is terrible, plus I could see the two twists at the end coming miles away!. The great setting and the creepy house definitely would have helped if it wasn't so damn boring, and there isn't one character to root for either, plus I hope it makes it's way to the bottom 100, because it deserves to be there in my opinion. When John Carradine finally shows up at the end, it's a pretty good scene but it's already way too late, and the only other screen time he had was in flashbacks, plus the only really gory scene in the movie is when a character gets his face messed up by Bee's, as it was rather gory. I got this in a DVD Horror set called Back From The Grave and everyone really overacts in my opinion, plus it's lucky this was included in a set I bought otherwise I would have chucked this out the window!. This is one of the most boring Horror films I have ever seen, as It's absolutely god awful, John Carradine has very limited screen time, and I say avoid it like the plague!, you don't want to go through the torture. The Direction is absolutely terrible!. Carl Monson does an absolutely terrible! job here, making every thing look cheap, wasting his potential on making creepy atmosphere and just keeping the film at an incredibly dull pace. The Acting is just as bad. John Carradine is good in his scene, but other then that he's hardly in the film other then flashback scenes. (Carradine Ruled!!). Merry Anders overacts here terribly as Laura, as she didn't convince me at all. Ivy Bethune is OK, and somewhat creepy, but also overacted, she did have a creepy smile at the end though. Rest of the cast, I didn't pay enough attention too, as I had a lot of trouble getting through it, but they were all really bad. Overall please avoid this,It's not worth the agony!. BOMB out of 5

Okay, there are a ton of reviews here, what can I possibly add?<br /><br />I will try anyway. <br /><br />The reason this is my favorite Scrooge is because of EVERYthing. The sets, outdoor locations, costumes are so beautiful and authentic. The music is sweet. The supporting cast is very well done. One of my favorites is the narrator & nephew, played by Roger Rees. His understated sincerity is touching and his voice is the sound of Christmas to me. David Warner is also a totally believable Bob Cratchit. His is a difficult life, but he remains positive and dignified. <br /><br />The best part of course- is George C. Scott as Ebenezer Scrooge. Some have said his portrayal too gruff. I couldn't disagree more. His exchanges at the beginning while cold or harsh, weren't out of character. He is a terribly disillusioned man who's heart has been hardened by the vicissitudes of life and his own lust for wealth. <br /><br />During the flashbacks, it's obvious that he isn't all gruff. This is where we see that there is hope for him. If he was totally gone, his partner Marley would never have come for his sake in the first place. And after all, we are none of us past hoping. I think that is a HUGE part of what Dickens was trying to say. When Scrooge looks in on his dance at his employer's with Belle, you see him smile regretfully as he tells Belle in the flashback that he will go through life "with a grin on my face." Clive Donner was smart enough as the director to allow these moments on film. Sometimes they get left on the editing room floor.<br /><br />And finally, his conversion is so absolutely full of joy that it makes me cry tears of joy EVERY time I see it. His apology to his nephew Fred, so sincere, so moving, it is the spirit not only of Christmas, but of humanity itself. The joy he brings to Fred, to his wife are so apparent. And the line that gets me every time, "God forgive me for the time I've wasted." <br /><br />Bravi tutti!

Dark Remains is a home run plain and simple. The film is full of creepy visuals, and scares' that will make the most seasoned horror veteran jump straight out of there seat. The staircase scene in particular, these guys are good. Although they weren't working on a huge budget everything looks good, and the actors come through. Dark Remains does have one of those interpretive endings which may be a negative for some, but I guess it makes you think. Cheri Christian and Greg Thompson are spot on as the grieving couple trying to rebuild there lives', however some side characters like the Sheriff didn't convince me. They aren't all that important anyways. I give Dark Remains a perfect ten rating for being ten times scarier than any recent studio ghost story/ Japanese remake.

This a fantastic movie of three prisoners who become famous. One of the actors is george clooney and I'm not a fan but this roll is not bad. Another good thing about the movie is the soundtrack (The man of constant sorrow). I recommand this movie to everybody. Greetings Bart

If you loved the 1993 (erotic, sci-fiction)cyborg film "Nemesis", then you'll love this one. I loved it the minute the Elvis Pompadoured hero pulls out a samurai sword during a shoot-out. Like "Nemesis" its takes place in a post apocalyptic slum of the future. Both are police thrillers where the well armed hero must take on well armed rebels, to solve a conspiracy by the powers that be against the unwashed masses. but thats where the similarities ends. The ambiguous mayor in dead or alive tries to keep the masses sedate on the drugs he sells them. The rebels aided by mercenaries and a cyborg, try to brake his suffocating hold on his subjects. After several failed attempts to brake the rebels back, he sends his top cop to assassinate the rebels. This movie follows the track of most action adventure but isn't afraid to color outside the line.

The 1930s saw a vogue for documentary films about remote corners of the world, with an emphasis on wild animals, exotic terrain and primitive people with unusual cultures. Despite the logistics of transporting a film crew to a distant and dangerous place, and then bringing 'em back alive (with the film footage), such films were often much cheaper to make than were conventional Hollywood features ... because there were no expensive sets, costumes, or high-priced movie stars.<br /><br />The most successful makers of such films (artistically and financially) were the team of Martin E. Johnson and his wife Osa, who made several documentaries (sometimes with blatantly staged events) in Africa and Asia. The Johnsons' safari films were extremely popular, inspiring several parodies ... most notably Wheeler & Woolsey's "So This is Africa", in which the very sexy Esther Muir plays a character named Mrs. Johnson-Martini (instead of Martin E. Johnson, geddit?). Although several other filmmakers were producing safari documentaries at this time, the Johnsons' films were the most popular in this genre because they relied heavily on humour. Viewed from our own more enlightened (I hope) standpoint, this is a serious flaw in the Johnsons' documentaries: there are too many scenes in which the funny little brown or yellow people are made to look complete idiots who are easily outsmarted by the clever white bwana Johnson and his wife.<br /><br />One definite asset of these movies is the presence of Osa Johnson. Ten years younger than her husband, she manages to seem young enough to be his daughter. While certainly not as attractive as the shapely blond Esther Muir, Osa Johnson was a pert brunette who gave ingratiating performances in front of the camera in all the films she co-produced with her husband.<br /><br />'Congorilla' is probably the best of the Johnsons' films. The shots of the Congo are interesting and have some historical value as evidence of what this environment looked like in 1930. The shots of the Pygmies and other natives are also interesting, although these suffer from the Johnsons' penchant to stage events in a manner that makes the natives look 'wild' and alien.<br /><br />The best (and funniest) scene in 'Congorilla' is an improvised sequence in which Osa Johnson attempts to teach a jazz dance to some Pygmy women. (The dance is the Black Bottom, no less ... the same dance which Bob Hope famously taught to Daisy and Violet Hilton, the conjoined twins.) Wearing jodhpurs, riding boots, and a pith helmet, Osa Johnson starts scat-singing while she does high steps and slaps her knees in her attempt to teach this dance to the African women. Meanwhile, they just stand there staring at her, apparently wondering what this crazy white woman is trying to accomplish. It's a very funny scene, but it has unpleasant undertones. Osa Johnson is doing a dance that was invented by black Americans: the implication seems to be that black Africans should instinctively be able to perform this dance after a brief demonstration (using natural rhythm, I guess) because it's in their blood, or something.<br /><br />I'll rate 'Congorilla' 4 points out of 10. This film says a little bit about African life in the 1930s and rather more about American cultural perceptions in that same decade.

This is the first 10 out of 10 that I've given any movie. What made this movie so good for me? Constant action - there isn't any slow parts, great acting, smart writing. I also liked the filming style where the shakiness and different angles just made it feel like you are a part of the scene. Finally, I get to see an action movie that doesn't try to please all sectors of the public (i.e. there's no forced romance).<br /><br />I liked the first two Bourne movies, but I loved this one.<br /><br />Warning - after watching this movie, you will be full of adrenaline and you may want to calm down a bit before driving your car!

You expect it to be juvenile but you at least expect a complete and coherent movie. What a waste. I am extremely disappointed, not at just having watched a bad movie, but at having such a great concept be tainted by a common movie that we've all seen before. If this crud makes $1 over its budget, The studio would be wise to declare victory, round up all available copies, store them deep within the nuclear waste repository under Yucca Mountain, and then never make another movie like it again. Most of this movie will keep you thinking, "This is not what I wanted to see." This film appeals to the unintelligent and maybe to teenagers. It's a true shame because most movies are made for that demographic. I had much higher hopes for this film.

I saw the world premiere at the Toronto International Film Fest, this is a great film.<br /><br />Real-life husband and wife Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly star as Charles and Emma Darwin in the midst of their struggle through the writing of and decision to publish "Origin of Species". Their consideration of the ramifications it may have for their family and the future of humankind are conveyed in such a manner that one suspects only an off-screen couple could achieve.<br /><br />Jon Amiel (who gave a heart-felt introduction) and John Collee do and excellent job of bringing Randal Keynes' biography to life. They created some very poignant and human moments, great cinematography and sets and a generous helping of tongue-in-cheek about the still divisive theory of evolution.<br /><br />The surprise star is Martha West who plays Annie Darwin, the character around whom much of the story unfurls. She plays the precocious young girl to a tee. If this performance is anything to go by her star should be on the rise.<br /><br />All in all a great film, and although it is a period drama the issues that drive it are still very much alive today.

This film takes you on one family's impossible journey, and makes you feel every step of their odyssey. Beautifully acted and photographed, heartbreakingly real. Its last line, with its wistful hope, is one of the more powerful in memory.

A classic late 50's film. The superannuated headliners (Joan Crawford and Louis Jordan) are not at their best, but the direction, cinematography, and acting of the younger cast are compelling. In a 50's sense (which I love).<br /><br />The look and feel of the artsy (over-artsy?) contemporary film "Far from heaven" reflects exactly this sort of film (and I suspect this film may be one of the models). A silly plot, of course (hey, it's 1959!), but as a film-- glorious! As a reflection of the society, extremely interesting. And as witness to how Hollywood breaks away from the idealistic portrayal of American sexual mores, fascinating.

my friend and i rented this one a few nights ago. and, i must say, this is the single best movie i have ever seen. i mean, woah! "dude, we better get some brew before this joint closes" and "dude, linda's not wearin' a bra again." what poetry! woah! and it's such a wonderfuly original movie, too. i mean, you don't usually find a slasher film where every single murder is exactly the same. i mean, exactly! now that's originality. and almost all the transitions between scenes are these great close-ups of the psycho in the ER scrubs. how cool! the acting is so wonderful to. the dad was just brilliant. must have studied REAL DADS before filming. and how many movies do you find that just don't make any sense? not many. but this is one of those gems. i mean, how cool is it that one guy waited outside for like six hours to pull a prank, while his friends were both inside? that's really cool. overall i'd say this is the single greatest film of the genre, nay, in the world! *****

The portrayal of the Marines in this film is spot on. The action scenes are some of the best ever produced in accuracy of content. The uniforms and weaponry of both the U.S. and German troops were perfect. The costumes and weaponry of the Berbers were perfectly accurate as well. This film could easily be used to teach militaria of the period and has been used by the USMC Academy for this purpose. The scenes depicting Roosevelt shooting and the rifles he was using was beautiful. Procuring so many period weapons in such good shape is testament to the attention to detail and presentation this film should be noted for. Millius is a genius.

When I heard this film was directed by Ang Lee, I made sure to see it. This Taiwanese director burst into fame with "The Wedding Banquet" and "Eat Drink Man Woman" a few years ago and then moved on to "Sense and Sensibility" and "The Ice Storm". Now, he turns his attention to another American icon -- the Civil War.<br /><br />This story takes place in Missouri, a Union state with Southern sympathies. These never officially joined the Confederate army. Instead, they formed outlaw bands, called "bushwhackers", grew they hair long, and sometimes would confiscated Union uniforms which they wore over their regular clothing.<br /><br />The movie depicts their moral dilemma, the high drama of the times, and their supposedly heroic missions of killing storekeepers and farmers who aided the Union. There are no stars in this movie, unless you consider "Jewel" the singer, well cast as a young confederate widow as a star.<br /><br />Tobey Macquire is cast as a young German farm boy who is derided for his heritage because the Germans were supposed Union sympathizers. This young man is an excellent actor, full of fresh faced youth whose performance encompasses his wonder and subtle realizations as he's exposed to the horror of war.<br /><br />Jeffrey Wright is a freed slave who travels with the bushwhackers because of his loyalty to the young man who bought him his freedom. He gives a fine and understated performance.<br /><br />Some of the acting, however, is wooden, especially in the long conversations they have about morality. And their costumes are too new. And the "southern gentleman" theme of manners and hat-tipping and politeness to women comes across as a bit much -- especially since they make it a point to murder all the men who they pull from their women's arms, then burn down the stores and houses.<br /><br />While I don't think that this will go down as one of Lee Ang's "great" movies, I did find myself fascinated by it, in spite of the slow parts and its excessive length of 140 minutes. I was interested in what was happening next and felt empathy for each of the characters who all came across as real and imperfect human beings caught up in the forces of history.<br /><br />Not as much action as the usual war movie, but yet still recommended -- especially for Civil War buffs.<br /><br />

The script seems to have been wholesale (ahem ahem, cough cough) "borrowed" from a certain other movie involving using a self-propelled manned drilling machine. Scene by scene, the two movies were almost identical. Just enough of the serial numbers filed off in this one to prevent a copyright infringement lawsuit.<br /><br />But other than that, I have to say I found this somewhat entertaining as I enjoy deep-underground-in-the-earth genre of movies. It's a little bit on the stupid side as far as the science goes, but if one is willing to squint one's eyes real hard and pretend one didn't notice that scientific gaffe here and there and all over, this movie is almost bearable. Far better than "Supernova" which was another flick that Luke Perry had a leading role in that was so dumb, dumb, dumb that nothing could save it. A note to movie makers: employ someone who knows something about the subject the movie deals with. It would be a very small part of the movie budget, but it would have a big effect overall in helping prevent your audience from guffawing at you for doing dumb science.<br /><br />Production values: almost passable. I've seen far worse in my time.<br /><br />A new thought for disaster movies: instead of them always having a happy ending where the world gets saved yet once again, how about some where things are a tad bit more realistic, where sometimes even the very best efforts still end up in failure. Particularly when the problem that needs to be resolved was caused in the first place by sheer stupidity. Stupidity-caused disaster movies with glowing, heartwarming endings sort of backhandedly justify stupidity by stating, "No matter how awful a problem is caused by braindead stupidity, it can be fixed." Which is definitely not the case. A self-caused disaster movie with an unhappy ending would serve better as cautionary tale of "Don't be so damn stupid in the first place." Should you watch this movie? If you're bored and you've seen everything else in the scifi section at your local video rental store, sure, why not. But do avoid "Supernova" as I can assure you that you're not THAT bored. That definitely was not one of Luke Perry's better movies. This one is better. That's not saying much, but it is better.<br /><br />One dead hoof up for being a deep-underground genre movie. One dead hoof down for naughtily ripping off from the screenplay of another certain movie of the same genre.

This show has been performed live around the country with a wide variety of casts. I saw it first in the Provincetown production the first summer it was in P-town (2001)--before it was, curiously enough, banned in that overwhelmingly gay resort (the codes which resulted in its closing have since been amended). I saw it again later in the off-Broadway, long-running production in New York. Oddly enough, the P-town production was far better than the New York one--fresher, cuter, more spirited and funnier--but that was only in the 2001 showing; subsequent attempts to clone the production ("Bare Naked Lads" in 2007) were definitely third-rate. This filmed production features a Los Angelos production cast, and it is, as other comments have suggested, not the best. I would rate it somewhere in between the top-notch 2001 P-town production and the third-rate "Bare Naked Lads" P-town show from last summer.

My husband and I were intrigued by the spectacle - a strong willed Southern lady with a messy personal life solves crimes for the LAPD. The first season was must-see TV for us. Unfortunately, the stories of her personal life in the second season became so tedious and unworthy of the strong character that we stopped watching.<br /><br />My husband and I were troubled by the episode where she tries to hide from her mother the fact that she is shacked up. But the deal breaker was the episode where she hides her possible pregnancy from her boyfriend but tells her boss. Why would a strong, middle aged woman do those things? The answer is she wouldn't. Additionally, my husband and I pick out the bad guy with almost perfect accuracy. It is almost always a white male or female introduced in cameo at the murder scene or in an idealized family. Can't the script writers do something original from time to time? As I mentioned, we are no longer viewers. We prefer shows that don't betray the characters and insult our intelligence.

I just came back from "El Otro" playing here in Buenos Aires and I have to say I was very disappointed. The film is very slow moving (don't get me wrong, I enjoy slow moving films!), slow to the point of driving you crazy. All you hear is Julio Chavez breathing heavily throughout the whole film. This is a poorly made film, but more importantly, it is a film without a lick of inspiration, I felt nothing for the story or its characters.<br /><br />"El Otro" was made only for the sake of making a film... making it forgetful. I would advise you to pass on this one, if you want to see good Argentinian films, look for films by Sorin.

This film is a total bore. Entrapment is way better in all aspects, plot, acting, stunts, etc. Plus the soundtrack is one of the most annoying I've ever heard. I was close to muting the film just to shut it up. 3 out of 10 stars ***

This film had all the ingredients of a good adventure movie, but it revealed incompetence at almost every level.<br /><br />The presence of Roger Moore in the cast list is usually a sign that the movie is not going to be anything more than mediocre, because Moore always has lead roles and he can't act. But this movie also had Ian Holm and Lee Marvin in it, and was based on a Wilbur smith book, so I thought I'd give it a chance when I saw the DVD for sale in the bargain bin...<br /><br />It was a mistake. The opening scene appeared to start in the middle of a reel, with sound suddenly appearing as if the first second of the soundtrack had been truncated. The scene showed a dreadnought at sea with a German crew. This bad editing was a sign of things to come, but the scene with the dreadnought was interesting enough to keep me watching. The special effects were good, and the crew wore the proper uniforms and spoke in German, indicating that the director at least paid attention to historical detail. I was surprised. <br /><br />So I kept watching, and then Moore appeared and my supicions were confirmed. Bad acting, clichéd lines, clichéd cinematography and cheap humour...but worst of all, there is a disastrous attempt to blend the light-hearted feel of the film with serious drama and tragedy. It just does not work.<br /><br />The film ends as suddenly and as badly as it started – in the middle of a reel.

First off I want to say most of the people who give this a poor review don't like this kind of comedy, the movie is great if you have an open mind and aren't afraid to laugh at some stupid things.<br /><br />This movie is shot just like the TV show with a lot of short clips compiled into one long movie. Some of the scenes don't even have dialog someone will just come out and do something unexpected and it is funny!! The only negative I had is I felt like I wasted money on my Popcorn and Icee, there was no way I could eat or drink anything during this movie I was constantly laughing. I was honestly nervous of drinking some Icee and seeing something that caused me to laugh and shoot it everywhere.<br /><br />If you don't mind some male nudity, and you enjoy Jackass the movie, jackass the TV show, and viva la bam, then for YOUR SAKE go see this movie.<br /><br />And if you DON'T like the first movie, or the TV show. Don't see it, and if you do see it don't post a bad review about it. Hardcore christians who see this and bash it just doesn't seem right to me.

This movie is hilarious! I watched it with my friend and we just had to see it again. This movie is not for you movie-goers who will only watch the films that are nominated for Academy Awards (you know who you are.)I won't recap it because you have seen that from all the other reviews.<br /><br />"Whipped" is a light-hearted comedy that had me laughing throughout. It doesn't take itself too seriously and should be watched with your friends, not your girlfriend. It won't win any awards, but it just has to be watched to be appreciated. True, some of the jokes are toilet humor, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. Everyone can use some of it sometimes. Some people need to lighten up and see "Whipped" for what it is, not what it isn't.<br /><br />****1/4 out of *****.

Abysmal pulp adventure exploitation in the jungle woman genre. Lousy audio thankfully obscures the dumb dialog. And it's awfully talky for a movie about people who don't speak English. There's no adventure to be found here; it's a jungle adventure with cliffhangers and one wild animal attack that happens in flashback.<br /><br />Three pale-face dopes wander the African wilderness and encounter warring man-hungry tribes of Amazons. These wild women have advanced out of the Stone Age only so far as to invent makeup, shoes, and underarm hair removal technology. Despite their desperation for "hus-bahnd," the ladies insist that they will fight the men and burn the weaker ones.<br /><br />The only thing of interest, as if there were any question, is the assortment of young women clad in animal skins cleverly designed like the bathing suits of 1951. Plenty of wrestling and bad dancing mixed with stripless 1950s stripper moves. No nudity or appreciable violence. On the other hand, you may be humming the catchy native song for days.

I saw this movie Sunday afternoon. I absolutely loved this movie. I loved everything about it, from the sappy moments of mothers and daughters to the scenes where Mamie Gummer (Lila) is crying because of her poor decision in marrying a man for her parents and not because she is truly in love. I loved these moments because they were just so real. At first I was seriously scared because I was hoping that it would not end up like Bobby, which was a great cast but a poorly written movie with no real meat to it. But during the middle of the movie i felt completely different. You will laugh and you will cry but in the end you will want to see Evening one more time. Trust me when i say GO SEE IT!

WESTERN UNION tells in melodramatic fashion the stringing of telegraph lines between two points out west. Siblings Dean Jagger and Virginia Gilmore work for Western Union, and Randolph Scott and Robert Young work for the Creightons. Indians and some bad white guys get in the way, but nothing can stop America's progress. This sense of manifest destiny is greatly enhanced by a first-rate musical score and vibrant color photography. Scott is a bank robber looking to mend his ways, and both he and engineer Young vie for the attention of the perky Gilmore. Lots of great character actors help keep the large production moving forward.

I was never in the past interested in this play although love Shakespeare and have seen most of his plays now and enthusiastically studied some at school. Something about this story and all the fuss about it seemed to put me off. I never bothered to try to see Hamlet until fairly recently deciding I should at least try to watch it and I borrowed the Olivier version from the library. Well, I struggled with it. Olivier seemed far too old, not only in his looks but in his acting of the part. The play had been enormously cut to fit a more conventional movie length and I think must have missed out too much as I found it difficult to concentrate on it, soon became bored and annoyed by it. I still think Olivier's Henry V is the best version I've seen of that rousing play - tho' admit I haven't rewatched the Beeb version yet and can't recall how it was when first shown.<br /><br />I heard of the Branagh full length version of Hamlet. Although I enjoyed his Much Ado, I think the Beeb version is far better and I wasn't entirely impressed by his Henry V. But I was off Branagh a bit after seeing his disappointing effort at a musical of Love's Labour's Lost which is a play I like and was so well made by the Beeb. <br /><br />Finally acquiring the complete Beeb Shakespeare on DVD recently, I soon rewatched one of my most favourite Shakespeare plays, Richard II, and was simply enthralled by Jacobi in the part so was immediately persuaded to watch his Hamlet next. What a revelation this play now is for me! Yes, it is splendid, but I feel it needs an actor you can emphathise with to play Hamlet and this for me is Jacobi. Amazing. Intriguing to note that although he is older than I understand the character Hamlet was, it doesn't show whilst in Olivier it did. Now I note he's also in the Branagh version and had much to do with training Branagh, so I shall have to watch that to see what Jocobi does with Claudius! I'm interested to discover Jacobi has trained Branagh as yes, you can certainly see the influence.<br /><br />And now I'm going to watch it all over again....

I remember stumbling upon this special while channel-surfing in 1965. I had never heard of Barbra before. When the show was over, I thought "This is probably the best thing on TV I will ever see in my life." 42 years later, that has held true. There is still nothing so amazing, so honestly astonishing as the talent that was displayed here. You can talk about all the super-stars you want to, this is the most superlative of them all!<br /><br />You name it, she can do it. Comedy, pathos, sultry seduction, ballads, Barbra is truly a story-teller. Her ability to pull off anything she attempts is legendary. But this special was made in the beginning, and helped to create the legend that she quickly became. In spite of rising so far in such a short time, she has fulfilled the promise, revealing more of her talents as she went along. But they are all here from the very beginning. You will not be disappointed in viewing this.

"The Cellar" is an intolerably dull and overly child-friendly 80's cheese parade, directed by Kevin Tenney (creator of the much better films "Witchboard" and "Night of the Demons") and starring the incredibly untalented Patrick Kilpatrick, supposedly depicting a guy with feelings. The pacing is really slow, the plot feels far too familiar, the monster-effects are all but petrifying and the film opens and ends with tedious narrative ranting that somehow feels unrelated to the actual subject matter of the film. The voice-over keeps on nagging about wind and creatures riding on wind, but what the hell, there's no wind in the plot? Like so many 80's horror movies, "The Cellar" handles about cursed Indian landscapes and all-too-real mythical monsters hidden in basements and quagmires. Mance Cashen and his family move into a house build on what once was the home of Native Americans, but then white people came and turned the land into oil fields. Half of the script is wasted on explaining the origin of the monster, but I can easily summarize it for you: an ancient Indian witchdoctor summoned the creature (which looks like an over-sized paper-mâché rat) to annihilate the white people overflowing his land but he buried it again because, and I quote, the SOB kills Indians as well. Mance's hugely irritating son accidentally awakens the beast and naturally can't convince his parents about the big hungry rat in the cellar. The allegedly emotional family situation (daddy constantly wants his son to love him) is very pathetic and redundant and the film badly needed more bloodshed; kids' movie or not. The youthful hero (Chris Miller) is quite annoying, but we've definitely seen worse kid actors in the 80's. "The Cellar" is very much not recommended, unless of course you're a fan of cheesy and typically 80's monster designs. The big dodgy rat-thing is a real hoot to see.

Winter Kills is a terrible, incoherent and very disappointing conspiracy comedy-thriller from little-known director William Richert. While watching the film, I honestly felt as if I was the emperor in the classic fable The Emperor's New Clothes. The film made me feel like a fool because I couldn't make head nor tail of the serpentine plot and the nonsensical characters. But I felt kind of embarrassed to admit to myself that the film was tying my brain up in knots. So I stuck with it to the end, hoping that the whole tangled mess would untangle itself. Then I realised.... the film is SUPPOSED to be serpentine, nonsensical and illogical, because that's the whole point. This is a satirical look at conspiracy theories and theorists, with the knotting-up of the plot used as a metaphor for the knotting-up of truths, half-truths and lies that define any conspiracy. Even when I got that the joke was on me, I still felt Winter Kills to be a pretty awful movie.<br /><br />Young Nick Kegan (Jeff Bridges) is the younger brother of a former United States President who was assassinated in Philadelphia. Nick is present when a dying man claims that he shot the President and gives detailed information about where he hid the gun. Nick follows the clues, but every step of the way the people helping him seem to die in mysterious circumstances. Also, his father Pa Kegan (John Huston), a vulgar and disgustingly wealthy businessman, keeps interfering with Nick's investigation. The deeper he delves into the assassination, the more Nick realises that he is descending into a web of complex lies and red herrings, where nothing is as it seems and no-one can be trusted.<br /><br />The film is an utter nightmare to follow, and in many ways is not worth trying to follow for the afore-mentioned reason that it deliberately tangles itself up. The cast is packed with extraordinary talent but most of them are wasted. Toshiro Mifune has one of the briefest and most pointless cameo roles in cinematic history; Elizabeth Taylor appears uncredited and has not a single line of dialogue; Richard Boone is given what seems to be an interesting role but his character goes nowhere. John Huston has the best role as the powerful patriarch and provides us with the film's few enjoyable moments with his acerbic delivery. Anthony Perkins also gets a creepy role and handles it well, though his screen time is far too short to do complete justice to the character. Some nudity and sex scenes are tossed in for no real reason and, while they're quite graphic and might appeal to voyeurs, they really belong in another film. The film's semi-comic climax is farcical and disappointing, yet paradoxically memorable in its weird little way. There's obviously a cult audience out there somewhere for Winter Kills.... but I won't be counting myself among its number.

A highly atmospheric cheapie, showing great ingenuity in the use of props, sets and effects (fog, lighting, focus) to create an eerie and moody texture. The story is farfetched, the acting is merely functional, but it shows how imaginative effects can develop an entire visual narrative. This movie is recommended for its mood and texture, not for its story.

Sudden Impact is the 4th of the Dirty Harry films and one of the best traits of these films is that they don't really degrade in quality from one film to the next. Thus, Sudden Impact provides another thrill ride through the life of Dirty Harry Callahan. This time Harry attempts to solve a series of murders while on vacation. Harry's always on the job it seems. Clint Eastwood plays Harry as he plays all his men of action, slow, deliberate, and without fear. As the first of the Dirty Harry films to be made in the 80's, Sudden Impact lacks a bit of the 70's feel that characterizes the first three films. This doesn't mean that it's quality is any less. Bottom Line: Brimming with intensity and action, Sudden Impact is another worthy addition to the Dirty Harry series.

***1/2 Scarlett Johansson, Woody Allen, Hugh Jackman, Ian McShane, Romola Garia. Directed by Woody Allen. Just after his work with Johansson on "Match Point" the two return for "Scoop" a Corky, zany and fun comic ride. When a student reporter (Johansson) finds out a new scoop from a deceased reporter (McShane) when she enters the materializer of a lame magician (Allen). The scoop being of the new Tarot Card killer in London who might be preppy Peter Lyman (Jackman); while Sondra and Sid are playing detective Sondra falls in love for the handsome would be killer. Allen has finally hit a mark, not as good as "Match Point" but definitely more fun. I laughed a lot more than I expected, one of the years must sees

I picked this film up from the local Family Video on sale for $1.50, which was probably the first sign it wasn't going to be good. Watching it with 2 friends, neither of them even wanted to finish it because of how awful this movie is. I, strangely, couldn't stop watching it. But this film is definitely a textbook case of how not to make a movie.<br /><br />The plot is simple enough and sounds great: Chuck Norris has nightmares about a serial killer he put behind bars. The serial killer escapes and his nightmares begin to become reality once more. Serial murder, Norris, roundhouse kicks... this sounds like a great film.<br /><br />And some of it is pretty good. The flashback scene where a man breaks a ladder with his teeth is intense, a scene where a van cascades off a cliff and gets crushed is amazing -- and I learned how to break out of prison using nothing more than Chapstick, gun powder and dental floss. But there is plenty wrong with this movie.<br /><br />One: the editor is a moron. When making an action or suspense film, you have to keep the energy moving. There are far too many scenes that are not crucial to the plot left in this movie, slowing it down and distracting from the overall story. At least 10 minutes could have been cut and the pacing would have improved and the film would be slightly better. Two: The sound guy is a moron. Apparently somebody tried to film most of this movie in an area where you can't get decent sound, so most of the dialog is voiced over, killing the stereo and not lining up with mouths. Also, the music is far too dramatic in some scenes. Three: The casting director is a moron. They cast Billy Drago as a psychiatrist. Billy Drago is a great cult actor (from Brisco County, the Hills Have Eyes, and others) and would have made the proper serial killer or some sort of villain. His character is so vanilla that Drago's skills are wasted. Four: The writer is a moron. Two plots are in this film - the hunting of a serial killer and the romance between Norris and his pregnant girlfriend. Every time I saw that woman on screen, I wanted to claw my eyes out. And sure enough, she never figured into the other plot, making her story completely pointless.<br /><br />Will I ever watch this again? Maybe. But unless they remaster this film at least a dozen times, you never should. Not recommended.

Blood Castle (aka Scream of the Demon Lover, Altar of Blood, Ivanna--the best, but least exploitation cinema-sounding title, and so on) is a very traditional Gothic Romance film. That means that it has big, creepy castles, a headstrong young woman, a mysterious older man, hints of horror and the supernatural, and romance elements in the contemporary sense of that genre term. It also means that it is very deliberately paced, and that the film will work best for horror mavens who are big fans of understatement. If you love films like Robert Wise's The Haunting (1963), but you also have a taste for late 1960s/early 1970s Spanish and Italian horror, you may love Blood Castle, as well.<br /><br />Baron Janos Dalmar (Carlos Quiney) lives in a large castle on the outskirts of a traditional, unspecified European village. The locals fear him because legend has it that whenever he beds a woman, she soon after ends up dead--the consensus is that he sets his ferocious dogs on them. This is quite a problem because the Baron has a very healthy appetite for women. At the beginning of the film, yet another woman has turned up dead and mutilated.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Dr. Ivanna Rakowsky (Erna Schürer) has appeared in the center of the village, asking to be taken to Baron Dalmar's castle. She's an out-of-towner who has been hired by the Baron for her expertise in chemistry. Of course, no one wants to go near the castle. Finally, Ivanna finds a shady individual (who becomes even shadier) to take her. Once there, an odd woman who lives in the castle, Olga (Cristiana Galloni), rejects Ivanna and says that she shouldn't be there since she's a woman. Baron Dalmar vacillates over whether she should stay. She ends up staying, but somewhat reluctantly. The Baron has hired her to try to reverse the effects of severe burns, which the Baron's brother, Igor, is suffering from.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the Baron's brother appears to be just a lump of decomposing flesh in a vat of bizarre, blackish liquid. And furthermore, Ivanna is having bizarre, hallucinatory dreams. Just what is going on at the castle? Is the Baron responsible for the crimes? Is he insane? <br /><br />I wanted to like Blood Castle more than I did. As I mentioned, the film is very deliberate in its pacing, and most of it is very understated. I can go either way on material like that. I don't care for The Haunting (yes, I'm in a very small minority there), but I'm a big fan of 1960s and 1970s European horror. One of my favorite directors is Mario Bava. I also love Dario Argento's work from that period. But occasionally, Blood Castle moved a bit too slow for me at times. There are large chunks that amount to scenes of not very exciting talking alternated with scenes of Ivanna slowly walking the corridors of the castle.<br /><br />But the atmosphere of the film is decent. Director José Luis Merino managed more than passable sets and locations, and they're shot fairly well by Emanuele Di Cola. However, Blood Castle feels relatively low budget, and this is a Roger Corman-produced film, after all (which usually means a low-budget, though often surprisingly high quality "quickie"). So while there is a hint of the lushness of Bava's colors and complex set decoration, everything is much more minimalist. Of course, it doesn't help that the Retromedia print I watched looks like a 30-year old photograph that's been left out in the sun too long. It appears "washed out", with compromised contrast.<br /><br />Still, Merino and Di Cola occasionally set up fantastic visuals. For example, a scene of Ivanna walking in a darkened hallway that's shot from an exaggerated angle, and where an important plot element is revealed through shadows on a wall only. There are also a couple Ingmar Bergmanesque shots, where actors are exquisitely blocked to imply complex relationships, besides just being visually attractive and pulling your eye deep into the frame.<br /><br />The performances are fairly good, and the women--especially Schürer--are very attractive. Merino exploits this fact by incorporating a decent amount of nudity. Schürer went on to do a number of films that were as much soft corn porn as they were other genres, with English titles such as Sex Life in a Woman's Prison (1974), Naked and Lustful (1974), Strip Nude for Your Killer (1975) and Erotic Exploits of a Sexy Seducer (1977). Blood Castle is much tamer, but in addition to the nudity, there are still mild scenes suggesting rape and bondage, and of course the scenes mixing sex and death.<br /><br />The primary attraction here, though, is probably the story, which is much a slow-burning romance as anything else. The horror elements, the mystery elements, and a somewhat unexpected twist near the end are bonuses, but in the end, Blood Castle is a love story, about a couple overcoming various difficulties and antagonisms (often with physical threats or harms) to be together.

Considered by almost all the critics to be the best of the Johnny Weissmuller Tarzan films, I have no argument with that, although there are a couple of others I thought just as entertaining. One thing: it's the longest of the series that I've seen at 105 minutes. I've only seen six of them but this was longer than I'm used to and with the drawn-out action finale I thought the whole thing was a bit too long.<br /><br />Nonetheless, it is a good mixture of action, suspense and romance. The only things missing are color and stereo sound. The primitive special-effects don't bother me, as that was all that they had back in the 1930s.<br /><br />Among some, this film is most noted for one thing: skin! "Jane" never wore anything this skimpy after this film as the Hays' Code was instituted by the time the next Tarzan film was made. Her outfit showed what a great figure Maureen O'Sullivan possessed. The nude underwater scene, however, was not her - by a longshot. The woman under the water didn't have a good figure at all, whoever it was.<br /><br />There is plenty of action in here. Up to the finale, it was not overdone, either. The ending went on for 15 minutes, though, and was so intense that it was almost too much to watch.<br /><br />Still, this movie offers about everything - except "Boy" (their adopted son) - you'd want to see in a Tarzan film, even O'Sullivan doing her Tarzan yell about a dozen times. With her pair of "lungs," that was no problem.

You'd think you're in for some serious sightseeing when the premise of the movie takes place primarily between two characters as they travel 3000 miles or so from France to Saudi Arabia, going through most of Europe - Italy, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia, Turkey, before arriving in the Middle East. But this is not a tour, and there are no stopovers for soaking in the sights.<br /><br />Reda's father is in his twilight years, and wishes to do the Haj. However, since walking and taking the mule is out of the question, he chooses to travel to Mecca by car. He can't drive, and therefore enlists the help of Reda, to his son's protest, to get him there in their broken down vehicle.<br /><br />But Reda doesn't see the point of having him go along, when his dad could opt for the plane. He resents the idea of having put his personal life on hold for this pilgrimage he couldn't understand. And hence, we set off in this arduous journey with father and son, being not the best of pals.<br /><br />The beauty of this movie is to witness the development of the father and son pair, the challenges they face, the weird people they meet, having to duke it out in varied weather conditions, and alternating rest stops between motels and sleeping in the car. We see an obvious generation gap in them trying to communicate to each other, the father trying to impose on his son, and the son trying to assert himself as an adult, but circumstances we see, reveal that Reda is quite a fish out of water. Through the many encounters, they actually team up quite well despite their differences.<br /><br />It's perhaps quite apt to have this film released here last week to coincide with Hari Raya Haji, and having the opportunity to watch our protagonists join the other pilgrims in their Haj. The final scene in Mecca is truly a sight to behold, and you too would feel the claustrophobia and fear as Reda tries to hunt down his dad amongst the thousands of people congregating. The sights of Europe were perhaps deliberately not dwelled upon, so as to build up the anticipation of and focus on the final destination.<br /><br />It certainly rang home the thought of telling and showing loved ones how much you appreciate them for who they are. Don't miss this, and yes, book early - I was pleasantly surprised that this evening's session was still a full house.

This film doesn't know what it wants to be: is it making fun of action movies in general? Is it satirical? Is it supposed to be a black comedy? This is truly one of the worst films ever made.<br /><br />Lori Petty is annoying. There, I said what everyone else is thinking. It's bad enough that she's such a terrible actress (Route 666, Bates Motel), but she doesn't even qualify as a mediocre b-movie actress. Her screechy voice, strange mannerisms, and poor comic timing dot this film from start to finish, until you just want to put your head in a vise and end the pain.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor and avoid this movie at all costs. You'll be glad you did.

Being a genre film fan, a child of the 80's AND a fan of hard rock music...this movie holds a special place in my heart. It has everything you could want in a supernatural movie: action, great special effects (for 1986) and a guitar wailing glam- rock soundtrack. It certainly was THE movie for all the heavy metal fans at the time. I didn't see this at the cinema because it was never released theatrically over here...but it's popularity on video during the mid to late eighties secured it's cult status and eventually led to a (sadly, mediocre) DVD release in 2002. If you're not a fan of creepy movies or rock music then this probably isn't your cup of tea...but, trust me, there are worse films of this type out there...and, despite average acting and some outrageously ridiculous situations, Trick or Treat is most definitely a wailing riff above the usual horror fare. You'll never look at your stereo the same way again. Or should I say MP3 player?<br /><br />TRICK OR TREAT TRIVIA- Marc Price (Eddie) played geeky Skippy Handelman on the popular long running comedy sitcom 'Family Ties.' After a string of direct to video flops including, 'Little Devils''Killer Tomatoes eat France' and 'The Rescue' he gave up on acting to pursue a career in stand-up comedy. Recently, he has been considering a TV comeback.<br /><br />Glen Morgan (Roger) is now a major Hollywood producer/ screenwriter. He has written and produced several major films and TV series, including: 'Space: Above and Beyond''The X-Files''Final Destination''Jet Li's The One''Willard' and most recently 'Final Destination 3'.<br /><br />Tony Fields (Sammi) started his performing career as a dancer on the TV series 'Solid Gold'. He appeared in several low budget films and TV shows before landing his breakout role as the devilish Sammi Curr in 'Trick or Treat'. Sadly, Tony passed away on February 27th 1995 of AIDS related cancer.<br /><br />Doug Savant (Tim) is probably best remembered for his pioneering role of homosexual twentysomething Matt Fielding on the popular sitcom 'Melrose Place'. Since then he has had a long and varied acting career, appearing in such films and TV series as: 'The One''Godzilla''CSI: Crime Scene Investigation' and the short lived Joss Whedon sci-fi series 'Firefly'. Currently he can be seen as Tom Scavo on the smash hit series 'Desperate Housewives'.

i love this film!! maybe it is my generation but i can really connect with what he is talking about and means to do. it kept me laughing for the duration. duration of the film, the next day, and beyond. i think this film is not one to watch if you mainly care about the plot and character development. this film is pretty much only for the generation that will understand it. there are lots of things you just know being brought up in that generation that you wouldn't if you were say 40. i think Sacha barren Cohen was Very and i do mean Very good. he is a genius. and the reason h is such an idiot is because he can make people believe he is a complete idiot, and make it funny at the same time!!<br /><br />Very good film. strongly recommend!!!! (not so strongly if you are over 30)

I have never observed four hours pass quite so quickly as when I saw this film. This film restores the power and art to Hamlet that it was always meant to have. Even those oh-so famous speeches are done in new and inventive ways. And the cast is incredible, Brannagh the brightest star. It is his charisma, power and command of the role that defines the movie. Making it a full and complete version fills so many holes and allows for new appreciation of the tragedy despite the length. Where one would expect the dark, gloomy cliched castle, we are treated to a sumptuous feast for the eyes. The only gloom comes from Hamlet himself, as it should. Well worth your time, all four hours of it.

This was a very strong look at prejudice and group mentality. The cast is composed of superb actors doing a remarkable job. The sets are beautiful and just a bit stylized. The art direction is top notch along with great cinematography. The story is taut and shows how prejudice and bigotry can flourish easily. It is disturbing for its realistic violence and protrayal of a fairly typical community. I was very impressed.

In fact it was awful. The main chick in it who gets topless was obviously sleeping with the director at the time. It was shot at some warehouse most likely owned by family or friends. Also they chose not to bother coming up with a story. Sure these are ways to cut cost, but are they smart ways of keeping costs down? No they aren't. At the very least they could have found a middle school student in a "creative writing" course. Those kids may have at least had a lesson about story structure. At the very least, they could have read up on 3 act structure but acting obviously wasn't a priority either. Watching these jerks run around in funny clothing that was stupid by 1980's standards was an embarrassment. The fact that none of these actors committed suicide in humiliation is probably a testament to the limited distribution this film received. Had the actors actually seen the final result of their hard work, there would have been a line of people waiting to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge.<br /><br />I'd give this movie 10/10 stars but it only deserves 1 for being released at all. This movie should be shown to film students everywhere. It's better than 90% of student films I've seen and wow is this movie a piece of shiiiit.

Widely known as "Don't Look in the Basement" - this is pure 70s horror, B-movie goodness that could actually pass as the genre's version of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest". Though the movie seems to go nowhere throughout the first hour+ of it's runtime, I enjoyed this particular batch of quirky crazies and their various personalities and deficiencies - such as the former army sergeant, a chick obsessed with caring for a plastic doll, a lovable man-child, and a loony nymph. After their head-doctor is murdered by a patient, a small sanitarium hires a new nurse onto their under-staffed facility, who becomes immersed in the resident's different "ticks" and outbursts. Things gradually become stranger, however, when patients start acting far more abnormal than usual... You never really know, or care, where the movie is going, 'cause it still entertains up until it's completely whacked-out ending! Several of the "twists" felt a little too forced and I could have used a tad more blood, but I really dug this much too under-rated blend of humor and horror. Check it out...

The person who wrote the summary and rave review for this film is either an idiot or an avid fan of shitty movies. From the beginning, this just spoke of cheap-ass ripoff of "The Descent", a far superior film that definitely does NOT start off slow.<br /><br />From the very first moments of "The Cavern", I was amazed at how bad it was, how uninspired and unoriginal it was, how badly written, badly acted and badly directed it was. This is without a doubt one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life, and that's saying a lot, considering I recently suffered through "Pulse". I can't believe this piece of garbage actually won awards, which just goes to show the quality of marijuana and other illegal drugs is much better in Australia and other countries than in the U.S.<br /><br />The scenes where the group is running from the "creature" are badly directed, especially the retarded "upside-down-camera", intended to show disorientation, but only coming off as a cheap effect which a first-year film student would be suitably berated for by their teacher.<br /><br />Sadly, this "director" will probably go on to make other movies, more than likely of the same low quality as this "film", since I'm sure he hasn't learned from his mistakes, which on this picture were excessive.<br /><br />If I had my way, the entire cast and crew would be sent up the river for life without parole. This film is a crime against humanity.

Do NOT judge this production by the 2-hour version that was released on VHS in the US, which is a choppy and incomprehensible mess. I had the pleasure of watching the full-length 6-hour version available on DVD from the UK, and was spellbound. The deliberate pace and growing sense of menace are mesmerizing, as is the amazing visual and aural landscape; this is an ancient Rome we have never seen before, and far more authentic than most.<br /><br />Director Franco Rossi was justly celebrated for his 1968 mini-series of The Odyssey, and this mini-series is equally powerful. Just as Bekim Fehmiu became the screen's best Ulysses, so Klaus Maria Brandauer may be the screen's best Nero. Now, I am hoping someday to see Rossi's version of The Aeneid (Eneide) that was broadcast on Italian TV in 1971.<br /><br />I am undecided which version of QUO VADIS is more powerful, this one or the Polish mini-series from 2001; each has different virtues, and in many ways they complement one another. Certainly, either one towers over that Hollywood camp-riot starring Peter Ustinov.

Iam not sure if discussing the television series is exactly where the comments should be drawn to,however it is on the television where the The Lone Ranger really made a name for himself.Iam not even referring to the original radio broadcasts of this masked rider of the plains,Iam though referring to a point where in a little boy, about 9 or 10 years old,I was to see the movie,"The Lone Ranger"and never forgot it.I can recall that I was on a line or we were moving toward the Paramount Theater-the theater was located in the theater district,if I remember correctly.It was directly across,going East to West from the building that has the ball that drops on New Years Eve-This is of course if anybody doesn't know, New York City.High Above the street on the roof tops there was a time and maybe even still today huge billboards would advertise what was being shown and so on.It was at that point in time that I looked up and was never more impressed as I was when I looked at that billboard to see The Lone Ranger across the roof tops-It was great-It made an impression and was never forgotten.That day we went to see The Lone Ranger-It was the story of how the Lone Ranger was born-The terrible ambush that the Texas Rangers rode into and the subsequent rebirth of one of its fallen heroes.It was in this film we learn that The Lone Ranger will not shoot to kill but to injure so as to let the law be the judge.That type of thinking is so worthwhile that we might be good to learn something from history.This is where we learn that Tonto discovers the fallen Ranger and upon seeing the symbol of the boyhood friendship that The Lone Ranger established years earlier when he as a younger person came to the aide of a injured young person in Tonto-For the aide given, Tonto gave to his faithful friend, a symbol of his thanks which now was part of a necklace that Tonto recognized.Tonto said,"you are Kemosabe".The Lone Ranger said,"kemo-sabe,that is familiar?Then Tonto tells the story of this "trusty scout"(the meaning of Kemosabe)I think the Lone Ranger is one of the true heroes of the silver screen and one of the great heroes of television.It should also be stated that these very respected individuals Clayton Moore and Jay Silverheels sought to live there lives according to the legend of The Lone Ranger-It may very well be that there is an inspiring story in the story of the Lone Ranger and his faithful companion Tonto.I myself was so pleased by the ability to find and buy the DVDs, that I stayed up all a Saturday morning and watched The many episodes now available.Long Live The Lone Ranger and His faithful companion Tonto-Hi-Ho Silver-

THE SUNSHINE BOYS was the hilarious 1975 screen adaptation of Neil Simon's play about a retired vaudevillian team, played by Walter Matthau and George Burns, who had a very bitter breakup and have been asked to reunite one more time for a television special or something like that. The problem is that the two still hate each other and want nothing to do with each other. Richard Benjamin appears as Matthau's nephew, a theatrical agent who has been given the monumental responsibility of making this reunion a reality. This warm and winning comedy is a lovely valentine to a forgotten form of entertainment...vaudeville and it works mainly thanks to one of Neil Simon's better screenplays and outstanding work by Matthau, Burns, and Benjamin. Burns won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for this, but I think Matthau walks away with this film with his flawlessly hilarious performance as Willy Clark. Matthau was nominated for Best Actor but didn't stand a chance against Nicholson for ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST; however, in another year, this was an Oscar-worthy performance. Matthau commands the screen and there is not a false note in this beautifully timed performance. The scene where he is auditioning for a potato chip commercial and can't get the name of the product right is a classic. THE SUNSHINE BOYS is a warm and winning Neil Simon comedy which shines thanks to unbeatable chemistry between Matthau and Burns.

Bridges's drama about a reporter who discovers some flaws in the safety precautions taken at a nuclear powerplant is directed well and a pretty interesting film from the late 70s. Its not amazing, but its solid, the acting is pretty good especially Jack lemmon, but Douglas and Fonda were good too. It was a pretty good screenplay and Bridges's direction was solid and suitable. This is definitely not one of the best films of the 70s, but its one of the better ones. A good early Michael Douglas film and Lemmon in his prime.--- IMDb Rating: 7.2, my rating:, so in simple words, solid but not amazing... thats what this film is, solid but not amazing 8/10

The Jazz Singer is one of a number of films made in the late 1940's and 1950 about the Jewish experience in the United States. Other than Crossfire(1947) and Gentleman's Agreement(1947) which dealt with anti-semitism they usually had a musical-theatre background. These films included The Jolson Story(1946), Jolson Sings Again(1949), The Eddy Duchin Story(1951), The Eddie Cantor Story(1953),The Benny Goodman Story(1956) and Margorie Morningstar(1958). The leading actors in these "Jewish" films were always played by non-Jews. For example Larry Parks a non-Jew played Al Jolson and Gene Kelly played Noel Airman in Marjorie Morningstar. This casting was probably done to make the Jewish theme palpable to a mainly non-Jewish audience. The Jazz Singer(1952) is no different. Danny Thomas was a devout Catholic and Peggy Lee was certainly not Jewish although she plays a non-practicing Jewess in the film. The clue to her background is when she attends the Golding's family meal before entering she says "I haven't been to a sader (passover service) since I left home".<br /><br />The film is about a cantor's son who has just left the service after seeing action in Korea. His dilemma is whether to become a cantor, a family tradition or to be a singer in musical theatre. His choice of theatre leads to an inevitable conflict with his father.<br /><br />However, there is much more to this film than this. This film was made after the Rosenberg trial during the McCarthy whitchhunts and the Hollywood blacklist. Therefore in this film the Jews are shown as good loyal citizens and<br /><br />are quintessentialy American. The synagogue choir would rather play baseball than practice. The cantors friends also talk about baseball in fact one of them is a Major League umpire. The synagogue itself dates back to 1790 and George Washington is said to have visited. Therefore Jews are presented as part and parcel of American society. Nobody in this film has a Eastern European accent. Peggy Lee appeared in very few feature films. In this film you get to see her sing "Lover" and "Just One of Those Things" wonderful. Danny Thomas is quite credible and he acts and sings the part very well. The comedic routines could have been left out. Yes, the film is schmaltzy and sentimental but it is well worth seeing. I enjoyed it very much.

This movie made me really mad because the main characters or all the characters have a southern accent. I've lived in Iowa for 29 years and I know that people don't have a southern accent here. This movie is about a guy who does meth and I don't know the real plot or what the movie is suppose to be about. It has some pretty graphic drug use in it and it's really insulting so see these people use meth like it was sugar. I lost my brother to meth and this movie makes me sick to my stomach because it glamorizes the drug. The movie makes it look cool to use the drug but I was happy at the end when the guy almost made it across the state line. I also know that most women who experience a traumatic rape don't want to make love to their boyfriend or husband the next day. The movie is just wrong in all directions. I would suggest "The Basketball Diaries" if I was going to suggest a movie about drugs.

Seems everyone in this film is channeling Woody Allen. They stammer and pause and stammer some more. Only for REALLY die-hard DeNero fans! It tries to appear as edgy and artistic - but it comes off as looking like a very, very low budget film made by college students. The most often used word in the whole film is "hum". The film does peg the atmosphere of the late sixties/early seventies though. If you like films where people are CONSTANTLY talking over each other, horrible lighting (even if it is for "art's sake"), and makes you feel like you are sitting in on a lame political meeting, then you might like this - but you need to be really bored. I found this CD in the dollar bin and now I know why.

I'm not usually one to slate a film . I try to see the good points and not focus on the bad ones, but in this case, there are almost no good points. In my opinion, if you're going to make something that bad, why bother? Part of the film is take up with shots of Anne's face while she breaths deeply, and violin music plays in the background. the other part is filled with poor and wooden acting. Rupert Penry Jones is expressionless. Jennifer Higham plays Anne's younger sister with modern mannerisms. Anne is portrayed as being meek and self effacing, which is fine at the beginning, but she stays the same all through the film, and you see no reason for captain Wentworth to fall in love with her. Overall the production lacks any sense of period, with too many mistakes to be overlooked, such as running out of the concert, kissing in the street, running about in the streets with no hat on (why was this scene in the film at all? the scene in the book was one of the most romantic scenes written.). To sum it up, a terrible film, very disappointing.

"Sleepwalkers" is the first film which Stephen King has written a script for. Given this, and the excellent Santo & Johnny song that they used as the theme of the movie, you would be expecting a odd, and ultimately fulfilling viewing experience. Unfortunately, that's not what you'd be getting. The thing is, they could have probably made it a good movie. The beginning is intriguing what with it's small town spooky atmosphere. But something strange happens about 20 minutes into the film. The film turns funny for no apparent reason! From that moment on the whole atmosphere of "Sleepwalkers" is ruined.For those of you who have seen it, who can ever forget good old Johnny screaming out "COP KABOB!!" after jabbing the pencil into that one cop's ear?!? But don't get me wrong, the humor has no redeemiing quality. I just rented it again to see if mabye I was wrong the first time around, given how original the plot sounded, but I was right. Man, what a waste. I can't believe they got the rights to that Santo & Johnny song. I gave this a 2.

I've never read a good review for "Vanity Fair" and I can't understand why. For something that was "rushed through in ten days" it all comes off surprisingly well. Though admittedly "Becky Sharp" is a better movie and Miriam Hopkins a better Becky, there's nothing to stop this one from getting a solid 9/10. At times, Myrna Loy might seem just too cute and nice to be playing an utter bitch, but at other times she just has to squint her eyes and the air temperature drops a dozen degrees. Meow! The move to a more modern setting did not work against "Vanity Fair" and the only thing that really causes some conflict is the casting. Barbara Kent (Amelia) was under 5 feet in height, and few of the leading men were very tall either - this all coming together to make Loy look like an absolute Amazon woman!<br /><br />"Vanity Fair" is similar to "Craig's Wife" in that no matter how bad the main character is, you have to love her. And you know she deserves her comeuppance, and then some, but you still feel sorry for her when she gets it. Though based on the same story as "Becky Sharp", this version had a different ending, which is interesting to see because most of the rest of the films were almost identical. For pleasure value, the ending of "Becky Sharp" is ultimately more enjoyable, although aesthetically, and from the flow of the story, there is no doubt that the ending of "Vanity Fair" is the better one, whether or not you actually like it.

The Shining starts with Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson) driving to an isolated hotel named the 'Overlook' situated high in the Colorado mountains for an interview with it's manager Stuart Ullman (Barry Nelson) about becoming the Winter caretaker. Ullman tells Jack that he will be responsible for the basic upkeep of the hotel but will be almost totally isolated from the rest of the world for six months as the harsh Winter sets in. Together with his wife Wendy (Shelley Duvall) & young son Danny (Danny Lloyd) Jack moves into the hotel & at first everything seems fine, it's a beautiful hotel, absolutely huge & whatever they need is at their disposal. However the Overlook hotel has a murky past with a previous caretaker murdering his entire family before committing suicide & Danny has the ability to 'shine' which means he has psychic powers that let him see & hear things 'ordinary' people can't. As the days, weeks & months begin to pass Jack become more & more insane, Danny keeps 'seeing' things & people while Wendy becomes frantic as she doesn't have a clue what's happening to her family, as a heavy snowstorm leaves them trapped Jack finally loses it...<br /><br />This English production was co-written, co-produced & directed by Stanley Kubrick & is a fine horror film. It appears that The Shining is another film that exists in two distinct different versions & the one I will be commenting on is the shorter European cut that runs just under 2 hours in length. The script by Kubrick & Diane Johnson, is based on the novel by Stephen King which I have not read so I can't compare them, goes for psychological horror rather than visual with only one murder during the entire film. There are very few character's in The Shining with Jack, Wendy & Danny the only ones that really matter, since the film concentrates on them almost exclusively you care for them, become involved with them & what they go through. The pace is somewhat slow but this is one film that didn't feel that long & keeps you interested throughout. On the negative side I don't think the reasoning behind Jack going crazy & wanting to kill his family was strong enough to convince me, the fact that Jack escapes from the freezer without any explanation bugs me & I don't know if I missed something but that ending didn't make any sense to me whatsoever, I'm still trying to work out what that picture is all about! There is very little in the way of violence or gore, a couple of rotten zombie ghosts & someone is killed with an axe but The Shining is a horror film that doesn't need to rely on blood & special effects as it has a gripping story. With a budget of about $19,000,000 The Shining is technically flawless as you would expect from an obsessive filmmaker such as Kubrick, the cinematography is brilliant with some fantastic free-flowing & smooth steadicam shots as the camera effortlessly follows the character's around the maze of corridors, the sets look absolutely real & instead of clichéd old haunted house themes like dark corners, basements & cobwebs Kubrick brings things right up-to-date with brightly lit corridors, massive open expansive spaces & a modern decor (well 80's modern, just check that red toilet out!). The acting is good from everyone involved although as usual in horror films the little kid is highly annoying & Nicholson seems crazy from the very start. The Shining is an absorbing film that I enjoyed watching although I'm not sure I'd watch it again anytime soon. For those looking for explosions & fancy special effects you will be disappointed, for those looking for a good haunted house type horror with a strong story I definitely think The Shining is for you, well worth a watch in my humble opinion.

This movie has some fatal flaws in it, how someone could walk through an open back door of a highly secure medical facility is unbelievable. Then this same person just walks around the facility and enters the Dr.'s office, is just bad writing or bad editing. <br /><br />Very very very predictable movie. <br /><br />I am not sure how this film got made, except it is was filmed in Canada, and probably received a government grant. <br /><br />I must say the person playing Aaron, Cory Monteith, did a good job.<br /><br />Unless you are really bored and there is nothing else to watch on television then I would say it will kill some time, but otherwise, it is a movie no actor would want on their resume.

I must be getting old because I was riveted to this movie from the first time I saw it. I'm watching it again right now on HBO. It's a very simple film about 2 people that fall in love after they found out that there spouses were having an affair. Plot is very thin, but the actors acted very well in this movie. In the mix of Kristen Scott Thomas running for congress and Harrison Ford being an Internal Affairs cop, these two meet, under unfortunate circumstances and fall in love. I love the soundtrack. Perfect fit. One thing I can't figure out, this movie had a budget of $68 million dollars. Were was it spent? The plane crash or Harrison Ford's salary?

It beats me how anyone can rate this film very highly. It is no understatement to call it far fetched. How the guy managed in such a short space of time to construct a wooden maze of underground rooms is quite ridiculous or maybe he was the greatest carpenter since Jesus. The obese sheriff played by Hoyt Axton looked like a refugee from the Jerry Springer show and I found the blonde female lead Jennifer Jason Leigh rather plain. We have an expression here in the U.K. 'mutton done up as lamb' which suits her perfectly. It wasn't all bad however, I enjoyed it immensely when the end credits rolled and 'The End' came up was quite brilliant for this hotch potch of a T.V. movie which if it had been a cinematic release would have been put on video and in discount stores in no time at all.

I can only echo the praise of the other reviews here. It's a delightful film with a feelgood factor that it achieves without crossing the line into soppy sentimentality. Naturally sweet - no added sugar.<br /><br />One small point: it seems to me that the mild objections raised about Ustinov's character Pendelton being able to walk in and defeat the system security ignore the fact that Pendelton is clearly a genius/savant at this sort of thing. Yes, the film was pretty computer illiterate, but it did show Pendelton 'studying computers' at his flat, and I believe the implication was supposed to be that his gifts allowed him to simply engulf the whole subject, practically overnight.<br /><br />There were a few odd moments when it appeared in some scenes that Gnatpole was trying to test Pendelton's knowledge and call his bluff. I'm not sure whether we were supposed to believe that Pendelton cunningly weaselled his way out of these situations, or whether he was actually knowledgeable enough to pass the tests - it was a little unclear.<br /><br />Certainly he had to know enough to set up the dummy accounts. Presumably Wallach and Ustinov were relying on their own rather foggy notion of how computers worked in those days, and in order to understand in detail what they were getting at, it's necessary to know quite what their concept was. They knew there was something about 'procedures' which was important; they thought that the 'smart light' could actually control security, rather than just indicate its state; they thought that the (dumb) user terminal's features would strongly influence what could be done on the mainframe itself - though apart from things like graphics feature I don't see it meself.<br /><br />Mostly, I think they tried to avoid the subject of actual computer operations as far as they could, and they did that rather well. Allowing them a bit of artistic license, I don't think their efforts had any flaws worthy of note.<br /><br />CD

it's embarrassing I had like 3 minutes on my way to a job to stop at the video store and it was 2 for 1 night and I was really intrigued by the half nekkid pic of the 'star'. <br /><br />I guess this film shows what the new york film school and sir daddy's fortune - judging by the bio of this clown in the lead - can do for you and you and you cause that's about what we have here and in addition a photoshopped pic of the lead "actor" with someone else's body in a still image that doesn't happen anywhere in the movie. it's weird cause in so many ways it had money thrown at it obviously low budget money buckets but from the outset when all the extras are laughing in their scene of terror it doesn't bode well would have maybe had some charm if it had been done for 2 cents! in short order I skipped scenes and fast forwarded to see the image on the box that was all I really cared about. strange, why don't I just rent a porno or something? but wow there is bad acting that's funny I guess and bad acting that's just bad. robert englund is pretty pathetic in this along with everyone else. it does make you appreciate the more not so straight to video horror that's out there. . . blah most of which I wouldn't bother with. shoulda watched uh hellraiser 3 if I wanted to see an 8 pack! I would imagine horny old gay guys with 2 minutes in the video store are going to be the principle renters of this and they ought to start a class action suit!

Such energy and vitality. You just can't go wrong with Busby Berkley films and this certainly must be his best. Of course the choreography is wonderful, but also the banter between Cagney and Blondell is so colorful and such a delight. Don't miss this one.

Born Bad is a well put together crime drama about a group of teenage kids. Teens as well as young adults would find this movie well acted and entertaining. The movie is similar to The Black Circle Boys in the sense that a bunch of teenage boys go around their town making up their own rules and not caring about the consequences.

Ghoulies IV starts in a museum storage facility where PVC & leather clad blonde Alexandra (Stacie Randall) is looking for a ancient jewel, after offing various guards she summon the demon Faust who she worships & wants to have sex with, unfortunately she lost the jewel so he's not very happy & orders her to get the last remaining one... Which belongs to Jonathan Graves (returning from the original Ghoulies (1985) Peter Liapis) who is experienced in demonic possession & stuff like that after the events of the original Ghoulies. Alexandra sets about finding the jewel so she can bring Faust to Earth permanently from the 'other side' to, well I don't know actually. Erm, that's about it really...<br /><br />Directed by Jim Wynorski whose very name name sends shivers down my spine when it's attached to a film I'm about to waste 90 minutes of my life on Goulies IV is as I expected complete, total & utter crap from start to finish & it's as simple & straight forward as that. The ,ahem, 'script' , cough, by Mark Sevi has virtually nothing in common with the other Ghoulies film except in it's title & that they managed to convince Liapis to reprise his role which also has the added bonus of big able to use footage from the original even though it has no relevance whatsoever. The story is almost none existent, the whole film is a real chore to watch, it's incredibly boring & moronic, it's slow, it's predictable, it's squeaky clean as far as blood or gore goes & it has two comic relief goblins whom I assume are supposed to fill the Ghoulies quota even though they look nothing like they did in the previous films & are in fact just embarrassing to watch, in fact I think they were practising to be ventriloquist's during most of the film as when they speak their mouth's don't move... You know I don't want to talk or think about Ghoulies IV anymore so please believe me when I say this is one huge piece of crap of Elephant sized proportions, don't waste either your time or money.<br /><br />Dirctor Wynorski turns in a throughly rotten film on just about every level, the special effects are terrible as is the whole film. Apparently Ghoulies IV is meant to be some sort of horror comedy but it misses both targets by the proverbial mile & it is neither funny nor scary. The best thing about this film is actress Randall in her PVC & leather outfit running around trying to find the jewel & that's hardly worth sitting through this rubbish to see. There's a half decent runaway car scene with a few crashes but it looks like it was edited in from a completely different film & given Wynorski's track record I'm sure it was. Forget about any gore as there isn't any.<br /><br />Technically Ghoulies IV sucks, it's obvious it had & low budget but that simply isn't an excuse for it to be this bad, is it? Liapis is back in the cast although he probably wishes he'd stayed away, PVC clad babe Randall is easily the best thing about this film which says a lot.<br /><br />Ghoulies IV is crap, there's nothing else to say really. I honestly can't see anyone who enjoy films getting anything out of this, I just can't. I can't believe that I'm going to recommend the original Ghoulies over anything but it's going to happen now because even though that's crap as well it's a hell of a lot better than Ghoulies IV, one to avoid folks & you can thank me later. The things I sit through so you don't have to, honestly...

This deserves a 12 out of 10. An absolutely refreshing show with real characters and real stories. This show needs to come back, I've seen every episode and this is real quality.<br /><br />The show centers around a couple of New Yorkers, plays around with the concept of the six degrees of separation and cleverly intertwines their lives. Bridget Moynahan and Jay Hernandez are stunning and so is the adorable Caseman. The scenery is amazing and wardrobes are exquisite.<br /><br />We need more shows like this that makes viewers feel like they are intelligent individuals not mindless drones.<br /><br />If it never comes back, six degrees will be sorely missed.

I should admit first I am a huge fan of The Dandy Warhols, and that is the reason I came watching this film.<br /><br />The uniqueness of this film, compared to other modern rockumentaries, is that it's not just about one page of a band's history (like "I Am Trying To Break Your Heart", about Wilco), but rather covers long period of the band's history. In this movie, director/producer Ondi Timoner closely followed friends/rivals The Brian Jonestown Massacre (BJM) and The Dandy Warhols (DW) for more than 8 years (1995 - 2003) and shoot tremendous 1500 hours of raw video, cut than to 1:45 hours (the future DVD release will contain much more material than the original film). The result is astonishing - there are no fillers - the film is 100% pure and genuine archive footage, which gives you feeling as film progresses that you live with the bands, through all these years.<br /><br />Both bands in the start of their careers promised to "make a revolution" in the music making, and not to sell their souls to the devil of "record industry". However, their paths quickly diverged - The Dandy Warhols signed a contract with Capitol Records and became relatively popular (especially in Europe) after only one album, while The Brian Jonestown Massacre (with its self-destruction-bound leader Anton Newcombe) dissolved into oblivion (at least how it is portrayed in the film). And the movie follows the descent of The Brian Jonestown Massacre, contrasted by the ascent of The Dandy Warhols.<br /><br />First, I was delighted by the movie and its approach of telling the story of Anton Newcombe (for example, Courtney Taylor - the leader of The Dandy Warhols - narrates), but after some thinking I realized that something is wrong with this film.<br /><br />First, it treats Anton Newcombe as a disappeared person. The project started in 1995 as a documentary about several promising emerging groups, in which Anton Newcombe and Ondi Timoner were equal partners (that was the reason why all these years Ondi Timoner had unmediated access to the both bands). It was Anton Newcombe who brought The Dandy Warhols into the project. In the end he was ignored completely, as if he was kicked out of the project. Everybody talk about BJM, but he does not take part in the discussion. I guess he wasn't even informed when the group started the final editing process. There are always both sides of the story, and here we have only one... Of course, as one would expect, Anton does not approve the final result and sees this movie as a betrayal of his former friends.<br /><br />Second, the film is very Dandy Warhols-biased. Sure, the winner takes it all, but the fact that Courtney Taylor (leader of DW) narrates (even though it seems a good choice - it provides a feeling of seemingly closer involvement) and that bands' late history is represented nonproportionally (BJM is covered till 1997, and DW - till 2003), does not add objectivity to the film.<br /><br />Third, the movie is (somewhat) shallow. What does it want to teach us? As one critic said: "... movie examines old questions: where does genius fit into a commodified world? Can it thrive and get its due, or does it need to self-destruct to preserve its integrity?" No, IT DOES NOT EXAMINE these questions! It just depicts a story of a brilliant, but unsuccessful musician, narrated by a less brilliant, but successful one, who indulges in self-assurance and eternal coolness of an ego greater than mountain.<br /><br />Anyway, the movie was fun - it's raw, it's fresh, it's stylish, it's ... just god damn interesting, at least for the DW or BJM fans. For the rest of the crowd - I don't know...

"Absolute Beginners" was a film for the younger generation, a multi-time film that discussed the issues that teens were facing in Britain and how these troubled, constantly hitting each note, teen's problems can relate to the youth of tomorrow. It could have been dubbed the "Moulin Rouge" of the 80s, but it disappeared. It made its very shallow mark on the world, snuck under the radar, and can now be found collecting dust at either the musical section, the comedy section, or the politically obscure section of that seedy video store that doesn't need chain money to survive. Alas, that wasn't where I found it – but I found it, watched it, tried my hardest to sing along with it, stared into Bowie's eyes, but found myself faded by the end. Did it not survive the test of time? Is 1950s London too far removed from our current society? Is Bowie too creepy? I think "Absolute Beginners" falls somewhere into each of these questions as the perfect example of cinema that starts out with a bang, but withers to a mere sparkle by the end.<br /><br />"Absolute Beginners" opens with a huge number that takes us through the non-gritty streets of London which involve theft nightly, prostitutes on every corner, dance throughout, booze like rivers, and the swankiest ties on nearly every individual. Sounds like a place we would all hate to be … right? Director Julien Temple keeps the mood light and flashy throughout most of the songs as we attempt to learn something about a plethora of our main characters. The one we follow most is Colin played by Eddie O'Connell who follows his dreams of being a photographer while shooting his favorite girl, Suzette (played by Patsy Kensit). These two have chemistry, and while Suzette looks like a pre-rehab Lohan, to me they worked. There was a huge spark between them, the chemistry was like lava, and I believed that these two could take me down a road I had never traveled. I was ready – but then, something happened. Temple takes us out of the nightlife, takes us out of the city we grew up with at the beginning, and completely reverses the roles without any dedication to the first. Suzette runs away, Colin becomes a pervert, and Bowie … well … I am not quite sure what his role is but he sings amazingly well while climbing a mountain – I can tell you that much. Temple gives us this flashy city, this opportunity to see those that inhabit it, but leaves us hanging high and dry when it is time to pull the trigger. We learn about Colin, mainly, but nobody else. I could probably watch this film again and still be equally confused as to whom is angry at whom, and what importance fashion had to that era. Also, were they teens really – they all seemed like they were pushing their late 20s, but maybe it was my TV.<br /><br />Character development thrown right out the door, Temple tries to overcompensate by giving us bigger, more lavish songs using even more characters that we know nothing about. One of my favorite songs in the film uses this thought as a prime example. Temple uses a split house to show us the lives of Colin's parents (of which I didn't know it was them until after the film) and a song which screams apathy. Great song, too many characters, not enough time, suddenly dragged into another scene of missing coherency, and it just falls apart in your hands. Then, if that wasn't enough, we are rocking our heads to the beat of some great songs, rubbing our noggin' trying to understand where our characters are or are going, and Temple throws in hatred, anger, and politics into the final act. While I was hoping that this film would have a dedicated theme, I didn't think racism would be on the top of the bill. Suddenly, friends are missing, people are angry, and there is some random guy running around fighting Colin because he lives in poverty and has a friend of a different race? Somebody help me out here. It seemed completely rushed and overwhelming – nearly to the point of wanting to turn the film off. To me, the ending of "Absolute Beginners" was nowhere near the excitement from the opening number. That first part set the pace, and Temple could not keep up.<br /><br />Overall, I must say that Temple can direct a music video, but I don't think he was quite prepared for the feature film. I don't think this film will ever make it into full "cult" status, and will probably remain unremembered or in the dollar bin for years to come. It is a fun film to watch initially, but when we get to that final part, it just explodes from the inside. I wanted some cutting edge work, but instead what I found was a freaky Bowie coupled with characters I cared nothing for. I could see how this film could relate to the youth of the 80s, but by the end it just felt forced. I think everyone in this production should have taken a moment and listened to "Motivation" by the ever-freaky Bowie in this film, it may have helped solidify this feature into better cult status. I am glad that I watched this film once, but that is all that my small brain can take. I loved the way that Temple caught me from the beginning, but he couldn't control his characters (way too many), and the songs didn't seem to match the final moments of the film. It came out of nowhere, and it was unwelcomed. If this was a film about racism, it needed to be from the beginning. "Absolute Beginners" was a welcomed adventure, but I don't think I will be dusting this film off in the future.<br /><br />Grade: ** out of *****

I like seeing Linda Blair playing in an actual "horror" movie again. I had been disappointed with her in most everything since the "Exorcist "movies (Which i loved). What was up with all of those nasty "B-movies" she did? <br /><br />David Hassellhoff on the other hand, all i could do is laugh. He is not cut out to be a horror movie actor. David needs to stick to "Knight Rider" or "Baywatch".<br /><br />All around, this is an awesome movie. Even for the eighties, this was an awesome film. It has horror, action, and drama. It is a suspenseful, and I loved the way Linda Blair turned out.