Datasets:

srivatsavaasista

/

textgenerator-ds-mini-1

like 0

I absolutely hate this programme, what kind of people sit and watch this garbage?? OK my dad and mum love it lol but i make sure I'm well out of the room before it comes on. Its so depressing and dreary but the worst thing about it is the acting i cant stand all detective programmes such as this because the detectives are so wooden and heartless. What happened to detective programmes with real mystery??? I mean who wants to know what happened to fictional characters we know nothing about that died over 20 years ago??? I wish the bbc would put more comedy on bbc1 cos now with the vicar of dibley finished there is more room for crap like this.

It gives the ordinary guy/girl the chance to be on television singing as their favourite stars.<br /><br />For the majority of the time, they sound like the singer they are meant to be portraying.<br /><br />Another twist to it - A team of make up people and costumers dress the contestant up like that singer. They might not look like them but the likelihood of getting someone that sounds like a person looking exactly the same as them are very slim.<br /><br />It's a load of fun for your Saturday night - and the contestants aren't raging wannabes like they are on another TV singing show. The fact that there are no prizes involved and it is for fun means that it will attract a different type of person.<br /><br />The only gripe i have is with the Kids version - it looks like they have done the round of stage schools- what happened to the normal kids?

Well, it's all been said about this movie and I hate it when writing reviews where everyone else already said what's to be said. But the thing is, I have seen zillions of movies and I am working on writing reviews on all the movies that I've seen. So, I have to write something.<br /><br />The acting is stupid. It's truly stupid how the news anchor expresses her sadness towards the plane crash. The nun is nice though and the professional assistant who comes to take care of the child. the three main killings in the movie are just so weak that you wonder how stupid can the makers of this movie be. Don't they realize that even rip-offs can still be scary. We don't see how the granpa is killed. The dentist and his assistant made me feel they deserve to die, you just don't sympathize with them. And uncle tony in the garage dies in a way that could have been worked better. We just hear him scream and we see nothing!

Good movie, all elements of a good movie was there, story, actors, script, and direction. I was on the edge of my seat the whole time.<br /><br />No question about it, is a low budget film, but I liked it more than many big budget films.<br /><br />Andres Bagg plays Martin Sanders, who is dealing with his unfaithful wife. Then a voice in the telephone and then just fear.<br /><br />Virginia Lustig is beautiful and brings a powerful performance. She is an excellent part to the film.<br /><br />I liked the increasing ambiguity near the end, even though we know that the main character can be involved, we continued seeing everything from his point of view and asking: Who is the killer?

*Hannibal SPOILERS* Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) is back... for a travesty of a movie! Now he's in Italy, appreciating our food (including people, such as Rinaldo Pazzi (Giancarlo Giannini)), but comes back to the States for Clarice (Julianne Moore) and to even the score with a former victim, Mason Verger (Gary Oldman).<br /><br />Let me tell you, this movie does not deserve to be spoken of along with Silence Of The Lambs and Manhunter, because it's truly, completely, absolutely, totally BAD.<br /><br />I mean, the scene near the end with Ray Liotta's cranium being opened and him forced to eat part of his brain sautéed? WTF? Then, why the HELL was everybody so annoying (including Clarice)? And why did the story keep going nowhere? I suppose that this is the 'teen' chapter of the Hannibal series; terrible, stupid, gory for gore's sake and totally embarrassing.<br /><br />Don't watch it, especially if you love any other of the Hannibal movies (SOTL, Manhunter, Red Dragon, Hannibal Rising).<br /><br />Hannibal: 1/10.

Seeing this movie in previews I thought it would be witty and in good spirits. Unfortunately it was a standard case of "the funny bits were in the preview", not to say it was all bad. But "the good bits were in the preview".<br /><br />If you are looking for an adolescent movie that will put you to sleep then Watch this movie.

"Tipping The Velvet" is one of the modern day television productions that prove that some television can be just as good or even better(as this is) than what you see at your local theater. <br /><br />If you want to read the plot, read this and if you want other details skip down to the next paragraph. This is the unforgettable portrait of an unconventional young girl named Nan who works as a naive oyster girl,until she discovers her repressed homosexuality when she falls in love with a successful woman named Kitty who dresses as a male for her stage profession. The young girl soon joins the act as another male impersonator and they are a major hit. Soon the both of them embark on a tender affair. Kitty eventually becomes enveloped in a marriage of convenience and ravages young Nan's heart. From then on, Nan works as male impersonated prostitute to men looking to have sex with boys, then she becomes the private sex slave to the evil and sadomasochistic Diana where Nan experiences severe emotional abuse. When that ends badly, Nan is on the streets again where she recalls a young woman named Florence; a good-hearted socialist who had the true potential of being a wonderful partner. That's where Nan will discover the power of socialism and learn how to get back to fame. <br /><br />The region 1 transfer is of exceptional picture quality, there is a very good scene selection, an eloquent photo gallery and a fun interview between novelist Sara Waters and the film's writer Andrew Davies. <br /><br />The sets, costumes, cinematography and music are gorgeous. The acting, writing and directing are extremely strong and filled with realism, class and originality. I loved the film and the novel. Section III in the film is much different in the film than in the novel, because section III in the novel is great written down, but isn't screen material. I will be brave and say that I love the films interpretation of it much more. <br /><br />This breathtaking historical ingeniously combines Drama, Comedy, Erotica and Romance to vibrant perfection in a way that is both deeply moving and spiritually uplifting. For every mature and open-minded adult who has ever felt the pleasures, pains and power of falling in love and living life to it's fullest. A revolutionary production; an absolute must-see!

Jane Eyre_ is one of the greatest novels in the English language and this screenwriter should of read it. I hate it when writers use Spark notes for what a novel is all about. This movie is unbearable to watch if you have read the book.<br /><br />The whole 'red room' is so down played that I wonder why they even bother to put it in. In the book the 'red room' is foreshadowing for the WHOLE story and the rest of Jane's life. Helen Burns is treated so badly in the movie I'm sure she was happy to die and leave early. In the book she is one of the most compelling characters and she was not the red head. The whole Christian theme is missing from her life and the rest of the movie.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor and miss this movie and read the story as Charlotte Bronte masterfully told it.

The film's executive producer is none other than that messenger of peace thru transcendental meditation, David Lynch, the director's father. I wonder what David's guru, His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, would have thought of this production. The hypocrisy here is as repugnant as is the film itself. It's a safe bet that Samuel L. Dieteman, Phoenix serial killer and devotee of recreational violence, would have loved every minute of it.<br /><br />I doubt if many would fault this film for its cinematic craft; on that level it's quite good. But on a moral level, it's the most disheartening movie I've ever seen.<br /><br />SPOILER COMING<br /><br />I guess it's the phoniness of the thing that saddens me the most. Morally-numb Generation Xers learn a craft and a little post-modern aesthetic theory at art school or film school and then get involved in the arts-and-entertainment industry; and here's the result: a film which wallows in human suffering, injustice and carnage, much of which is witnessed by a nine-year old who sees her entire family brutally murdered by a couple of recreational-violence killers who, at the end, ride off into the sunset.<br /><br />NO MORE SPOILERS COMING<br /><br />For whom are films like this produced? Narurally, sadists are going to adore this - why wouldn't they? But who else? As I noted above, there's some really good film craft here, but good craft can be applied to any subject matter. Why apply it to stuff like this? Also, the movie is very suspenseful, but that's not because of the graphicness & grossness of the violence; it's suspenseful because it's well-directed & well-acted. I'm sure the ghost of Alfred Hitchcock could explain this much better than I can.<br /><br />So what has been put before us here? And above all, why? <br /><br />Yes, our world can be an ugly, dirty, even evil place, but shouldn't we dissent when an "artist" makes it her/his business to rub our faces in it? Or worse still, to stick it in the faces of those nine-year olds who will, one way or another, end up seeing this on home DVD? <br /><br />I hope that people will see to it that this film is not seen by their kids. Yeah, I know - dream on, bernon...

I would assume that this film would get rave reviews in Canada--particularly in Quebec. That's because the Canadians have traditionally loved hockey and the Montreal Canadians were like gods in Canada for decades. As an American, the closest thing we have to them are the New York Yankees. If you are a fan, then they are the greatest and winningest team in history. If you are not a fan, then they are Satan's team!! Well, at least that's how it was as I grew up in Washington, DC in regard to the Dallas Cowboys. So I am pretty sure when this film was shown up North that everyone immediately had a strong emotional reaction--their national sport AND the closest thing they have to a national team in the NHL.<br /><br />Now the cartoon itself is moderately interesting when it begins and the main character talks about growing up around Ottawa and rooting for the Canadians AND Maurice "the Rocket" Richard. However, when his mother accidentally buys him a Toronto Maple Leafs jersey and forces him to wear it, I knew right away what a horrible and shameful thing this would be to a little boy. This ability to connect to the character--even though he lives in a far off land is what made this a very special short film. The way the other kids treated him and his conversation with God at the end make this a lovely nostalgic film. Very clever and memorable.

First off I really enjoyed Zombi 2 by Lucio Fulci. This film was utter trash. I couldn't stand to watch it. The storyline was a joke, the acting was a joke, and the fact that Zombi 3 has nothing to do with Zombi 2 is even more a joke.<br /><br />We jump from Voodoo to DEATH 1 THE HARMFUL AGENT BRINING People BACK TO LIFE. Whatever, this movie isn't worth the $1.00 it cost to rent it. I really enjoyed lucio fulci movies but this one was horrible. If Zombi 3 is an indicator for how zombi 4 and 5 are going to be I think I will just skip them.<br /><br />Zombi 2 is an awesome flique tho.

This movie is so wonderful, it's hard to find words to describe it. This is the only time I can't decide which was better, the book or the movie.<br /><br />Whoopi Goldberg is awesome, and Oprah Winfrey, such a good actress, she could be funny, happy and miserable all at the same time. All together the movie was well directed by Steven Speilberg, and should not be passed up. 9/10

The only thing I expected that this film didn't have was an intelligent, talking motorcycle.<br /><br />This film is just plain awful. I gave it 1 star, which of course, means I enjoyed it tremendously. Bad acting, bad writing, bad directing, bad fight choreography. The only real actor in this movie is Martin Landau, who of course does a good job playing the villain, although the character is your standard cardboard cutout evil CEO/Villain. Even the so-called "plot twist" at the end was no shock.<br /><br />There was so much to make fun of in this movie, I enjoyed it a lot. And it did have a few impressive car wreck stunts.<br /><br />Like bad movies? Check this one out, ouch. Want a good movie? Not here.

This neo-film noir is one of a genre of late twentieth century American films that all seem to involve corrupt characters, fast cars, a ribbon of highway and, of course, plenty of guns wielded by people who appear never to have taken a gun safety course. The actors are the best reason to see "Black Day, Blue Night." There is the late, great J.T. Walsh ("Swing Blade," "Pleasantville," "Red Rock West," "The Last Seduction," and many more), who did many neo-films noirs (See also "Breakdown"). Then there is Michele Forbes of the TV series "Star Trek: The Next Generation" and "Homicide." (In a supporting role, there is even the late Bejamin Lum who also appeared on a Star Trek episode titled "The Naked Now.") A spoiler of sorts--a clue really: Only the most innocent survive, but innocence is a very relative term in a movie like this, and you probably won't guess who is innocent before the final reel.

The movie was TERRIBLE!!! Easily the worst movie I have seen in the past few years. One of those movies I will be able to tell people for the next three years that it was the worst movie I can think of. Thank you for giving me an answer to that burning question "What is the worst movie you have seen?" Answer: Celestine Prophecy. Trust me...I read the book, enjoyed the message and was excited to see the movie, but then, they treated the audience like we are r*tarded. There is no story and the story that is there is crippled by too much magic and coincidence. It is too bad they have to spell out the nine prophecies and can't simply weave them into a story that is entertaining to follow. They didn't spend any time on character development and it was easy to not care if any character died. It was embarrassing to be one of the few people who stuck around until the end of this incredibly boring movie. The book is pretty boring too but I enjoyed the parallels that could be seen in everyday life while you read the book. The film does not offer the same opportunity and I would suggest not seeing it if you want to continue to hold the words of the book close to your heart. DON'T SEE THIS MOVIE. Trust me.

This is truly one of the worst films I have ever seen in my life. Rod Steiger who stars as the ornery grandfather, Charlie, is in full overacting mode hoping that the more flashy he is, the better his performance (Cue buzzer sound). Rod Steiger is one of the last true film legends and to see him in this film (although End of Days is the 2nd worst film I've ever seen) is really heartbreaking. From the bad storyline to the nonexistent direction, it becomes abudantly clear that the only reason this film was made was that the producer's last name ended in DeLaurentis. The only good thing about this film is that it is so bad, it's truly hysterical. Look for the flashback scene where Rod where's a Jor-El wig from Superman and a big black porno mustache. One only hopes that his follow up film, I Believe in America, from Uber-producer Kevin Arbouet will redeem him and leave a good taste in everyone's mouths.

Well I must say this is probably the worst film I have seen this year! The jokes were extremely crude (wasn't expecting it from as PG movie)(Rated PG in Canada) and they weren't funny! With this great cast I at least expected some good acting but I didn't even get that. I am a huge Rainn Wilson fan and this is the first time I was extremely disappointed by his performance. Neither Luke Wilosn or Uma Thurman's characters are the least bit likable and i really could have cared less what happened to either of them. I didn't expect this at all as in the past I have really liked other movies by this director (Six Days, Seven Nights for example) This movie was NOT worth the $10 it cost me and i strongly encourage you not to see this movie. I guarantee that you will be like me begging for this movie to be over.

I saw this at the screening at GenCon in Indy. I had some time to kill and decided to check it out. It played to about 1000 people in a packed standing-room-only ballroom.<br /><br />Wow, what a ride! The script was tight. The action tense. The pacing perfect. The character exposition excellent. One thing I really appreciated was that you knew going in that this wasn't a big budget film. Yet it soon became obvious that the creators pushed their sets and effects as far as they could despite their limitations. And it was more than enough. <br /><br />It's true that this film was targeted at a certain audience - gamers/tabletop players - the creators make no effort to hide that. But other filmmakers could learn a lot from them. For in going for the jugular in scene after scene and not worrying about if Mom who happens to be watching will "get it", they got the biggest laughs time and time again. But there's enough universality there that Mom will be laughing too, even if she's not in on every joke. I think too many times I see films that try so hard to lower the bar to the lowest common denominator so that they will appeal to the most people, but the movie just ends up suffering for it.<br /><br />But not this flick. Indeed, this film was so solid that it had the audience wrapped around it's finger from the opening credits. And, while the viewers around me *really* wanted to like the film, they weren't pushovers - gamers can be among the most critical niche out there. <br /><br />I'm so glad I got to see this in a big crowd. At least 10 times the audience was having such a good time that they erupted into applause at a joke or scene during the film. How often does that happen at screenings? It should be no surprise that there was a huge standing ovation when the closing credits rolled.<br /><br />For my own part, I can't wait for this to be released. After it ended, one of the producers said they were shooting for a simultaneous TV/DVD release. That date cannot come soon enough.

Typically elaborately crafted HBO production with a first-rate cast, a rich small-town atmosphere and some nice narrative vignettes, graced by above average production values.<br /><br />But, and that's a huge 'but', the various subplots, peopled with some likable, mostly annoying caricatures, are paper-thin and go and and on in dull stretches for over three long hours.<br /><br />The often silly story veers uneasily between melodrama, without being entertaining enough, and personal drama, without being profound at all.<br /><br />A shame, because some scenes really shine. Two or three, that is.<br /><br />4 out of 10 grubby Paul Newmans

Tressa's vocal performance was Outstanding!! Tressa played the female singer role, while Richard was in the club. When she first step out on stage, and started to riff and strut her stuff, it made my soul shake. Her voice is platinum. She needs to make a CD. She has more fans then she realizes. I loved her show stopping performance in the five heart beats, which she also starred with Leon when she was younger. How can a little girl have a voice so big. She is truly amazing.Good voice Good Good Good Good voice voice voice voice excellent voice fantastic voice , back shaking , tear crying , uplifting, take you back in the days voice. Tressa if you read this commit, please take my advice and start recording a CD. If not just for the love of singing, but for your fans. I believe you can truly make it. Look at these other one hit single studio singers, lol.

That word 'True' in this film's title got my alarm bells ringing. They rang louder when a title card referred to America's Civil War as the 'War Between the States' (the circumlocution preferred by die-hard southerners). Jesse James -- thief, slave-holder and murderer -- is described as a quiet, gentle farm boy.<br /><br />How dishonest is this movie? There is NO mention of slavery, far less of the documented fact that Jesse James's poor widdered mother owned slaves before the war, and that Jesse and his brother Frank actively fought to preserve slavery. According to this movie, all those Civil War soldiers were really fighting to decide whether Missouri is a northern state or a southern state ... that's ALL. (Missouri: It's a candy mint! It's a breath mint!) Black people are entirely absent from this movie, except for two glimpses of a pair of beggars, one of whom wears a "HELP THE POOR" sign that's very implausibly typeset instead of handwritten. (Some shots of 19th-century newspapers are inaccurate too, with 20th-century type fonts.)<br /><br />This film has a weird flashback structure. There's some very impressive stunt riding (and some fine work by stunt horses), and one excellent montage. I savoured one line of dialogue: 'Some of those boys will never taste beans again.' The movie gets a few facts straight: Agnes Moorehead, as Jesse's mother, conceals her right arm in the scenes following the raid by the agents of Pinkerton (here called 'Remington') in which Jesse James's real-life mother suffered injuries requiring the amputation of her lower arm. Some errors here are pardonable: during his bushwhacking days, the real Jesse James accidentally shot off part of his left middle finger, but Robert Wagner (in the title role here) does not have a stumpfinger. I've seen a photo of Jesse James's real wife; if she had looked half as glamorous as Hope Lange looks in this movie, Jesse James might have stayed home more.<br /><br />There's plenty of revisionism here, and most of the male actors wear 1950s hairstyles. But many of this movie's errors were avoidable. Jesse James's mentor William Quantrill is mentioned several times, but all the actors mispronounce his name. We see Jesse and his wife moving into an elaborate two-storey house (where he will soon die) after paying a rent of $18. Actually, Jesse James's last residence (at 1318 Lafayette Street, St Joseph, Missouri) was a simple one-storey cottage, renting for $14. There was no upper storey ... so, when Jesse James is killed, his wife could not come running from upstairs as Hope Lange does here. (She was actually in the kitchen.)<br /><br />One continuity error: Robert Wagner (with no stunt double) does an impressive job of taking a slug to the jaw and falling over while his hands are tied behind his back ... but when he gets up, the rope binding his wrists has vanished.<br /><br />The screenplay does some weird and unnecessary juggling of dates. Following the Northfield robbery attempt, Jesse says he expects to get home by his birthday. The actual Northfield bank raid by the James Gang (7 September, 1876) was two days AFTER Jesse James's birthday. (Maybe he meant next year's birthday.) Later, we see Jesse and his wife moving into their St Joseph home on a fine summer day, while Jesse tells her what he plans to do when Christmas Eve arrives ... but in real life, Mr and Mrs Jesse James moved into that house on 24 December, 1881 ... so this scene should *BE* on Christmas Eve! These errors were entirely avoidable.<br /><br />Some of the fictionalisations here don't make sense. According to this movie, the Northfield bank raid failed because one (fictional) henchman was late in cutting the telegraph wires. If this had actually happened, it would indeed have hampered the James Gang's getaway ... but it wouldn't have affected the robbery itself, which failed for other reasons.<br /><br />There are good performances here by Jeffrey Hunter (as Frank James), Moorehead, Alan Hale Jnr (as Cole Younger) and by stage actress Marian Seldes in a rare screen role. I was disappointed by Robert Wagner, normally an under-rated actor. Elsewhere, Wagner has proved his impressive range by convincingly portraying heroes, villains and morally ambiguous characters. Here, he can't seem to decide whether to depict Jesse James as a goodie or a baddie ... so he doesn't much bother. John Carradine phones in his performance in a brief role as a fictional jackleg preacher who baptises Jesse and his wife at their wedding. In fact, Jesse James was baptised in childhood by his uncle, a Methodist minister ... but perhaps this second baptism is a topping-up.<br /><br />Jesse James was no Robin Hood. (I doubt that Robin Hood was Robin Hood either, but that's another story.) There is not one single documented instance of Jesse James ever sharing his loot with anyone beyond his own family. After some of his hold-ups, he didn't even split the swag with the rest of his gang. In this movie, Jesse gets gunned down right after he vows to give up his bandit ways forever. In reality, the night before his death, Jesse James and the Ford brothers stole horses that Jesse planned to use the next day in a robbery of the Platte City bank. As preparation for most of his robberies, Jesse James stole horses from local farmers ... the same poor folk who (in the inaccurate legends) were supposedly the beneficiaries of his largesse. I cringed at one scene here, in which the fictional Jesse James is so gol-durn refined that he disapproves of an oil painting which tastefully depicts nudes.<br /><br />'The True (not much!) Story of Jesse James' is wilfully dishonest about a thieving murderer, and likewise dishonest about the Civil War. For the very impressive stunt work, one good montage and a few fine acting turns, I'll rate this obscenely dishonest movie 2 points out of 10.

I wasn't expecting a great deal from this film, so I was pleasantly surprised when I watched it and found it to be most noteworthy. It's noteworthiness is mainly due to the talent and appeal of it's star, John Garfield.<br /><br />Garfield plays Jack, a boxing star who is framed for murder. He must go on the run, and ends up out in the sticks with Gloria Dickson and the Dead End Kids. Here is offered a chance for redemption, yet will the past catch up with him yet? Garfield was an actor ahead of his peers. Before the term 'Method' was even coined and before Brando ever screamed 'Stella!' he brings 'natural' to the screen. His earthy quality and amazing acting talent dominate this production. Also interesting is that his role here as a boxer has shades of that 'Golden Boy' role he so desperately wanted to covet on screen. Garfield looks the type and goes the distance as a boxer, proving his acting worth.<br /><br />Ann Sheridan is here in a small role at the beginning as Jack's trampy girl Goldie. I haven't ever thought much of Sheridan, but I liked her here. She plays well off Garfield. Dickson's' performance is a little tired and she does not share good chemistry with Garfield. The Dead End Kids are here, and Garfield seems their natural idol (even more so than Cagney). Claude Rains is miscast, and he looks uncomfortable in the role in many a scene. Strange, as he always was such a reliable actor.<br /><br />Also interesting to note is the director- Busby Berkeley, best known for his early musicals with dancing girls and kaleidoscope images, directs a different genre here with remarkable ease. He maintains a gritty atmosphere throughout admirably.<br /><br />A very good film that deserves greater attention 8/10.

It's Showtime! Showtime is simply a bump in Eddie Murphy and Robert DeNiro's careers. It's an entertaining movie and a guilty pleasure but not quite up to the actors' standards, especially not Robert's. Showtime is directed by Tom Dey and features some small roles from guys like William Shatner and Mos Def.<br /><br />Showtime is about two very different cops, Mitch Preston (DeNiro) and Trey Sellars (Murphy). One takes work seriously in a low profile, quiet manner while the other is more easy-going and wants to have more fun than felons in his back seat. They are both after the same felons behind a huge caper of televisions, VCRs, etc. They then cross paths and a TV station wants a new reality TV show so they fight crime while they are on TV. Mitch hates the publicity while Trey loves it with his line, "It's Showtime!" Their TV antics and methods are shown on TV and they are the new "Cops" show. The fun begins.<br /><br />Overall, Showtime is a fun action comedy. A good film but not quite up to the actors' expectations and standards. However, it's rolls along as it treads and parodies reality TV shows. A good break from shows like Cops. Truly at the end, just a guilty pleasure.<br /><br />My Rating: 7/10<br /><br />Eliason A.

The various nudity scenes that other reviewers referred to are poorly done and a body double was obviously used. If Ms. Pacula was reluctant to do the scenes herself perhaps she should have turned down the role offer.<br /><br />Otherwise the movie was not any worse than other typical Canadian movies. As other reviewers have pointed out Canadian movies are generally poorly written and lack entertainment value, which is what most movies watchers are hoping to get. Perhaps Canadian movie producers are consciously trying to "de-commercialize" their movies but they have forgotten a very important thing - movies by definition are a commercial thing....

"Freddy's Dead" did the smartest thing it could've done after the disappointment of the fifth film. It started from scratch. Sure, this "final" film in the saga is silly but at least it's original. Some of the visuals are even a bit breath-taking. And the story of Freddy's kid (Lisa Zane) returning to town to face her evil father is unique.<br /><br />Overall, the movie is nothing but another cartoon made to get kids in the theater. It has a bunch of good actors (Zane, Yaphet Kotto, and Lezlie Deane) who basically look dumb and wander around like sheep ready for slaughter. It's one-sided, it's a magic-trick, and, in the end, it's nothing but goofy, childish entertainment.<br /><br />

From the acting, direction, scriptwriting and art direction this film is just entirely ill conceived and the money would have been better spent on shoes for land mine victims. When did we get so sad that they have to fill a a children's movie with sexual innuendo to keep the parents attention.<br /><br />Dr Suess is rolling in his grave right now, what with the "dirty ho" "S.H.I.T" and fake erection scenes etc etc etc. Its shameful how they trade on the name of Suess to get the parents to bring their kids, throw in the profanities to try for the teens and a few sad parents who won't watch a a film with their child if there is no T & A. Greed greed and more greed.<br /><br />Compare this to the classic children's films and we can get a disturbing view of world is turning into. These guys should stick to making MTV videos. How on earth this movie got >400 votes as a perfect 10 is beyond me. (unless its the directors family)

The kind of B-movies from the 1950's that were schlocky yet so much fun are to what Predator Island pays homage. Filmed in Connecticut, Predator Island is set on an island called with a lighthouse Hell's Beacon which is inhabited by only the couple who tends the lighthouse. In typical 1950's sci-fi fashion after a half dozen young adults crash their boat into the island's rocky shore hideous creatures from outer space invade the island after a meteor hits nearby. The creatures start both inhabiting the bodies of their victims as well as devouring them. Lots of cursing and lame comebacks are the primary form of dialogue in this movie. It is so hokey that you just have to laugh at times. If you are looking for a movie that is stupid, but in a fun way, then this one fits the bill. <br /><br />Interesting note: I appear in the film as a dead body in the far background of the final scene. During filming they needed about 50 extras, yet around 300 people showed up for the opportunity. They eventually used nearly 200 of them.

During a Kurt Weill celebration in Brooklyn, WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? was finally unearthed for a screening. It is amazing that a motion picture, from any era, that has Weill-Gershwin collaborations can possibly be missing from the screens. The score stands tall, and a CD of the material, with Gershwin and Weill, only underscores its merits, which are considerable. Yes, the film has its problems, but the score is not one of them. Ratoff is not in his element as the director of this musical fantasy, and Fred MacMurray cannot quite grasp the material. Then, too, the 'modern' segment is weakly written. BUT the fantasy elements carry the film to a high mark, as does the work of the two delightful leading ladies - Joan Leslie and June Haver. Both have the charm that this kind of work desperately needs to work. As a World War II salute to our country's history - albeit in a 'never was' framework, the film has its place in Hollywood musical history and should be available for all to see and to find its considerable merits.

Stargate SG-1 is a spin off of sorts from the 1994 movie "Stargate." I am so glad that they decided to expand on the subject. The show gets it rolling from the very first episode, a retired Jack O'Neill has to go through the gate once more to meet with his old companion, Dr. Daniel Jackson. Through the first two episodes, we meet Samantha Carter, a very intelligent individual who lets no one walk over her, and there is Teal'c, a quiet, compassionate warrior who defies his false god and joins the team. <br /><br />The main bad guys are called the Gouald, they are parasites who can get inserted into one's brain, thus controlling them and doing evil deeds. Any Gouald who has a massive amount of power is often deemed as a "System Lord." The warriors behind the Gouald are called Jaffa, who house the parasitic Gouald in their bodies until the Gouald can get inserted in a person's brain.<br /><br />Through the episodes, we mostly get to see SG-1, the exploratory team comprised of Jack/Daniel/Teal'c/and Sam, go through the wormhole that instantly transports them to other planets (this device is called the Stargate) and they encounter new cultures or bad guys. Some episodes are on-world, meaning that they do not go through the Stargate once in the episode and rather deal with pressing issues on Earth.<br /><br />Through the years, you start to see a decline in the SG-1 team as close knit, and more character-building story lines. This, in turn means even more on-world episodes, which is perfectly understandable.<br /><br />My rating: 8.75/10----While most of this show is good, there are some instances of story lines not always getting wrapped up and less of an emphasis on gate travel these last few years. But still, top notch science fiction!

Ken Burns' "Baseball" is a decent documentary... it presents a clear origin of the game, a great depiction of baseball's early years and heroes. There's plenty in this movie for any baseball fan... that said, the film has several glaring flaws.<br /><br />18 hours is simply too long for the human attention span. It's clear that Burns stretched his film out to fit his "nine inning" concept. It's not even a tight 18 hours... the pace on every segment is slow, almost morose... the music always nostalgic and wistful. Isn't baseball ever exciting and fun? Why is every player and their accomplishments presented in the form of a tragedy? Talking head after talking head turn every pitch into an emotional heartbreak, yakking about baseball as a metaphor, baseball as Americana, the psychology and theology of baseball... enough! This is syrupy, mawkish drivel. Billy Crystal is here to sell us all the Yankee hokum he's sold us before. Ken Burns uses the National Anthem as the series' theme song, and manages to play "Take Me Out To The Ballgame" so many times you might vomit. We get it, dude.<br /><br />Clearly Burns is a neo-Hollywood faux-liberal, so he spends probably a third of the film on the Negro leagues... these segments are spent chastising whites of yesterday for not being as open-minded as Kenny is today. For shame! He chides baseball for being segregated in the thirties and forties but fails to realize that America was segregated in those times! Burns falls head over heels in love with Buck O'Neil, a former negro-league player, and drools over every piece of footage in which the elderly O'Neil waxes poetic about his playing days. Nonsense...<br /><br />Burns would have been better off with an adult to help him edit his creation down. "Baseball" winds up as mushy, gushy, civil-rights propaganda disguised as Americana. Its clear that Burns is not a baseball fan... otherwise he would know we watch games laughing and cheering, not weeping and reciting soliloquies... are you listening, Mr. Burns? There's no crying in baseball.

Writer-director Emilio Estevez shows a definite lack of talent here with this un-redeemable, supposed comedy. The script is completely hopeless, let alone the fact that it is unoriginal and badly worked. The comedy just does not work. When Estevez isn't using poor taste sex jokes, he is borrowing used gags and re-doing them very poorly. You would think the teaming of Estevez and brother Charlie Sheen would be cool...but...it isn't.<br /><br />The entire cast is uninspired and unfunny, never managing to raise a laugh, and barely coaxing a smile from their audience. Do yourself a favour and leave this one on the video shelf.<br /><br />Thursday, June 25, 1992 - Video

iv been a fan of Rik Mayall and Ade Edmednson ever since i can remember weather its young ones or bottom. and i just have to say i have never laughed so much in all my life!!! guest house paradiso is bloody brilliant! i know its not going to be everyones cup of tea (with the vomiting,slapstick comedy, violence and foul language) but then just don't watch it if it ain't yours. its not like no one knows what sick and twisted things Rik and Ade come up with when they're working with one another!! i think its unfair that this film received such a slatting from critics because,and i don't think I'm the only one to think this, this film is 10 out of 10! : )

Zoey 101 is basically about a girl named Zoey who transfers into an all boys boarding school during the first year that they integrate girls into it. That raw plot line is, I'll admit, a pretty good idea. Although this show was meant for children, a five year old could probably point out its fatal flaws. First, Zoey is a cliché character, her being super popular, super attractive, super smart, and there;s nothing wrong with her; no girl is like that. It feels like the show was put the spotlight on Jamie Lynn Spears and increase her fame. Dana, who appeared at the beginning of the first season, is just plain mean. However, in my opinion, she was probably the most realistic character of them all, which is sad seeing that Dana is never nice. Nicole is too peppy and acts like a complete airhead, but mysteriously gets straight A's. Lola seems to be able to fool anything with her Emmy-deserving acting skills. Quinn is supposed to be super smart, and although she is able to create the most unrealistic things, she is also made out to be weird, and she never gets any guys although she is both beautiful and smart, while Zoey, Lola, and Nicole get guys and they're all beauty and no personality. Chase and Michael are very similar, and I even sometimes get them confused. Logan is unrealistically rich, and hands out millions like they're dollars. Nobody's that rich. I've also noticed that every character on the show is mean to that Stacy girl, who does nothing but act nice to them. That's not funny! That's mean and it just influences young girls to act mean to totally nice people. Finally, the school itself adds the frosting to the unreal cake by providing the students with 5-star amenities such as a scenic location, sushi bar, hot lounge equipped with free soda machines, pool&jacuzzi, movie theater, and the allowance for boys and girls to freely go into the other sex's dorm rooms. At most boarding schools, if a boy were to go into a girl's dorm or vice versa they would be expelled.<br /><br />In conclusion, Zoey 101 was poorly written and should have spent a few more years in the drafting process.

This movie has it all. It is a classic depiction of the events that surrounded the migration of thousands of Cuban refugees. Antonio Montana(played by Al Pacino), is just one of the thousands to get a chance to choose his destiny in America. This cinematic yet extremely accurate depiction of Miamis' Drug Empire is astonishing. Brian DePalma does an amazing job directing this picture, so much that, the viewer becomes involved with both the storyline, as well as every character in the cast. With Tony's characters' pressence being so believable and strong, Brian DePalma brang out the raw talent exposed by Steven Bauer(Manny, Tony's best Friend), Mary Elizabeth Mastantonio(Gina, Tony's Sister), Robert Loggia(Frank, Tony's Boss)and Michelle Pfeiffer(Elvira, Frank's Wife). I enjoyed every minute watching this movie, and still watch it on a weekly basis. On this year, the 20th Anniversary of this classic crime movie, I for one am a true believer that in another 20 years people will still refer to this movie in astonishing numbers. With other crime movies being so dramatic I find, this movie is a shock to the system.

This Blake Edwards film isn't too sure whether it wants to be a comedy, a drama or a musical. No matter, the sheer presence of Julie Andrews, is reason enough to see this comedy-drama-musical-spy spoof. Julie is beautiful and uses her many talents, throughout the film. Rock Hudson looks tired, but he's is more than fine, as Julie's romantic interest. Authentic World War I cars and planes, add to the appeal. Overall, the film is very entertaining. The DVD release is an edited (by Blake Edwards) version of the original release. Supposedly, this is the only version that Edwards would allow; but, Turner Classic Movies has shown the complete (theatrical release) version, recently. Recommended.

Very poor quality and the acting is equally as bad. This movie is a prime example of present day england and the mindset. There is no mention of Jesus in this movie nor does the movie feature any type of scripture Christianity as most know it. <br /><br />I am also very surprised because this film is a BBC program and the BBC is quit well known for their quality programing, but it looks like the BBC's attempt to rival the Hollywood psycho/drama films are failing completely. <br /><br />Poor acting, poor plot, poor culture that seems to be without religion. I would not even bother buying this, instead better to try to rent this one or buy it when it goes to the 2 dollar bin.

Some may feel that the rating i have just given is a bit generous, but for what this film is i think the directors have done a good job with that they had available to them, this is also a film a film of an acquired taste! <br /><br />my immediate thought was the direct connection to the classic cult film 'The Thing' i.e the parasitical aliens from outta space, infesting human host to then reek havoc wherever possible!<br /><br />You can see how this film pays homage to such a film and others of the horror/gore genre, however cleverly maintains its own originality, well these things fight each other for one and then continue to eat then fallen rival! Only killing and picking a human when it needs a new host! To then pick another fight with another infected host! And this film even throws in a love story but i wont say no more otherwise it gives too much away.<br /><br />GREAT! But like i said of an acquired taste, so don't be surprised if you don't like the film. It is low budget and yes it is blood thirsty, with the creatures/aliens/things morphing their limbs into crude looking weapons, i.e saws, drills, blades and even the odd gun to all but decimate there opponent. I found myself cringing at what i was being shown but at the same time glued to the screen wondering what was going to happen next!<br /><br />So if you like gore, you like aliens, you like fighting and even maybe a little bit of love thrown in somewhere, then i must recommend this film as a must see. I just wish i came across this earlier then i did!

I should've realised it was a sign of things to come when the trailer for this film bored me.<br /><br />Having watched several "indie" films on the strength of the reviews on here, and subsequently finding that my view is completely opposite to those other reviewers, I began wondering if it's possible I am watching completely different films from these people, or are they perhaps friends/family etc of the film makers trying to 'big up' their work? Hmmm.<br /><br />Are you interested in seeing an amateur's homage to Pulp Fiction and 11:14, except done with worse actors, a silly score (undermines various scenes) and unbelievable jumps in logic? If not, then skip this film.<br /><br />Here is my open letter to two of the players in this film.<br /><br />Alfonso Morgan, please, please, please, stop trying to 'be' Samuel L Jackon a la Pulp Fiction. No-one can do what he does as well as he does.<br /><br />Director, please come up with something original. It does you a disservice to churn out this stuff pretending to be Quentin Tarantino.<br /><br />Simply dire, and I really cannot see how anyone could say this is a good film. It is a disgrace that people have somehow managed to put a score of 8.5 on this, the same as films like Pulp fiction or Goodfellas. It is no-where near these movies; a 4 or 5 would be a more reasonable average rating, I give it a 3.

Dirty War is absolutely one of the best political, government, and well written T.V. Drama's in the 25 years.<br /><br />The acting is superb, the writing is spectacular.<br /><br />Diry War reveals the true side of why we are not ready to respond to a Nuclear, Biological, and Radiological Terrorist Attack here on American soil.<br /><br />Dirty War should be made into a major motion picture - It's that good! I highly recommend this great drama to everyone who desire to know the truth.<br /><br />This T.V. drama reveals how British Intelligence (MI5 & MI6) attempt to expose a terrorist plot and conspiracy to destroy innocent victims -because of England's involvement in the Iraq War.<br /><br />The scenes of different parts of London, England are also spectacular.<br /><br />Dirty War is a must see!!!

I kinda liked the film despite it's frenzied pace. BUT, I did not appreciate the comment that Canada was referred to as Montana North. It is definitely NOT Montana North and never will be. Americans wonder why they are perceived as arrogant in the rest of the world, and that is one reason why. Stop teaching the kids of the United States of America to think they own the planet. Such a centrist world view is not becoming of one of the world's great nations. Even in jest. I would never refer to the USA as 'Alberta South'. Walt would never put us down, so why start now. Other than that the film was pretty goofy, better luck next time.

There is a story (possibly apocryphal) about an exchange between Bruce Willis and Terry Gilliam at the start of Twelve Monkeys. Gilliam (allegedly) produced a long list (think about the aircraft one from the Fifth Element) and handed it to Butch Bruce. It was entitled "Things Bruce Willis Does When He Acts". It ended with a simple message saying: "please don't do any of the above in my movie".<br /><br />There is a fact about this movie (definitely true). Gilliam didn't have a hand in the writing.<br /><br />I would contend that these two factors played a huge role in creating the extraordinary (if not commercial) success that is The Twelve Monkeys.<br /><br />Visually, the Twelve Monkeys is all that we have rightly come to expect from a Gilliam film. It is also full of Gilliamesque surrealism and general (but magnificent) strangeness. Gilliam delights in wrong-footing his audience. Although the ending of the Twelve Monkeys will surprise no one who has sat through the first real, Gilliam borrows heavily from Kafka in the clockwork, bureaucratic relentless movement of the characters towards their fate. It is this journey, and the character developments they undergo, which unsettles.<br /><br />I love Gilliam films (Brazil, in particular). But they do all tend to suffer from the same weakness. He seems to have so many ideas, and so much enthusiasm, that his films almost invariably end up as a tangled mess (Brazil, in particular). I still maintain that Brazil is Gilliam's tour de force, but there's no denying that The Twelve Monkey's is a breath of fresh air in the tight-plotting department. Style, substance and form seem to merge in a way not usually seen from the ex-Python.<br /><br />Whatever the truth of the rumour above, Gilliam also manages to get a first rate (and very atypical) performance out of the bald one. Bruce is excellent in this film, as are all the cast, particularly a suitably bonkers - and very scary - Brad Pitt.<br /><br />It's been over a decade since this film was released. When I watched it again, I realised that it hadn't really aged. I had changed, of course. And this made me look at the film with fresh eyes. This seems to me to be a fitting tribute to a film that, partly at least, is about reflections in mirrors, altered perspectives and the absurd one-way journey through time that we all make. A first rate film. 8/10.

When I heard that the Dukes of Hazzard was going to be remade with current actors and a solid script, I was like, "alright, I'll give it a chance, it's not going to be better than the first, but we'll see what happens." Well, I saw what happened. I saw a great late 70's/80's show that was a classic, basically humiliated by Hollywood. It's so sad to see that Hollywood scriptwriters cannot come up with something original these days. They are seeming to take a great show that had a great target audience, and try to "REMAKE" the classic show. HEADS UP Hollywood... IT AIN'T WORKIN!!!! Anyway, more about the show. I think they could have casted a better actor than Sean William Scott (Stiffler from American Pie) to play Bo. I'm sure that John Schneider is definitely disappointed with how his character was portrayed and taken advantage of. Also, Get for real, Johnny Knoxville, as Luke Duke. How low can you go?? A crappy jackass actor to play lovable Luke. This sickens me. Also, I'll give Jessica Simpson is a beautiful woman, but her acting sucks. Catherine Bach who played the original Daisy, was smart, sexy, strong, opinionated and a good IL' southern girl. She was every little girls role model growing up! (I owned the doll and the Jeep - thank you very much!!!) Anyway, Jessica Simpson played a smart ass, 2-bit slut as Daisy Duke. Daisy never was blonde. Why did they have to cast her. Jessica Alba would have played a great Daisy Duke. She can speak with a great southern accent, and she is gorgeous, and would have done a wonderful job. Anyway, I'd like to say that this movie blew something fierce. I feel like I got ripped off by paying $8.50 for tickets, and they should refund my money. If you like the Dukes of Hazzard (the original series) don't see this movie. It'll just upset you. CMT (country music television) plays the reruns of the Dukes all the time later at night. So set your TIVO's and go with the real thing, not the imitation on the big screen in Hollywood.

This film had some funny moments. Louie, the main character was well cast along with some other decent supporting characters. The opening shot of the movie set the tone but the direction and story went downhill from there. Aside from a twist at the end (interesting and funny also), I wish this film had better direction and a more developed story. Without giving any of the plot away, the whole idea is better good! I just wish it was executed better in this short film. The potential was there but it just didn't deliver the goods.

We're talking about a low budget film, and it's understandable that there are some weaknesses (no spoilers: one sudden explosives expert and one meaningless alcoholic); but in general the story keeps you interested, most of the characters are likable and there are some original situations. <br /><br />I really like films that surprise you with some people that are not who they want you to believe and then twist and turn the plot ... I applaud this one on that. <br /><br />If you know what I mean, try to see also "Nueve Reinas" (Nine Queens) a film from Argentina.

This show is good. I like the acting, funny bits and the cuteness of it. The actors, Lee Pace, Ann Friel... etc, they all did great in the show. The show started off great with its funny, illogical basic idea of bringing dead people back in the first series and honestly, as what people said, the first few episodes of the second series were a bit of a let down but it later came back looking good anyway. And now I really hate the fact that it's going to be cancelled. Why doesn't ABC just let it finish until the very end when all the episodes are already done?? I really wanna know how the story's going to be. I think it should be given a chance as there're still so many viewers who love it.

I saw the Messiah:- The First Killings and I thought it was absolutely one of the best programmes I have seen, ever. It was one of those programmes that you think that oh, no, I cannot watch the rest of this but you feel compelled to watch it just to see who done it. Jamie Draven was an absolutely amazing actor in it, to be able to switch between two totally, totally different characters one of which is the evil, nasty person that did it and the other person who is Jez Clifton, the cop. To be able to do that, well, I certainly wouldn't be able to do it, well not without cracking anyway. I really do love and care for Jamie Draven with all of my heart and I always will, until the end of time, I think that Jamie is the sweetest, cutest, sexiest guy in the world. I absolutely love Jamie in Ultimate Force also because he looks god damn sexy in the blacks that he wore. I love Jamie Love Paula Draven<br /><br />-X-

At first, I thought the Ring would be a more than normal movie with it's ordinary plot. How surprised was I! Of course, the plot is simple - one girl is in love with two men - but Hitchcock brings it to us on a silver platter, with laughter and fear, with compassion and anguish. The way he depicts the popular crowds of the fair, the strength of the attraction of the girl to both men, the tragic elements that come together with techniques that open the mind to most of his greatest movies(North by Northwest, the Rope, etc.). The master did it great even before his thirties!

Ring! Ring! Have-been horror directors hotline, how may we help you? Um…yeah…Pronto! I mean hello, my name is Rugge… err, call me by my initials R.D! Okay Mr. R.D, what seems to be the problem? Well the reviews on my latest movie "Dial: Help" were all negative and harsh and, frankly, I myself feel like my career has seen better days as well. Okay Mr. R.D, and why do you suppose that is? Well, I gained fame and a well-deserved cult status thanks to my controversial and shocking movie about savage tribes of cannibals devouring a film crew and another one about relentless thugs terrorizing wealthy people in a house at the edge of the park, for which I borrowed the idea from Wes Craven, but "Dial: Help" revolves on … err… never mind! No no, Mr. R.D, go ahead and tell me what the film is about. Um, it's about a spiritually possessed phone line stalking a sexy model and killing the people surrounding her. Ah, I see. That premise does indeed sound a little silly and not as petrifying as cannibals or rapists, but I suppose there are deeper themes in your film, right? Oh yeah, sure… Um, what do you mean by that? Well, isn't the phone line symbolism for another kind of terror? Or perhaps it's all just happening in the mind of your female heroine? Um, nope… It's just about a phone going berserk and murdering people with the cord, vibrations, electricity or even ordinary coins. Interesting, Mr. R.D, but how do you explain all this supernatural stuff to the viewer at the end of the movie? You see, I figured the slowly unraveling phone-mystery plot wouldn't be that important or relevant, so I just concentrated on processing all possible phone-gimmicks I could think of. Phone gimmicks? What do you mean? You know, like wind blowing through the horn, mind-penetrating dial tones, and turn-tables catapulting into the air! Very original, Mr. R.D, but not exactly horrific and as an experienced director you must know that, in the end, people expect a reasonable clarification of all these events. Oh, but there is! It all has to do with negative and unreleased energy, if I remember correctly! It's all a bit fuzzy, I admit. Hmm… I see. Oh well, as they always say, a good motion picture relies on more elements than just the story. Did you at least process some of your regular trademarks into the film, so that your fans at least recognize your style? I tried! Lord knows I tried, but the murders and bloodshed are simply not shocking anyone! That's a pity indeed, Mr. R.D, but what about sex? Everyone likes a good portion of sleaze and nudity in their horror films and you said yourself the film centered on a sexy fashion model in peril! Yes, but … But what, Mr. R.D? Well, to tell you the truth, we kind of promoted "Dial: Help" as an erotic thriller with revealing shots of Charlotte Lewis on the cover, but in reality there's no sex in the film and Charlotte even refused to go topless. Mr. R.D! Now I'm really disappointed, that's just shamelessly ripping people off and lure them with false promises! I know, I know, and I'm ashamed, but I just wanted everybody to rent "Dial: Help" and love it! Well, to round up I can comfort you by saying that every major director is entitled to a few erroneous decisions without it affecting his/her career immediately, but be more cautious next time and do some research first, okay Mr. R.D? I will; thank you! You're welcome. Tell me, have you got any ideas for upcoming movies already? Yeah, as a matter a fact, I do! I was thinking about making a Giallo with a murderous washing machine! Doesn't that sound fascinating? Hello? Hello?

When I was a little girl (and my dad owned a video store), this was among my favorite movies. I hadn't heard much about it since then, nor did I really remember anything about it, it having been forgotten in the wake of Don Bluth's other, probably better films. I managed to track it down a few weeks ago, however, and was pleasantly surprised again. Set in New Orleans in the 1930s, the animation is delightful and the songs are memorable. There are a few goofs in continuity if you look hard enough, but they generally don't detract from the storyline, which leaves you smiling (and maybe even a little misty-eyed, if you are a lover of animals). The characters are believable (maybe even a little too grown-up for younger watchers), as well. Two paws up, and for those of you who haven't seen it in a while, definitely worth a re-watch.

The turgid pace of this movie numbs us to any shocks that it might provide. There was no real suspense. Most of the characters were insipid. The chesty Irish priest was as lame as the love interest. Interest is misleading. The girl that they chose to provide the film's sensuality might be better. The central conflict of the main character was uninvolving. This film is entirely devoid of positives. It is like a tedious exercise by someone who didn't want to go to the gym that day but did anyway.

When Exploiters become evangelist, they still exploit in the name of poverty! <br /><br />My first reaction after seeing the movie is – God Bless me that I am not eating fish or any non-vegetarian products! <br /><br />The documentary is about Lake Victoria of Tanzania where numerous varieties of lovely fishes used to live, and one day during 1960s somebody came and injected the mighty fish Perch, who became the exportable commodity for Tanzania to European and Japanese markets. The consequences were severe – firstly all local small and big fish were extinct; secondly the plane that came to take the fish could not travel empty because it does not make commercial/ business/ capitalist sense, so it is filled with arms and ammunition (that is what Europe can give this world); thirdly the pilots (as all migrants and traveling population like truck drivers) has to survive their sexual needs by flourishing cheap local African prostitutes for them; fourthly the brokers, dealers, middle men in the chain (mainly Indian origin business people) get richer and Tanzania's poverty remains the same; fifth poverty drives the children to crime, drugs etc.<br /><br />The premise to make this documentary was excellent. But has the Director Hubert Sauper succeeded in making a good documentary? It is a big NO. <br /><br />I say the reasons: Like in India, it requires a higher caste Brahmin to stand up and project to the world, Indian poverty and untouchables; similarly it requires an Austrain born European documentary maker to tell the world the story of Tanzania and its crumbling and ruining economy and poverty. It is the pathetic motive of unaware breeding of that rich class (who have never seen poverty or known poor), who survives, live, earn and fame like pest hanging on to projecting poverty to the world as soon as they see it. There is nothing more but despise by poor people in African and India who see such images of their.<br /><br />The intention and motives of the Hubert seems totally lop-sided. The images, characters, locales, interviews are too grave and murky, dark and disturbing. He uses exaggerated ignorance as a voice to present his case. What we feel in the end is pity and sadness for Africans. We also start considering the Tanzania government and people as villainous. May be some westerners sitting in their air-conditioned rooms would find time to discuss and debate about the pathetic living conditions of Africans, but there would be nothing more than that.<br /><br />The director restrains to show himself even once on the screen – so as not to be identified among the Europeans who exploit this poor country.<br /><br />This Director Hubert can only survive being exploiters themselves like today's CNN and BCC media giants. Hubert did not have guts or common sense to talk to any Europeans who eat or companies who import these fish products. A totally lop-sided flimsy effort! But I understand the reasons of the same – Hubert just wanted to rake his fame, sitting and smiling with awards in his European comfort.<br /><br />No more words to spare for this pathetic effort. I hesitantly give the documentary a higher rating 3.5 Stars out of 10, just because the theme was correct; but was pathetically exploited and blown away by amateurish ill conceived director made solely for un-intelligent western audiences! (Stars 3.5 out of 10)

It's hard to believe that a movie this bad wasn't produced once, but four times! Most movies require a certain `suspension of reality' to enjoy, but this one takes it just too far. The basic scenario is an Air Force pilot who is shot down over a `Middle Eastern' country. The US government drags its feet in recovering him, leading the Pilot's son (Doug Masters) to attempt a rescue mission.<br /><br />The problem I have with the movie is that it depicts the US Air Force as one colossal joke. In the movie you'll find that Doug and his friends on the air base manage to secure two F-16's, all the munitions, the fuel, the Intel for the mission, and so on. Security on this base seems to be a joke. Nobody seems to have a problem that a sixteen-year-old kid is fully qualified to pilot an F-16!<br /><br />If that wasn't enough, you would think the producers would at least attempt to get the munitions right, since people like to see things `blow up'. Not so! Several times in the movie, Doug fires off AIM-9 Missiles on ground targets. AIM stands for `Air Intercept Missile', meaning a weapon used to strike targets in the AIR. He also fires off 15-20 missiles, where the maximum an F-16 can hold is 6 AIM-9's. The movie also lacks continuity. You'll see the aircraft configured with one set of munitions, and in the next scene, it has a totally different munitions package. Also, 20MM doesn't just completely destroy anything it touches! An F-16 will hold 500 rounds of 20MM, and it's mostly used for self-defense.<br /><br />I could go on forever with plot holes, flaws, and outright wrong information from the movie, but I won't bore you. If you're in the mood to see a good Air Force movie, your choices are rather slim. Most military movies deal either with the Army, Navy or Marines. Until Hollywood can come up with an Air Force movie on the lines of `Saving Private Ryan' or `A Few Good Men', we'll be forced to watch movies like the `Iron Eagle' series.<br /><br />

Based on its current IMDb rating as well as several plot summaries, I didn't expect much from 'Two Hands'. But how wrong I was. <br /><br />From start to finish, you're kept deeply engrossed in a genre which has been continuously unoriginal for quite a while. Even in terms of mise-en-scene and cinematography, the director excels and creates a film consisting of great imagination. If you're looking for a film which is not only entertaining, but also provocative, compelling, and genuinely extraordinary, then make this the next film you watch. <br /><br />I'm hoping Heath Ledger's tragic death will have lead to more people picking up this film. He was an incredible talent, and his performance in this is one not to be missed. Don't make the mistake of judging and discarding this amazing film before you've seen it.

This was a very enjoyable film. A humorous, but poignant look at family, and the obligations that come with it. The story of a man who comes home from his life in the city to his fathers bath house in a small Chinese village. There he learns to appreciate, even cherish the very things he left home to get away from. The film is as visually beautiful as it is emotionally beautiful.

Excellent example of the disaster that happens when you combine a challenging script with two actors chosen for physical appeal. It is rare for me to be consciously aware of the acting during the first viewing of a movie because I try to just go with the story and save the analysis for the second viewing. In the case of "Full Ride", the acting was so weak that the movie was impossible to appreciate as a story; I was too busy (during first and only viewing) alternating between laughter and nausea.<br /><br />Fortunately for most individual members of the cast, pretty much everyone in the ensemble is weak, the individual talent limitations do not contrast with any actual competent acting. Riley Smith and Meredith Monroe are at least well matched physically, finding common ground in looking far too old for the credible age of their characters.<br /><br />Unfortunately the script requires especially intense and convincing performances to portray their characters which just exposes Smith and Monroe's staggering lack of talent. On the positive side, they know enough to not look directly into the camera and they do not stutter.<br /><br />Better to have used a less attractive pair who could physically pass for the proper age. The basic story is not particularly original, just another variation on "An Officer and a Gentleman", but it would have provided a nice showcase for a talented pair of "teenage" actors.<br /><br />Then again, what do I know? I'm just a child.

I think this is Pauly Shore's best stuff, he played the part perfect. I really enjoyed this movie, Patrick Renna is really funny as Zack the annoying little brother. Son In Law is a good comedy worth your time, but the only thing I wish Tiffany Thiessen was the farm chick instead of the one they had.

An Epic Story of Hope constrained by budget and limited artistic ambition. Seeing as Terrence Malick produced this, I expected something haunting and lyrical. Instead, we get a typical Norwegian co-production ("Revolution" with Al Pacino, anyone?), where - quite possibly - good intentions are scuppered by a dreadful screenplay, and where many of the characters are reduced to stereotypes. The "me-Tarzan-you-Jane" English dialogue between the non-English-speaking protagonists is particularly cringeworthy – one could speculate whether Nick Nolte and Tim Roth ad-libbed their own, as they almost sound like real people. The story is loaded with implausibility: we are expected to believe that Binh can speak a smattering of English after having spent his entire life living as a peasant slave (his vocabulary, but unfortunately not grammatical command, increases impressively in the Malayan refugee camp, without the benefit of night classes). Coincidence is rife; I wonder whether an hour or two has been edited from the first third: he tracks down his mother in Ho Chi Minh City almost immediately - after bumping into his thirty year younger half brother, who nonchalantly recognises him! Mum gives him a gold locket (or something similar of great value) as they part, but this is never referred to again. His relationship with "Me Dead Inside" Ling is supposed to provide the obligatory "love interest", but feels as artificial as Leonardo and Cameron in "Gangs Of New York". <br /><br />The voyage in the rust bucket of a boat does convey a sense of the appalling conditions that human trafficking entails. Indeed, the only time the film is remotely exciting and unpredictable, is the jerky, hand-held footage shot from the bridge during choppy weather conditions. (Incidentally, a boat cruise from Malaysia to New York via The Cape Of Good Hope and the African coast, without stopping for fuel or supplies, is certainly an epic journey). The beautiful shot of the New York skyline echoes Malick's use of magic hour, but I want to know why the Coast Guard didn't show up. Perhaps they were watching the Super Bowl, or something. Of course, Binh manages to track down his blind old Dad on a remote farm in Texas, with the same navigational flair he displayed in Ho Chi Minh City. I was impressed at how Nick Nolte could wander around digging fields and feeding horses on a large ranch without the aid of a guide dog or white stick. For demonstration of how a story about the travails befalling refugees could be structured and shot on a small budget, check out Michael Winterbottom's far superior "In This World".

French film directors continue to amaze with their extraordinary ability to simulate the sights and sounds of ordinary, everyday suburban life. This was readily apparent with the release early in 2002 of L'Emploi du temps ( Time Out ) , a brilliant character study of of a white collar worker's descent into melancholy after having been fired from his job. As is the penchant of French filmmakers , many scenes were shot on real streets and in public places, giving a cinema verite feel to the story , yet L'Emploi du temps also possessed an elegant look thanks to excellent camera work and some stunning location footage ( most notably a Swiss mountain retreat ). Running fairly on the heels of that masterful movie comes another impressive French production, Jacques Audiard's gritty crime caper, Sur mes levres ( Read My Lips ). Actually, to tag this film a crime caper does it a disservice because it is so much more than that. As with the earlier French release, it is an incisive character study of marginal people using their wits to get ahead in a society that has turned its back on them. In a Paris construction firm Carla, a shy, diminutive young woman sits at her desk, sequestered to an area of the office that is a major pathway to the xerox machines and restrooms.<br /><br />Obnoxious coworkers use the front of Carla's desk to chat and drop off their half-finished Styrofoam cups of coffee. Partially deaf, Carla turns her hearing aids on and off at will if noise becomes bothersome, be it the drone of the paper copiers or the shrill crying of a friend's baby. When her boss calls her into the office to suggest that she hire a secretarial assistant to help her with the work load, Carla fears she may lose her job. At the employment office Carla lists the specifications she wants for her assistant (preferably male) as if she were at a Personals Agency. He should be 25 years old and clean -cut , with extensive computer and filing skills. When the agency sends over an unkempt , menacing looking young man, Carla is both shocked and intrigued. They leave the office and have lunch at a local eatery, where Carla interviews her prospective assistant. When she finds out that he has just gotten out of prison , Carla initially wants nothing to do with Paul, but has a change of heart and hires him on. Although she is basically kind toward her helper, Carla now finds herself in a position of authority and possessing a newfound sense of power. Paul learns quickly and becomes an able worker. Carla helps Paul find a temporary place to live and even covers for him when his parole officer shows up one day at the office wondering why Paul missed his appointment. During one of their lunch breaks Carla informs Paul of her hearing deficiency and reveals her ability to read lips. Later, when an avaricious coworker blatantly takes over a project Carla has been working on, a furious Carla asks Paul's help in seeking revenge on the man. From here on in Sur mes levres becomes an increasingly intense crime drama escalating into some of the most violently graphic scenes that have been shown on the screen in recent years. The screenplay borrows elements from Hitchcock, most notably REAR WINDOW, where Carla's lip-reading talent comes into full play using a pair of binoculars. There is a teasing, on-again, off-again sexual attraction between the two protagonists that culminates in a rather strange homage to NORTH BY NORTHWEST, but it works because of the considerable sexual heat that builds slowly between the two stars. That being said, what one carries away from this movie isn't so much the similarities to classic Hitchcock thrillers, although those elements are definitely there, but the pervasive view a of a modern day city (in this case Paris) where life runs the gamut from mundane workdays to a boozy, garish nightlife where sex, drugs and laundered money infiltrate the lives of several characters. Unlike Hollywood productions, this is a psychological suspense yarn where the people look like the everyday man and woman on the street, where a punch in the face or groin sounds like a sickening thud and where the office is a place to be feared. It's Hitchcock with the gloves off.

I thought this movie was excellent. Jon Foster is one of my top favorite actors, he was perfect as Micheal Skakel. I found everything about it to be great, acting, costumes, production, directing, photography, script and music, etc.<br /><br />Spoilers Coming Up! You Have Been Warned!<br /><br />Martha Moxley, who they had tell the story in the movie was bludgeoned to death by her violent troubled neighbor Micheal Skakel. Micheal did this out of jealousy of his brother Tommy when Martha rejected him and took Tommy instead. Thankfully though, they caught him years later and he was sentenced to 20 years to life in prison. Although, I think he should have been sentenced to "natural life" without the possibility of parole.<br /><br />Kudos to the cast, crew and filmmakers. Two thumbs way up.

This extraordinary pseudo-documentary, made in 1971, perfectly captures the zeitgeist of America today...which makes it all the more scary and relevant. "subversives" (college students, hippies, black activists, academics) are being rounded up by the government and given lengthy prison terms for what amount to thought crimes and social protest. As an alternative to life in prison, these convicted "criminals" are offered three days in "Punishment Park". Their objective inside the park is to make their way to the American flag where freedom awaits them. Not surprisingly, the Punishment Park option is a dirty lie. This brilliant film from Peter Watkins even pre-dates "Battle Royale" and "Series 7", though its angle of attack is more blatantly political. Shot in '71, it looks and feels as fresh as anything made today. The performances are exemplary and the direction is razer sharp. The narrative cuts back and forth between various groups trying to survive the harsh conditions of the park and the McCarthy-like trials that convicted them. Today, this film still retains its power. In '71, there was nothing but nothing quite like it. This is a masterpiece that succeeds on a dozen levels. It has the balls that most people today have lost.

Kramer Vs. Kramer is a near-heartening drama about shocking, drastic augmentations of the two subjects of a failed married couple. Meryl Streep, in the throes of her trademark maternal sensitivity, plays an unhappy stay-at-home mother who feels confined to such a role and within the first five minutes of the film leaves her inattentive husband, in a fantastic performance by Dustin Hoffman, to find another role for herself. Hoffman is dumbstruck, having absolutely no idea what to do with himself, having taken so much for granted that he doesn't know the first thing about getting his son to school in the morning.<br /><br />Hoffman seamlessly characterizes this husband as such a juicy load of setbacks. He is restless, relentless and impatient, but even though the positive side to those three adjectives should include just the opposite, he is unremittingly fixated on whatever he turns his head to. He's been focused on his career in advertising, and when he is left to raise his son Billy all by himself, chaos ushers in immediately. He's the one throwing temper tantrums and quitting angrily halfway through an activity. After awhile, as he befriends his neighbor and Joanna's former friend, played by sexy Jane Alexander, Hoffman cools his jets enough to understand why his wife left. In the meantime, his boundless energy redirects towards raising Billy and he loses his job.<br /><br />The custody battle of the title is a brilliantly grey circumstance. Even if the ending is a little unmotivated, subjectified for the audience, the last line and the last shot still have that witty screen writing touch that seemed to diminish after the magical 1970s.

I can't believe it that was the worst movie i have ever seen in my life. i laughed a couple of times. ( probably because of how stupid it was ) If someone paid me to see that movie again i wouldn't. the plot was so horrible , it made no sense , and the acting was so bad that i couldn't even tell if they were trying. that movie was terrible rating: F

This is a cute and sad little story of cultural difference. Kyoko is a beautiful Japanese woman who has run to California to escape from a failed relationship in Japan. Ken is a Japanese American manual laborer with aspirations of rock and roll stardom but little concrete to offer a potential partner. Kyoko "marries" Ken in order to be able to stay permanently in the U.S., with the understanding that although they will live together until she gets a "green card" the marriage will be in name only. It soon develops that the parties are not on the same wavelength - or perhaps in the same "time zone", hence the title of the movie. As an immigration attorney I have seen such "arrangements" take on a life of their own, so I was pleased to see how well the filmmaker developed the dramatic possibilities of this situation.

Well I don't know where to begin. Obviously this was a made for TV movie, so my expectations were low. I was pleasantly surprised by the overall direction of the second hour, but anything before or after that seemed to be a paint by the numbers sort of movie.<br /><br />And talk about bad chemistry between the tow lovebird detectives. ..<br /><br />I would go more in depth, but this movie doesn't really deserve it. Grade: D+ (IMDB rating 3/10)

"Der Todesking" is not exactly the type of film that makes you merry… Jörg Buttgereit's second cult monument in a row, which is actually a lot better than the infamous "Nekromantik", exists of seven short episodes – one for each day of the week – revolving on unrelated people's suicides. In between these already very disturbing episodes, Buttgereit inserts truly horrifying images of a severely decomposing male corpse. The episodes aren't all equally powerful but, as a wholesome, "Der Todesking" is ranked quite high on the list of all-time most depressing art-house films. Particularly the episodes on Wednesday, involving a man explaining his sexual frustrations to a total stranger in the park, and the one of Sunday, focusing on a younger man molesting himself to dead, are extremely intense and devastating to observe. The added value of this film, or any other shockumenary like it, is debatable and I'm not even sure whether or not Buttgereit had any type of message to communicate here. There's the vague mentioning of an eerie chain letter that encourages its readers to commit suicide but mostly we remain uninformed about these people's motivations to end their lives so dramatically. Entirely unlike I expected, "Der Todesking" isn't exploitative or repulsively graphic! On the contrary actually, I never could have hoped Buttgereit would be so subtle and thoughtful regarding the portrayal of pure human misery. The Thursday episode is a perfect example of this, as it stylishly shows different viewpoints of a famous German bridge while the names, ages and occupations of persons who jumped off appear on the screen. The production values are inescapably poor and the editing often lacks professionalism, but this isn't what really counts in this type of cinema. The subject matter is strong and forcing us to contemplate about the less cheerful – but also indispensable – aspects of life. GREAT use of tragic music, too!

I suppose it's quite an achievement to be able to present to an audience a true tail about a frail man; a tail in which the protagonist will spend the majority of the film on his back, in a bed and totally unable to move. And yet the achievement is in the film's effectiveness as a dramatic piece; as a recollection of a true story and I guess as an argument as to why people should have the right to die if they so wish to. But the film isn't a political statement and perhaps thankfully it shies away from too many scenes of debate although it does include one for the sake of argument anyway. More-so, this is one of those foreign language films that presents its lead character as a cripple whom can do nothing but talk to the people around him and yet is able to come across as engaging and compelling anyway.<br /><br />So rather than be an out and out argument, the film is more a sweet yet timely dramatic piece about another person wanting something or in search of something; the only difference is that by attaining this 'goal', it would mean the termination of a someone's life and it would be achieved by not physically going anywhere. Javier Bardem plays real life Galician Ramón Sampedro, an individual who at a much earlier age dived into a clearing of water that was too shallow for such activity. This rendered him bedridden for the rest of his life and his wish to die is the focus of Chilean director Alejandro Amenábar's film. We've seen so many films in our lives in which characters have certain 'goals' or targets one must meet before the film is over to provide a satisfactory experience for the audience, but the change of pace in The Sea Inside is gentle; it does not involve young, energetic, attractive heroes going off to do battle in far off places but a real person after something that means so much to them.<br /><br />Even if you do have a strong policy, either pro or anti-euthanasia, you may find yourself hoping Ramón gets what he wants at the end of it all anyway. The film sets its tone very early on with Ramón giving a speech on why he wants to die to watching family members, immediately introducing the situation and subject to the watching audience who may not know what the film is about. Interestingly, some of the family members are 'anti' what he wishes which might place any audience member that feels strongly about the subject in their respective shoes. But the purpose of this set up is to tell the audience 'No, this isn't one man after something who incidentally has the whole of his family backing him to the end'. Quite easily, the film could've gone down a route in which it is the Sampedro family vs. everybody else but some are anti-Ramón's idea; some are too young to acknowledge what's really going on and others are seemingly too distraught to even have an opinion other than they just want Ramón to stick around a bit longer, they love him after all.<br /><br />The Sea Inside is a following of a story revolving around a victim of sorts. Ramón is a quadriplegic and it is his perspective we see things from. This is something that may disjoint viewers or have the film come across as quite odd given we are being presented with a film from the point of view of a victim rather than an instigator or a lead character in a film that is always inducing the cause in the cause and effect drive. But this is no criticism and it's a credit to the director for delivering such an approach in the effective manner in which it is. The film asks questions; it offers a scenario to its audience. If you were in Ramón's position: what would you do, or think about or dream of or talk about? Consequently, dreams about lawyer Juila (Rueda) are not so much shot for the audience's pleasure as much as they are an ever so slight window into one man's escapist fantasies from his predicament.<br /><br />The study of Julia intensifies somewhat later on when a she begins to share certain similarities with Ramón and that is when she begins to have strokes that are a result of a disease of her own. This trait seems timely in the progression of their relationship and adds a further ingredient of connection on top of an already engaging friendship. This is because Julia feels the physical pain and restriction, not in a sense that she isn't able to get up and walk, but I think she realises the value of life given how emotionally bad she felt beforehand. While the film is based on a true story and covers the subject of euthanasia, it feels like more of a down to Earth drama about a man in a situation in which he is prepared to fight for what he wants but must do so verbally. It's refreshing to see films like The Sea Inside as it not only references history and gives us an insight into that but as a stand alone film, delivers on an emotional and engaging level.

This is probably the worst excuse for television programming since, oh, I don't know, WHATS HAPPENING NOW? NOTHING ever happened on this ridiculous "series". Even though it's mostly shot by Britney and Kevin themselves, you don't get any good details into their personal lives. It's mostly just them making stupid, jokey small talk and acting like white trash. Look, I love Britney's music as much as the next babe, but this show is just pure filler for a nation so addicted to Britney that they would watch her clip her toenails (yes, that could be an actual episode). Thank God these two broke up, because they were PAINFULLY dull together. This show is TOXIC!

Prison is not often brought up during conversations about the best eighties horror films, and there's a good reason for that because it's not one of the best...but as you delve past the classic films that the decade had to offer, this is certainly among the best of the lesser known/smaller films. The film does have some connection to blockbusters; for a start it's an early directorial effort for Renny Harlin; the capable director behind a number of action films including Die Hard 2, Cliffhanger and Deep Blue Sea; and secondly we have an early role for Lord of the Rings star Viggo Mortensen. The film is not exactly original but the plot line is interesting. We focus on a prison that has been reopened after a number of years. This was the prison where a man named Charles Forsyth was sent to the electric chair after being framed by the prison's governor. Naturally, the spirit of the dead man is not resting in peace; and when the old execution room is reopened, the spirit of the dead convict escapes for vengeance.<br /><br />The film is not exactly The Shawshank Redemption, but it does take care to build up its various characters and while the main point of the film is always the horror, the prison drama behind it all does make for an interesting base. This is a good job too because other than the basic premise, the film doesn't really have a 'plot' to go from and we solely rely on the interaction between the characters to keep things interesting. The horror featured in the film is at times grotesque but it's never over the top, which might actually be the reason why this film is seldom remembered, being released in a decade of excess. The murders themselves are rather good and imaginative, however, and provide some major highlights. As the film goes on, we start to delve more into the back-story of the vengeful convict's ghost and while it's fairly interesting, some things about it don't make sense and it drags the film down a little. Still, everything boils down to an exciting climax and overall I have to say that Prison is a film well worth tracking down.

"Black Vengeance" is an alternate title for "Ying hung ho hon" AKA "Tragic Hero" (1987). I have just seen this on VHS, together with the first part of the story, "Gong woo ching" ("Rich and Famous"), also 1987. (The poster and 2 stills featured on the page are for a 4-DVD set of movies starring Rod Perry (The Black Gestapo), Fred Williamson (Black Cobra 2), Richard Lawson (Black Fist). The fourth movie is called "The Black Six"). Strangely, while the characters retain their original names in "Rich and Famous", in "Black Vengeance" Chow Yun-Fat's character is named Eddie Shaw, Alex Man (Man Tze Leung) is Harry, and Andy Lau is called Johnny. Also confusing is the fact that 1994 is given as the copyright dates on both films. Perhaps that was the year they were American-dubbed. According to the release dates given on IMDb "Tragic Hero" was released before "Rich and Famous". Was there any reason for releasing the sequel first? Despite some users' comments, I enjoyed these films, although they aren't among CYF's best such as "The Killer" and "Hard-Boiled" which are truly astonishing. However,if one day I come across a 2-DVD set of "Rich and Famous" and "Tragic Hero" I won't hesitate to buy it. Hopefully, these comments about "Black Vengeance" clear up, which was also for me, a mystery as to where it belonged in Chow Yun-Fat's filmography.

Do-It-Yourself indie horror auteur Todd Sheets returns with another entertainingly atrocious nickel'n'dime shot-on-video clunker that's basically just a feeble excuse to sling around a lot of watery blood and gleaming guts as often as possible. An evil demonic scarecrow resurrects the dead as ravenous rot-faced zombies so they can feast on the living. A bunch of bickering college kids, a trio of dangerous escaped convicts led by the vicious Slade (Byron Nichodemus hamming it up to an outrageous degree), two equally savage sleazeball hoodlums, and a trio of hottie sisters all have to do their best to survive this harrowing ordeal. That's it for the needlessly muddled and convoluted plot, but fortunately what this hilariously horrendous hoot lacks in narrative coherence (plenty) it more than compensates for with a pleasing plethora of gloriously gross'n'graphic gore. Disgusting highlights include a woman having her fingers chopped off, a fatal gunshot to a young gal's groin, attempted necrophiliac rape, evisceration, and, of course, more repulsive entrail eating than you can shake a pile of moist intestines at. Moreover, we've also got rough, grainy cinematography that constantly alternates between washed-out color and grimy black and white, ineptly staged fight scenes, lousy acting from a uniformly pathetic no-name cast (Jerry Angell in particular cops the top crummy thespic dishonors for his laughably abysmal histrionics as slimy no-count psycho criminal Joe Bob), a grating head-banging thrash metal soundtrack, and a generic shivery'n'ominous synthesizer score. Let's not forget the ridiculous ending in which several of our survivors stumble across a few vials of flesh-eating bacteria to use on the shambling undead hordes. Sure, this flick is pure dreck, but it has a certain endearingly abominable quality to it that in turn makes it a great deal of so-awful-it's-awesome Grade Z fun for hardcore aficionados of bad fright fare.

I would like to make it very clear that I am not at all religious. I am an atheist but I could see that Richard Dorkins was contradicting himself over and over again. I would also like to make it known that I am not the sort of person that argues against something with philosophy all the time, but I feel that when comparing science and religion we must be philosophical and be willing to question the belief in main stream science as well as questioning religious beliefs.<br /><br />I wonder if Richard Dorkins ever spends any time to think philosophically about belief, anyone who thinks long and hard enough about science and religion will realise that science is indeed a religion in itself. Yes there is a fundamental difference between the way that scientific beliefs are held when compared with other religions, but at it's roots, it's faith in a particular human instinct.<br /><br />Throughout this series, Richard insists that science methods are the only right way of thinking and that it makes sense to believe in something only if the evidence for it is strong enough. If you dig deep enough into how science functions you'll realise that it is just as irrational as religion and that it comes down to faith in the end, faith in the evidence, faith in our sanity, faith in our senses but more than anything else faith in our instinct to follow patterns of recurrence.<br /><br />This is not easy to explain but think about how the laws of physics were decided, it was because they were and still are the most common patterns of recurrence that we are aware of. I think that human beings have an instinct that makes them believe that the longer something remains in a certain state or place of existence the more we just assume out of blind FAITH that it is more likely to stay like it. For example, we don't expect that gravity will suddenly work in reverse tomorrow, by this I mean pushing matter away as supposed to attracting it. But the only reason why we don't expect this sudden change is because we have known for so long that it has always attracted as far as we are aware. However that doesn't mean that it couldn't do exactly the reverse tomorrow or even right now. It doesn't matter how long something may stay in a certain state or change, there is no rational reason to make assumptions about it but we do out of instinct. I would ask you to consider what is a long and short amount of time? There is no such thing, I don't know exactly how long it took for these supposed wise men to decide that everything must be made out of matter, Sound, Light, etc but lets give them what they would consider to be an edge way! Lets say far longer than it really was 12,00000000000 years! Is that a long period of time? 99999999999999999 years makes 12,00000000000 years seem like an incredibly short period of time. For all we know there could be an extreme amount of change in the so called laws of science within the next trillion years. It's all about comparison, only when we compare things can we say "that is long" or that is short. It's the same with big and small, wide and thin, heavy and light, strong and weak and others.<br /><br />I doubt that any scientist could tell me why they think that trusting this instinct makes sense. I certainly don't see why it should, but that doesn't mean that we as humanity should necessarily stop using it. With this in mind, the most hypocritical comment that Richard Dorkins made was when he said that faith is irrational, "a process of non thinking" he said. If what we have in this instinct that I've been describing and this instinct that we all possess on some level isn't faith then I don't know what the hell it is. Other times when he is being hypocritical is when he talks about the religions being bronze age, "bronze age myths" he says. I would like to point out that no matter how much scientific methods have been changed over the years due to experience, experiments and evaluating, the pure rules of science are getting older and older all the time! They could even be described as the holy bible of science. He was going on about how he is sick of the different religions being stubborn " I am right, he is wrong" but looking back on how rude he was to the various interviewees, he seems to be just as stubborn him self. To be fair to him, at least he doesn't try to bomb religious communities. I appreciate his hatred for certain religious beliefs that generate war, but I don't respect his arrogance in his own beliefs.<br /><br />As far as I'm concerned, Richard has the right to believe in science if that is his way. I am scientifically minded as well, but I don't think he has the right to go up to religious leaders having unfriendly arguments, trying to force his opinion on to them and virtually describing them as stupid. Despite all his education, experience and discoveries he seems to fail to have the wisdom to properly question his very own system of belief. I have read what he says in defence of this argument that open minded atheists such as my self put forward, What he states suggests to me that he is totally missing the point.<br /><br />Finally the title of the documentary, Root Of All Evil. This states that religion is the root of all evil, it isn't true. There are causes of evil that have nothing to do with religion.<br /><br />All round the documentary series was frustrating, narrow minded, hypocritical and flat-out rubbish.

This is a truly awful "B" movie. It is witless and often embarrassing. The plot, the basic "making into show business" routine, is almost nonexistent. In fact, the film is merely an excuse to push the war effort and highlight some popular music groups of 1942, including the Mills Brothers, Count Basie, Duke Ellington, Bob Crosby, and Freddy Slack. Each group gets about the standard three minutes, the exception being the Mills Brothers, who for some reason warranted two numbers. Ann Miller doesn't get to dance until the last couple of minutes of the film, and she has little to do but strut her stuff amid a barrage of patriotic propaganda.<br /><br />The most interesting moment in the film, in my view, occurred in the Duke Ellington segment. The band appears to be playing in a train, standing in awkward positions. (In the deep South at the time, the band was segregated in railroad cars when traveling.) Johnny Hodges is seen next to Duke, and Harry Carney may also be identified. In the last moments of the film, trumpeter/violinist Ray Nance rushes down the aisle to the camera and does an "uncle Tom," bugging his eyes and wiggling his head the way Willy Best did in many films. For modern viewers, especially jazz fans, this homage to segregation is sad indeed. Some movies go best unseen.

Summary- This game is the best Spider-Man to hit the market!You fight old foes such as Scorpion,Rhino,Venom,Doctor Octopus,Carnage,...And exclusive to the game...Monster-Ock!Monster-Ock is the symbiote Carnage On Dock Ock's body.<br /><br />Storyline- Dock Ock was supposedly reformed and using his inventions for mankind...supposedly...He was really planing a symbiote invasion! See the rest for yourself.<br /><br />Features- You can play in numerous old costumes seen throughout the comics.Almost every costume has special abilities!You can collect comics in the game and then view them in a comic viewer.And last but not least..............Spidey-Armour!Collect a gold spider symbol to change into Spider-Armour.It gives you another health bar!<br /><br />Graphics- Great!Though they they can be rough at times.But still great!<br /><br />Sound- Sweet!Nice music on every level and great voice overs!<br /><br />Overall- 10 out of 10.This game rocks.Buy it today!

CRYSTAL VOYAGER is a strange documentary about an eccentric surfer living in Australia. An American by birth George Greenough has surfed and photographed himself, friends and recently, dolphins, in Australia for 35 years, all using various re invented cameras which he either straps on his back, board or boat. In the mid 70s he teamed up with Surf Mag editor and budding film maker David Elfick to create this visually interesting tale about this life and photography. The 75 minute feature CRYSTAL VOYAGER is the result. Even in the 70s audiences were a bit puzzled by this film, neither surf-ing movie nor surf movie, because George swims about on a children's zippy board, not a real surfboard.... it offset the tedious droning of George (occasionally so dry or droll that it was actually funny.. like almost setting himself on fire or falling over something) with a spectacular 'you are there' power glide through a wave that ran for 23 minutes all set to Pink Floyd music. In 1974 when the Sydney Opera house opened, it also contained a cinema. Crystal Voyager was booked in there as an arty-sporty OZ pic and by default became a hit: as the 'opera house tickets' cost far more than a movie ticket, audiences flocked to see this film as an excuse to 'have been to the Sydney Opera House'...so the film did record business as a low budget attraction to locals and tourists who wanted to tell neighbors that they had seen a show 'there'. This created this myth that the film was a huge crowd puller and the reputation spread. As a result it was teamed with the fantasy cartoon FANTASTIC PLANET and had a trippy run through the UK and Europe as a double feature. I ran it at a coastal cinema in the 70s and the crowd was rather nonplussed about it all. Recently George has re emerged Lord Of The Flies style with another well photographed sea adventure called DOLPHIN GLIDE that offers viewers a dive and swim with the wild dolphins of Byron Bay. It is an eccentric 20 min short with an even more eccentric 20 min 'how George did it' short. Each were met with a collective yawn by both the media and the pubic in January 2005.... all of which makes CRYSTAL VOYAGER a 'you had to have been there' fluke all those years ago. However at a special Oz Surf night at an outdoor cinema last year 2000 people turned up....but then 2000 turn up every night to see anything there during this summer season of films.....so the damned thing fluked another box office binge. How many actually enjoyed it is very much open to debate. Again they were more than likely just plain puzzled by this mad film with an astonishing reputation. Elfick however, since 1975, has gone onto a stellar career as a major producer and director of many lauded Australian and international films. Look up NO WORRIES or STARSTRUCK or UNDERCOVER or RABBIT PROOF FENCE or LOVE IN LIMBO for clear and present applause at his achievements. George, however, is still floating around out there somewhere droning away and looking for something else to film, or drop a camera on.

My Take: The silliest of the AIRPORT movies, and probably one of the worst of the 70's disaster movies.<br /><br />As if to milk the franchise with all its got, the producers of this third sequel to AIRPORT throws in more action, silly subplots, gratuitous star appearances and goofier elements. In its attempt to be the biggest AIRPORT yet, CONCORDE: AIRPORT '79 is the worst one yet, and probably one of the worst of the disaster movies of the 1970's. With its bad box-office results, it is no wonder that the genre has overstayed its welcome.<br /><br />The film opens with a rather catchy score by Lalo Schifrin backed-up by some impressive shots of the titular aircraft in its former glory (the same plane used in this film would be involved in a crash in July 2000). But then the credits appear, and we get a glimpse of the "all-star" cast, which is composed nothing more of faded Hollywood stars, TV actors and none-too-popular B actors. The plot is sillier than ever: George Kennedy is back in the role of Joe Patroni, now the pilot of the Concorde (co piloted by co-pilot Alain Delon) en route to France after the Summer Olympics. On board is reporter Maggie Whelan (Susan Blakely), who has just discovered that his boyfriend, renowned weapons manufacturer Kevin Harrison (Robert Wagner), is selling their weapons to terrorist. To prevent her from revealing the news to the world, Harrison sends his most advance missiles and best saboteurs to prevent the Concorde from landing.<br /><br />The cast/subplots are dumber than ever, even sillier than an alcoholic Myrna Loy or a singing nun. We have Cicely Tyson transporting a live human heart in a cooler (!), Martha Raye as a woman with a bladder condition (and the character doesn't go deeper than that), J.J. Walker a a pot-smoking saxophonist (arguably the most annoying character in the film), Eddie Albert married to "old" wife Sybil Danning, Avery Schreiber as Russian coach with a deaf daughter and finally, a love story between reporter Jon Davidson and gymnast Andrea Marcovici (much to the sour watching-eye of coach Mercedes McCambidge). Plus the movie gets much closer to LOVE BOAT episode than ever with the silliest cameos of Charo (and her pet Chihuahua) and Bibi Anderson. Camp buffs will no doubt get a real kick-in-the-balls in this silly entry in a long strain of 70's disaster movies. This one is, in more than the sense of the word, a true disaster.<br /><br />Rating: *1/2 out of 5.

This film is easily one of the worst ones I have ever seen. And I don't mean that in a good way. We wanted to see a crappy horror/thriller, so we picked the one that seemed to be the lousiest in the store. For once, the film was everything we'd expected. And more! (or should I say less?)<br /><br />The actors look like they are reading their lines from posters behind the camera. The so-called special effects are created by putting red see-through plastic in front of the camera to give the impression that we are seeing through the eyes of the killer rats. And the script? Don't even get me started on the script... And just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, it turns out that the first part of the film was Oscar-material compared to the ending.<br /><br />Take it from me, this film is hilarious if you're into crappy horror-films, but if you want a GOOD film, keep on looking. This is not for you.

This is a cute little movie that provides pretty much what it promises - some good entertainment. After all, when a movie proclaims it features top SASS shooters, you have to figure that it is not a likely candidate for the "Best Picture" Oscar. Those guys are shooters, not actors. Your next clue is that the movie doesn't star Nicholas Cage or Jennifer Aniston, i.e. you shouldn't expect to see the current hottest names. It was meant to be just plain old entertainment and in that regard it is every bit as good as a lot of the old "oaters" I have seen through the years.<br /><br />SO what do you get with "Hell To Pay"? You get 100 minutes of good old entertainment. You get a chance to see some stars from past years, who act pretty much like what they did in their prime but a little older. You get to see some good SASS shooters in major roles and a few SASS hams in the background. It was a lot of fun for me seeing people that I have shot with, visited in their homes and who are my good friends get to do something that a lot of people only ever dream about - they're in a real, live honest to gosh movie. They're doing something a lot of wannabe actors and wannabe shooters will never get the chance to do and I think that alone makes it worth the watch.<br /><br />Admittedly, not everyone is a SASS member and so I saw lots of fun and humor that others may miss, but it is still good, old-fashioned entertainment, and frankly, there are a LOT of movies in the theatre right now that I wouldn't give a nickel to see, so save the money to go see "Brokeback Mountain" get "Hell to Pay" and watch some real cowboys have some fun.

A singularly unfunny musical comedy that artificially tries to marry the then-cutting edge rock 'n' roll explosion with the middle-class sensibilities of a suburban sitcom. The result is a jarringly dated mish-mash that will satisfy none of the audience that went for the music, but will at least keep their parents sated.<br /><br />A quick glance at the promo write-up on the back of the video release should give some idea of the content. Tom Ewell is a drunken agent, overplayed with so little comic ability you almost expect him to bellow "hi honey, I'm home!" The blurb sites him as "So funny in 'The 7 Year Itch'". It sounds almost like an excuse. What other film would sell itself on the fact that a leading player was good in something else? It reads like "So funny in 'The 7 Year Itch' ... but he's rubbish in this".<br /><br />Mansfield, a beautiful girl with rumoured 50-inch assets, is, unfortunately, a bargain basement Monroe with all the acting ability and comic timing of a rotting haddock. Her wooden delivery combined with Ewell's OTT double-takes make this a comedy partnership from Hell. For her part, the sell gives us: "[Jayne Mansfield] whose more obvious talents are the cause of many of the film's biggest laughs!" As you can see, a movie sold on the idea that it's lead has a big chest is not the most sophisticated of things. Most of this "humour" is men literally falling over themselves, their glasses cracking upon site of Mansfield, etc. Only the Freudian nightmare of a milk bottle overflowing casts doubt upon its "U" certificate.<br /><br />For the musical side, the most adenine of players are chosen. Would you really care to see Eddie Fontaine offer: "I love your eyes, I love your lips, they taste even better than potato chips" in a song called "Cool It, Baby"? Only the incendiary Little Richard breaks out of the MOR, though is forced to sing some of his more dad-friendly songs in a four-minute sequence. And how come all the acts sing without a single microphone? Attempted satires on the industry are broad and childlike in their conception.<br /><br />Technically, the picture was quite advanced, with special effects (including a ghost-like Julie London) and deluxe color (Which now looks flat and artificial. In fact, with its reds that bleed and fake-looking flesh tones, it resembles a colorised movie). Direction, though, isn't outstanding, and the sound quality is also quite poor.<br /><br />Perhaps it comes down to it being so old. A time when men still smoked on screen, sickeningly cute child actors made adult remarks and black servants only got to cook and dance. (All of which happen here). Yet Some Like It Hot, The African Queen, Ben Hur and many, many more stand as examples of films from the period that can still be enjoyed today, so the "good at the time" argument doesn't really stand up. At its heart The Girl Can't Help It is a cynical and patronising venture that doesn't bear close inspection. 4/10.<br /><br />

Difficult to call The Grudge a horror movie. At best it made me slightly jump from surprise at a couple of moments.<br /><br />If one forgets the (failed) frightening dimension and looks at other sides of the movie, he is again disappointed. The acting is OK but not great. The story can be somewhat interesting at the beginning, while one is trying to get what's happening. But toward the end one understands there is not much to understand. "Scary" elements seems sometimes to have been added to the script without reason...<br /><br />So... (yawn) See this movie it if you have nothing more interesting to do, like cutting the carrots or looking at the clouds.

After waiting years for a definitive collection of Led Zeppelin perfomances on video, fans have finally been rewarded with what is undoubtedly the greatest concert video ever! Much better than the dismal "Song Remains the Same", this video includes performances from no less than 5 different venues spanning a decade. It also includes rare interviews and TV appearances. The sound quality is amazing, considering the source material used. And the video quality is even more impressive. This is an ABSOLUTE MUST for any Led Zeppelin fan.

First of all, I have to say that I am not generally a big fan of werewolf movies in general. It's not that I don't like them, just that I don't like them a lot. There are some that I have enjoyed...Werewolf of London (1935, Stuart Walker), An American Werewolf in London (1981, John Landis)...and some that I have thought were okay but nothing special...The Wolf Man (1941, George Waggner), The Howling (1981, Joe Dante), Dog Soldiers (2002, Neil Marshall) are some examples...but overall, the werewolf sub-genre is not my favorite. But I had this one on one of those 50 movie sets so I thought I'd give it a watch and see how it was.<br /><br />Spoilers follow...<br /><br />The Mad Monster is a werewolf tale, but the werewolf is primarily used as a vehicle for revenge by a mad scientist, Dr. Lorenzo Cameron (George Zucco). Dr. Cameron has discovered a way to transform human beings into beasts, specifically wolves, but was ridiculed and ostracized by the greater scientific community. Forced out of a prestigious position, he goes mad and plots revenge on those who mocked him in an old country mansion, where he lives with his daughter Lenora (the lovely Anne Nagel) and his assistant Petro (Glenn Strange) of limited mental abilities. Using his serum, Dr. Cameron transforms Petro into a werewolf and sends him off to kill his old rivals. Eventually, though, the werewolf Petro gets out of control and both the mad doctor and his creation are killed.<br /><br />The movie also plays out somewhat as a murder/crime drama, with Lenora's journalist suitor (Johnny Downs) investigating the doctor's strange behavior and the rash of murders. The story seems to borrow many elements from other big pictures that came before it. There are reminders of Frankenstein (1931, James Whale) in the creation of a monster which runs amok, and the creature killing an innocent child. Visions of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931, Rouben Mamoulian or the 1941, Victor Fleming version) and The Wolf Man (1941, George Waggner) also come to mind. And that is one of the problems with this movie in my view-it comes across as a mediocre melding of some great films. It doesn't add much to the genre.<br /><br />True, there are some redeeming qualities. George Zucco's performance was convincing, and the scene showing Dr. Lorenzo talking to his visions/hallucinations of his tormentors works well for me in showing his insanity. There is some reasonable character build up, at least in the case of his character. But Glenn Strange's character is not at all convincing, and seems to have this comedic quality-whether intentional or not, I'm not sure-that just doesn't fit into the movie as a whole.<br /><br />I seemed to like it more than most IMDb users based on my rating of 4/10, but it was still a below average film. Perhaps worth a view if you are a fan of early werewolf movies or a big fan of the 1930's and 1940's horror films, but unlikely to appeal to you if you are not.

These guys are excellent and anything they put out to the public is first class. The musicianship of this band is amazing and we should all be very thankful we live in a world where Rush exists. Future generations will never be able to see such mastery live and in person. Get this DVD and you will enjoy it throughly!! I was recently able to see these incredible musicians play in Houston, TX and was blown away. I have not missed a show since power windows and I have to say that they are better than ever. Everyone should embrace these guys and teach others what real musicianship is! There will never be such a tight and well put together trio again in our lifetime. Lets just hope and pray that they do not retire anytime soon!

James Stewart plays Johnny Mason, lawyer. Carole Lombard is Jane Mason, wife. Lucile Watson the mother-in-law Harriet Mason. Johnny sees Jane and quickly marries her. Mother is disappointed. Mother lives with them. Many troubles are ahead. Jane can't cook. Can't set the table. Can't do many things according to mother. The interaction between daughter-in-law and mother are the highlights of this film. Stewart and Lombard are married but just don't have any real magic on screen. Stewart is Stewart. He is good as a timid husband and son but this doesn't carry the film. Can baby Mason build bridges between Jane and Harriet? A believable film for those that are married.

I had the funny chance of seeing this on Mystery Science Theater 3000, four years ago. I must admit it wasn't as badly done as some other science fiction/horror movies of the time. The plot revolved around an astronaut that came back to earth with alien embryo's inside of him. Now the plot is quite weird, well if you can even call that a plot. (Seeing a space program run out of one building and an old pickup truck is drop-dead funny!) I'll admit it was horrible by today's standards (and 20 years ago)...but I can see myself 43 years ago watching and being charmed by this movie. It's not even close to the badness of Invasion of the Neptune Men, Manos: Hands of Fate or Future War.<br /><br />

They Made Me a Criminal is a remake of an earlier Warner Brothers film, The Life of Jimmy Dolan which starred Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. as the prizefighter on the lam.<br /><br />Even with the restrictions now upon production by the Hays Office, this remake actually turns out to be better than the original. Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., is horribly miscast as a pugilist. John Garfield with his background and style steps into a part he was born to play.<br /><br />They Made Me a Criminal was directed by Busby Berkeley who Jack Warner believed in keeping busy in between musicals. Berkeley in fact would soon be leaving Warner Brothers for MGM. <br /><br />Berkeley does do a fine job here, keeping the action flowing at a good pace. I particularly like the scene where four of the Dead End Kids and Garfield are swimming in a water tank and get stranded there when the water level goes down. They get it out of it quite narrowly and with some good ingenuity.<br /><br />Other performances besides Garfield and the kids to remember are May Robson who runs the summer camp for the kids and Claude Rains as the obsessed detective on Garfield's trail.

A beautiful piece of children's cinema buried in a world of archaic Celticism. Setting the story around the famous Book of Kels, believed to have been comprised by monks from the small island of Iona, off the western coast of Scotland.<br /><br />Telling the tale of a young abbots apprentice who goes off into the forest in search of Crom-Cruic, the fierce headless horseman of pagan mythology. In hopes of recovering a lost artefact.<br /><br />The films true beauty lies in its' animation. Cell shaded in a bright and inspirational style of deep complexity resulting in a look of seem less simplicity. Deriving much from the artistic style of the brilliant Cartoon Network series 'Samurai Jack' for its genius use of mark making and background depth, The Secret of Kels creates a consistently affective Celtic world living under the shadow of Viking invasion.<br /><br />The history may be intensely inaccurate and the ways of life portrayed lacking realism but these facts are utterly irrelevant as the film sets itself in a world of fantasy and Celtic-revivalist mysticism. The girl of the forest is a wonderful addition and in my opinion makes the picture what it is, as she glides from branch to branch. Appearing and disappearing like a mysterious nymph with qualities resembling the legendary Cheshire Cat from Alice and Wonderland.<br /><br />The Secret of Kels is an absolute treat. For all genders, all ages, it's a lovely piece of family cinema.<br /><br />Don't expect to be awed but instead pleasantly impressed!

Since the last horrid Astérix film and the fact that we only get the Swiss German version in cinemas, here, I went to watch it with quite a bit of trepidation... Unfounded, as I was happy to discover ^____^<br /><br />The film is funny and modern, has good gags, a good animation, an amusing character interaction, a good voice cast (Note: I can only speak for the Swiss German one!) except for the Viking chief's daughter Abba (her name is great, despite the not very inspired voice actress)...<br /><br />I especially liked the character Justforkix (Goudurix in French, Grautvornix in German. He's the young man who is supposed to be put in shape...). He's a very amusing portrayal of a mollycoddled, urban teenager; but he's very likable, despite the teenage mannerisms... XD The interaction between Astérix & Obélix and their young charge is fantastic and thoroughly entertaining.<br /><br />It shouldn't be compared to the old films, since this one is quite different... Which surprisingly doesn't make it bad. On the contrary. When they tried to modernize the last film (twelve years ago), they completely blew it. This film, however, proved that it can be done just fine... ^-^<br /><br />I came out of the theater cheerful... Always a good sign ^_~

This must be one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I was actually expecting a bad movie but I was caught by surprise believe it or not. The storyline is the traditional, all clichées are included.<br /><br />The dialogue is so poorly written that you actually laugh when the otherwise half-descent actors are trying to make it sound real. The photo is not too good, the music is so malplacée it actually made me angry, the actors are not even trying, altho the script makes it almost impossible you could expect more from people that have been acting for 30 years and the so called action scenes actually manage to lack the "action" itself.<br /><br />I dont understand why these types of bad movies keep on coming, who is financing this shit? Where is the screening ? And why on earth do actors take on this mission impossible script?<br /><br />There are a million hollywood-movies in this genre without even aspiration of reaching the theaters, but even them Straight To Video things actually manages to look professional in comparison.<br /><br />I can not say anything positive about this except the title which explains it all, I feel robbed of 2 hours of my life.

In the 3rd installment of "Left Behind" the makers did not care to put ANY KIND OF CONTINUITY into the plot. Although all weapons on the planet have been confiscated by the United Nations, World War III suddenly begins at the snap of a finger. Within a few split-seconds the ex-lover of one of the main protagonists moves from passionately seducing him to outright hatred to a melancholy confession of love without any trace of direction. <br /><br />But foremost this film is really an irony-free zone. After the president of the United States accepts Jesus as his savior he immediately becomes a suicide bomber and blows up a skyscraper in the middle of the city. Osama Bin Laden will be very jealous when he sees this film!

Frankly, this movie has gone over the heads of most of its detractors.<br /><br />The opposite of perdition (being lost) is salvation (being saved) and this movie is one of a very few to deal with those two concepts. The movie also explores the love and disappointments that attend the father-son relationship. It should be noted at the outset that none of these are currently fashionable themes.<br /><br />The premise is that the fathers in the move, hit-man Michael Sullivan (Tom Hanks) and his crime boss John Rooney (Paul Newman), love their sons and will do anything to protect them. But Rooney's son Connor is even more evil than the rest. He kills one of Rooney's loyal soldiers to cover up his own stealing from his father. When Connor learns that Sullivan's son Michael witnessed it, he mistakenly kills Sullivan's other son (and Sullivan's wife) in an attempt to silence witnesses.<br /><br />Sullivan decides he wants revenge at any price, even at the terribly high price of perdition. Rooney, who in one scene curses the day Connor was born, refuses to give up his son Connor to Sullivan, and hires a contract killer named Maguire (Jude Law) to kill Sullivan and his son. So Rooney joins his son Connor on the Road to Perdition.<br /><br />For the rest of the movie, accompanied by his surviving son young Michael, Sullivan pursues Connor Rooney down the Road to Perdition, and Maguire pursues Sullivan. When Sullivan confronts Rooney in a Church basement, and demands that he give up Connor because Connor murdered his family, Rooney says - "Michael, there are only murderers in this room,.., and there's only one guarantee, none of us will see Heaven." As the movie ends, somewhat predictably, one character is saved and one character repents.<br /><br />I'm not a big Tom Hanks fan, but he does step out of character to play hit-man Sullivan convincingly, giving a subtle and laconic performance. Newman does well as the old Irish gangster Rooney, showing a hard edge in his face and manner, his eyes haunted by Connor's misdeeds. Jude Law plays Maguire in a suitably creepy way. Tyler Hoechlin plays Young Michael naturally and without affectation.<br /><br />The cinematography constantly played light off from darkness, echoing the themes of salvation and perdition. The camera drew from a palette of greens and greys. The greys belonged to the fathers and the urban landscapes of Depression era Illinois. The greens belonged to the younger sons and that State's rural flatlands. Thomas Newman's lush, sonorous and haunting music had faint Irish overtones and was played out in Copland-like arrangements. The sets were authentic mid-Western urban - factories, churches. The homes shone with gleaming woodwork.<br /><br />The excellence of the movie lies in its generation of a unique feeling out of its profound themes, distinctive acting, and enveloping music and cinematography. The only negative was a slight anti-gun message slipped into the screenplay y, the movie's only nod to political correctness.<br /><br />I give this movie a10 out of 10; in time it will be acknowledged as a great film.

I am a film directors nightmare... especially of the mega buck, multiplex variety. While not a student of the art I still have a high threshold for disbelief suspension and buying into the film maker's vision, if I can find it. That's why a gem such as 'You Are Alone' is such an exhilarating find. The intimacy and pacing drew me in and never let me go. Jessica Bohl and Richard Brundage give thoughtful nuanced performances and director Gorman Bechard displays a deft hand in presenting what is an understandably disturbing day in the lives of two terribly damaged people.<br /><br />Spoiler below<br /><br />I bought the DVD version and have shared it with several people. The reactions have been varied, from disbelief in the ability of Daphne to complete the assignment for which Buddy has paid her to an inability to watch the whole film because it was just too real and emotionally devastating. As a compulsively skeptical moviegoer I have to be either grabbed by the collars and hauled for the ride or sidled up to and seduced by the filmmaker. This film took the later route for me and by the end I was so involved that I felt Daphne's horror and pain at her role in Buddy's demise. My reaction to this film reminded me of watching 'The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover' by Peter Greenaway many, many years ago. By the end I was fascinated and repelled and utterly unable to tear my eyes away from that film too. I've watched this film several times now and truly appreciate the eye and ear the director has demonstrated. I am familiar with other works he has been done including a couple of cheeky movies, 'Galactic Gigolo' and 'Attack of the Killer Bimbos' and a mixed bag 'The Kiss' which I recently learned was killed in the cradle by the producer and doesn't really represent the directors vision. Too bad, because I loved the prior two films and even found 'The Kiss' interesting but wish 'The Kiss' was available in a director's cut with all of the original vision and music in tact. I look forward to future work by this interesting director and the leads Jessica Bohl and Richard Brundage.

Hood of the Living Dead and all of the other movies these guys directed look like they got together and filmed this with their buddies who have zero talent one afternoon when they were bored (lines are completely unrehearsed and unconvincing). I find that 95% of amateur movies and 90% of home video footage is better than this film (although the similarities between them warrant the comparison). "Hey lets see if anyone is dumb enough to buy our movies!". Hopefully nobody ELSE wasn't. My apologies to those involved in the flic as this review is somewhat harsh but i was the dope who read your fake reviews and purchased the movie.

The Comic Strip featured actors from 'The Young One's' - a student based sitcom from the 80's. Comic Strip features included parodies of westerns, 'The famous 5', and The Professionals - all a lot funnier than this. Having said that Alexei Sayle puts in a good turn as a traffic cop with ambition and the soundtrack features great music from the era. 5/10

Just as a reminder to anyone just now reading the comments on this excellent BBC mini-series, published in 1981, it was not available on DVD until the last few years. Since then, it has become available, but initially only in the British format (for which I bought an 'international' DVD player, which you have to hack--illegally, I suspect, to see it), but the series is now available through amazon.com--3 discs-- for between $19-21, to be viewed on DVD in the US format, no hacking. There were 41 reviews, average 5 stars. This mini-series is one of the very best on Oppenheimer, or the Manhattan Project, or virtually anything produced by the BBC.

Lazy movie made by a lazy director. The characters are grotesque. Despite the tragic of this war, there is no emotion at all in the movie. Symbolism is artificial and inefficient (and old Bosnian woman giving a photo of her son to Arbour will "concretize" her willingness, will awake the super-mother sleeping inside her, a corpse eaten by worms to show the horror of genocide... too much is sometimes worst than not enough).<br /><br />This movie is only an advertisement, an empty elegy to a woman who is not a hero. She worked for United Nations. Remember UN failed to protect civilians at Srebrenica. Who are the true heroes of this war? A Canadian judge leading post-mortem trial for atrocities that happened mostly because her organization failed to prevent them? Where is the criticism in this movie?

* Some spoilers *<br /><br />This movie is sometimes subtitled "Life Everlasting." That's often taken as reference to the final scene, but more accurately describes how dead and buried this once-estimable series is after this sloppy and illogical send-off.<br /><br />There's a "hey kids, let's put on a show air" about this telemovie, which can be endearing in spots. Some fans will feel like insiders as they enjoy picking out all the various cameo appearances. Co-writer, co-producer Tom Fontana and his pals pack the goings-on with friends and favorites from other shows, as well as real Baltimore personages.<br /><br />That's on top of the returns of virtually all the members of the television's show varied casts, your old favorites as well as later non-favorites.<br /><br />There was always a tug-of-war pitting quality-conscious executive producer Barry Levinson, Fontana, James Yoshimura and the rest of the creative team against budget-conscious NBC execs, who simply wanted a another moronic police procedural like "Nash Bridges," which regularly beat "Homicide" in the ratings. The pressure told as the show bounced between riveting realism that transcended its form, and sleazy sensationalism that demeaned it.<br /><br />Unfortunately for this movie, Fontana, co-writers Yoshimura and Eric Overmeyer and director Jean de Segonzac simply threw in the towel. They took the most ludicrous story are from the series, topped it with an unlikely and artistically unfruitful new plot line, and laid the burden of carrying the whole mess on one of the weaker cast members.<br /><br />Briefly, some time has passed since the last episode of the show. The former heart of Baltimore's homicide unit, Yaphet Kotto as Lt. Al Giardello, is now a Kurt Schmoke-like candidate for mayor, and Schmoke himself makes a cameo appearance. But this promising start immediately and improbably takes a tragic turn.<br /><br />The spotlight shifts to Giancarlo Esposito as Giardello's son Mike. A handsome man who has done good work elsewhere, Esposito was one of the pretty faces brought in late to supposedly enliven the TV series. But the question for viewers always was: is Mike that uncomfortable as Gee's son, or is Esposito that uncomfortable in the role?<br /><br />To be fair, Esposito doesn't get a chance to play out the main story without interruption. That's because the writers choose this moment to revive another storyline that spat on the intelligence of the show's loyal voters.<br /><br />An apparent snuff streaming video was promoted, and then seemed to actually take place, on the Internet. After some red herrings, the detectives arrested a repellent suspect. But Zaljko Ivanek's harassed and overworked Deputy States Attorney forgot to file motions in time, and the suspect was released, only to be murdered later.<br /><br />Let's summarize: he forgot to file the paperwork because it wasn't the most sensational case of his career, because the mayor, the attorney general, the governor, the entire Maryland Legislature, the U.S. Attorney General, NBC, Court TV, the BBC, AP, Reuters, People, The Sun, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the LA Times, Time Magazine, The Times of London, The Economist, The Johannesburg Mail and Guardian, L'Osservatore Romano, Le Figaro, Paris Match, L'Equipe and Computer World weren't calling every 10 minutes to ask about the status of the case.<br /><br />Nevertheless, the old gang of detectives and associates flocks back to Baltimore to help out. There's quite an array of talent on display. Unfortunately, with the limited amount of dialogue to hand out, some of them are merely on display.<br /><br />Two of the strongest actors, Clark Johnson and Melissa Leo, are criminally underused, while time wasted on Jon Seda and Michael Michelle could be better spent on commercials. The writers do seem to satirize this, presenting Jason Priestley as the latest big-deal detective. On the other hand, they give easy-come, easy-go Michelle Forbes a very affecting scene.<br /><br />There's some other sly casting, with actual Lt. Gary D'Addario, the center of the book that gave rise to the show, playing another detective. Guests drop in from other shows, like Whitney Allen doing her deadpan and clueless "Miss Sally" from the children's show beloved by the inmates on Fontana's "Oz." Dina Napoli of WBAL TV turns up as herself. <br /><br />Even when entertaining, though, these guests can be distracting. Ed Begley Jr. actually advances the story in his brief appearance, playing Dr. Victor Ehrlich from Fontana's "St. Elsewhere." He's still a vivid character, and fits in a hospital setting. Then you remember, didn't St. Elegius turn out to be an autistic boy's fantasy?<br /><br />The most useful cameo reflects corporate synergy. This movie was made when Court TV bought re-run rights to the series. That network contributed legal waif Helen Lucaitis, who had interviewed the Homicide team and later appeared on "Oz." The TV correspondent does an efficient job summarizing the news, that is, plot points for latecomers.<br /><br />Although she's so thin that she disappears when she turns sideways, Lucaitis also adeptly handles a bit of physical comedy with Esposito. He shows more juice in his scenes with Lucaitis than with any of his usual colleagues. Perhaps those two should have done a spin-off.<br /><br />As the movie winds down, the cream of the cast rises to the top. Although they are saddled with a loser script, Andre Braugher and Kyle Secor overcome it. Their performances remind viewers what made Homicide, for considerable stretches, the best show on the air and one of the best television productions ever.<br /><br />It's fun to watch top pros do their stuff; it's just a shame this movie doesn't give them more of a chance. Die-hard fans may want to see this movie anyway, but you can live without it.

I am not going to lie. Despite looking interesting, I watched The Notorious Bettie Page because I had heard (and it was fairly obvious just by looking at a synopsis or anything about the film), that Gretchen Mol got naked in it. I have never been a fan of Mol, but I cannot resist seeing an attractive woman taking off her clothes. Yes, that may be perverted, but its a theme and ideal central to the very core of the movie, and helps to make the film a lot stronger than it probably should be.<br /><br />The film chronicles Bettie Page's (Mol) life from her physical and sexually abused days as a kid in high school in the South, and onto her new life in New York. She wants to be an actress, but she has to pay bills too. After taking a few seemingly innocent shots on a local beach, Page slowly becomes a modeling sensation, and quickly jumps from suggestive photos to sexually provocative pin-up photographs.<br /><br />I feel the briefness of the film (just over ninety minutes) is both a curse and blessing for it. On one hand, the film never overstays its welcome. You get to know Page within a few short minutes, and then it gets right into her modeling career and does not look back. But it curses the film as well, because we never really get a chance to grasp everything that is going on. She just kind of jumps around between modeling shoots and the controversies that they create before jumping right into the major senate investigation that takes up much of the final act of the film. You just sit there, and attempt to absorb it all, and more just comes right at you. It feels like the filmmakers wanted to summarize too much material in too short a film. It begs for longer sequences, and begs more for even longer explanations. It does not feel rushed; it just does not feel all there.<br /><br />Another bit of a fumble, although a bit more of a curiosity, is the use of colour throughout the film. The majority is in black and white, but frequently, splashes and sequences of colour do emerge. But while this may have been done as a symbolic gesture early on, it becomes a bit of a distraction as it continually pops up later on before cutting back to black and white. It gets confusing, and becomes more of a tedious interference than anything else as the film goes on.<br /><br />While it may fumble a bit with the actions, the film stays dead-on with its themes. Page, who I know little to nothing about, is played off innocently, and her world is exactly the same. Save for a few shady characters during her teenage years, everyone she encounters is an innocent, and everything she does has an innocence to it. I never thought I would look at full frontal nudity as being something that was anything other than vulgar and depraved, but here, it truly is something to marvel at. All at once, it is beautiful and innocent. Even the most sexually perverted moments in the film (albeit tame compared to today's standards) have an innocent and angelic feeling to them. There is just something about the way Mol's nude body is portrayed that it just strikes at such a different chord than nude bodies in other films. It just feels so natural and so wondrous, that if there were any reason to watch the film, it would be to see the spectacular depictions of Mol's body as she plays Bettie Page.<br /><br />The other reason is Mol herself. As Page, she exemplifies that 1950's Southern belle everyone knows (or can at least imagine). Despite her profession, she is still a normal person, and still looks at herself as being religious. Mol plays her exactly to the right amount of squeaky-cleanliness needed to make this character feel authentically from the 1950's. She plays her with such matter-of-factness that you would be hard-set not to think that Mol was actually Bettie Page herself.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the supporting cast have very little moments to shine, and are totally overshadowed by Mol's wonderful performance. None of them do anything particularly pleasing, and none of them really have that same strength in their role as Mol does. This is not really the fault of the actors, but more of the fact that they do not have much to work with. Many of them are totally recognizable, such as Oscar-nominee David Strathairn (in a role a little too close to one of his better performances), Sarah Paulson (recent Golden Globe nominee for Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip), and character actor Lili Taylor, but you would be hard set to really place their performance in being anything other than okay. None of these characters are really developed, and they really just stand as character cut-outs who Mol runs loops around as she picks up steam in her brilliant performance.<br /><br />Really, this film is worthwhile for its portrayal of nudity, and for Gretchen Mol's excellent performance of Bettie Page. Everything else is a bit too muddled and awkward than it should be. Had more work been done to develop supporting characters and not just blast right through the story, this film would have been a much better biographical film. As it stands, it is just a vehicle for Mol to really rise into the stratosphere of popularity as an actress.<br /><br />7/10.

*SPOILERS*<br /><br />I don't care what anyone says, this movie is friggin' hilarious. This is the sequel to Jack Frost, a movie about a killer snowman. The snowman is created when a convicted serial killer about to be executed is taken to the execution chamber, but the truck crashes with a truck carrying DNA manipulation chemicals that make human DNA bond with dirt, or in this case, snow. The first movie was just boring, and eventually the snowman is destroyed by pouring antifreeze on him.<br /><br />Or so they thought.<br /><br />This movie takes place about a year after the second. Some scientists resurrect Jack Frost by mixing the antifreeze with chemicals. No explanation is ever given for why they do this, they just do. Meanwhile, the sherrif who arrested Frost in the first is going to the Bahamas. Unfortunately, the snowman comes with him.<br /><br />This movie has it all. It has talking carrots that can stand up, ice cubes that explode when you stick them in your mouth, and killer snowballs. Yes, killer snowballs. They even say "Dada!" like babies. I'll have to give the makers of this credit. The snowballs are some of the cutest little things ever dreamed up. I wish that I could get one as a pet. Frost finally freezes the island, as if a killer snowman has the ability to influence major weather patterns.<br /><br />Then there's the actors. There's Manners, the FBI agent from the first movie, except here he's wearing an eyepatch. YARR MATEYS, SHIVER ME TIMBERS, I BE AN FBI AGENT! YARRR! And then there's the stereotypical British adventurer and the stereotypical black Jamaican with dreadlocks. And finally, Captain Fun. The fruitiest man on the face of the planet, bar none.<br /><br />This movie isn't scary, but is is hilarious. I laughed my butt off the whole way through, and I recommend this for anyone who likes a good "bad" movie.<br /><br />*** out ****

Red Skelton (in his first starring role) plays Wally Benton who plays 'The Fox' on a radio show. He writes the murder mysteries and as 'The Fox' solves them. Joseph Jones (Conrad Veidt) is trying to figure out how to perform the perfect murder on someone. He kidnaps Benton, his girlfriend (Ann Rutherford) and another girlfriend (Virginia Grey). He tells Benton to write out the perfect murder...or his girlfriends get it...<br /><br />Very funny and enjoyable movie. Fast-moving (it's only 77 minutes), a good script and perfect casting really puts this across. Skelton is very good in his first starring role--very funny, fast, handsome and intelligent. Veidt is excellent as the evil Jones. Rutherford and Grey are lots of fun as Skelton's girlfriends. All three of them play off each other perfectly--their verbal sparring is the highlight of this pic. Also fun to see Eve Arden in a small role.<br /><br />Well worth your time.

Once again proving his amazing versatility, John Turturro plays the introspective Russian chess genius preparing for a comeback tournament, and forging an unlikely relationship with a gadabout fellow resident (Emily Watson) at a 1920's Italian hotel. They fall in love,to the horror of her social-mountaineering mother (Geraldine James).A wonderful love story, whose gloss of chess might make it appear cerebral.But in spite of its origins in a Nabakov story, it certainly is not .The romantic elements and the sense of time and place beat the psychological analysis hands down.John Turturro, having appeared in "Barton Fink" ,"O Brother,Where Art thou?" "The Big Lebowski" proves that he is not dependant on Coen Bros films to assert his stature.