Datasets:

srivatsavaasista

/

textgenerator-ds-mini

like 0

This is a movie that plays to everyone's emotions. We all want a second chance at things. Jim Morris got one, followed his heart and got a chance to live his dream. What a great message and what a great delivery by this movie.

Went to see this as Me and my Lady had little else to do on a sunday afternoon I like films that deal with sleazy,loser characters and this is full of em. After a slow start we get some good turns from the cast but it is the actual 'Bellini' that both makes and lets the film down. The 'Bellini' is one of the funniest scenes I have seen in a film for a long while but is too short and could have made this a masterpiece overall 71/2 out of 10

i thought this movie was really really great because, in India cinemas nowadays, all you see is skin, music, and bad acting...in this movie, you can see some tradition, ethnicity, and at least some decency...although some parts were a little dramatic, guess what? that is what Indian cinema is all about! after watching this movie, at least you don't get a headache from all the loud overrated music, or any violence, its just the truth, it teaches about love, and of course caring for the person you love throughout life...i think it was an amazing movie...Kids can watch it without a doubt, and adults will enjoy the simplicity that used to be India's sure profoundness...until all these rap hits, miniskirts, and skin showing became a part of it.

This is a polarising film. People either love it or despise it, it seems. Me, I despise it. The film comes from the same context as Lindsay Anderson's Oh Lucky Man, but while that is a masterpiece, this is just horrible.<br /><br />Both films take Kafka's unfinished novel - America, for their inspiration and general ideal. America is a surreal story of a youth's travels through the country. Kafka uses the this character as a pure observer, one who does not change over the course of the journey (although the book is about 300 pages and still seems only a quarter finished, so we'll never know). Allowing Kafka to concentrate and comment on the absurd/surreal situations and surroundings. Oh Lucky Man follows this same template to show Britain through the eyes of Malcolm McDowell and Weekend does the same for France.<br /><br />Both films are also hugely Brechtian, using various tricks and techniques to point up the fact that this is NOT REAL, this is confabulation etc. But the difference comes where Oh Lucky Man uses the constructed film to convey the absurdity of life and the class system, Weekend uses the constructed film to bludgeon us to death with ideological polemic. Because Godard goes further than Anderson in his Brechtian principles, we end up with two principle characters in which we have no investment, at all. We're forced to spend 90 minutes with them, yet we couldn't care less about them. Deliberately so. But in doing this, Godard leaves us with a film that is entirely about his own message, which, in the first half of the film is provided through relentless and overbearing symbolism, and in the second half through a series of long speeches directed to camera. Combined with unpleasant and unnecessary scenes such as the really horrible pig slaying, far worse than any of the off camera violence of the car crashes.<br /><br />The end result is like listening to a student political apparatchik droning on and on and on about his views whilst repeatedly kicking you in the head so that you get the message. The problem with Brecht is, if you alienate the audience too much, then you've alienated them from what you are trying to convey. Which always seemed self evident to me.<br /><br />The parts that really stick in the craw for this movie though, is the contrast between the extremely sexually explicit verbal description of the threesome at the start and the off-screen comical rape in the middle, which, even if it could be viewed as allegorical, completely destroys the film's faith in itself and it's characters, what little of it existed in the first place. It's so French with a capital F, it hurts.<br /><br />Watch Oh Lucky Man instead. That is a work of genius. Weekend is a work of pretension.<br /><br />Two stars, and only for the traffic jam scene and the piano scene, which are just hints at genius, although they actually make the end result more frustrating and unsatisfying as without them, this is a bad film by the worst most pretentious director in the world, with them, well it's obvious that this is a damn good technical director making the most intellectually pretentious film in the world. Somehow that's far worse.

How offensive! Those who liked this movie have probably never opened a bible. I can imagine those at NBC saying, "OK. Let's make a movie to appease those pesky Christians, but they'll never know the difference if we don't have anything factual or in the correct chronological order." Well, they were wrong. Anybody associated with this atrocity needs to find a church and repent for their involvement in this blasphemous atrocity. I only gave this movie a 1 because I couldn't give it a 0.

The ghost of the Vietnam war has haunted the American psyche for thirty years now. If not because of the fact that tens of thousands of American soldiers went MIA in Vietnam, or the manner in which those who returned were treated, then because it was the first war that America could be said to have lost. Many men came home from the war a shadow of their former selves, and the original First Blood managed to provide a small insight into their problems as they attempted to rotate back into the world, as the saying goes. First Blood Part II, on the other hand, is little more than a fist-pumping mess that goes to illustrate how sore America can be, both in victory and defeat. Stallone puts in another sluggish performance as the titular Special Forces commando, while Richard Crenna attempts to hold up the serious actor quotient. Where it all comes undone is in the script, which didn't do any better when it was called Missing In Action and starred Chuck Norris. What little semblance of logic there was in the original is now gone, as the filmmakers decide to paint a big S on Rambo's massive chest.<br /><br />The film picks up a little while after the end of First Blood. The film, that is - the novel didn't allow for the possibility of sequels. In this mediocre follow-up, Rambo has been put to work at what appears to be some sort of open-air mine. As he is breaking rocks and working up a sweat, a prison guard pulls him away to go and have a chat with Colonel Trautman, who advises him that his government is willing to offer him an early release if he goes on a covert mission. Rambo, never one to back down from a hard day's violent work, accepts, and is promptly shipped off to a covert base in what appears to be Cambodia or Thailand (I forget which). From there, he is commissioned to seek out a camp where American MIAs are supposedly being held, and photograph them. His mission quite clearly specifies that he is not to make any attempt to secure their release. Rambo being Rambo, however, has other ideas in spite of their possible political implications.<br /><br />Of course, things go somewhat awry when it turns out that the people commissioning Rambo's work have more interest in making sure no American MIAs are found. It is the age-old conspiracy theory, and makes no apologies for exploiting the plight of many an American family that was left without a son during the ten years that the official Vietnam war had been raging for. Of course, with the Jingoism that was inherent in American society during the 1980s, they could not help but work in a plot tangent about the Vietnamese army being in bed with what appears to be a single battalion of Russians. Together, the two antagonists attempt to extract what information they can from Rambo, but it backfires upon them in an orgy of bullets, arrows, rockets, and destruction. About the only thing missing is the moment when Rambo drinks from a grail-like chalice and declares himself invincible.<br /><br />To be honest, First Blood Part II is a well-photographed, and well-choreographed, action spectacle. The hand-to-hand combat with the larger Russian commander is one of the few battles in the film that has any dramatic tension whatsoever. The rest is simply a case of the lead actor and the director building a fantasy for Americans to pump their fist to. Fortunately, this fad of America über alles action films soon died down when more introspective and intelligent war films such as Platoon began doing the rounds. Some of the kills shown here are quite creative, despite all the problems. The Vietnamese commander meets an end that many an action film villain would envy. The Russian commander bites it in a manner that is as spectacular as it is ridiculous. Only in a 1980s action film would one see a LAW being used from inside a helicopter. Sure, there have been action film clichés rooted in contradictions of fact, but never this ridiculous before.<br /><br />I gave Rambo: First Blood Part II a one out of ten. It is so bad it is ridiculous, and so ridiculous that it is often funny. One doesn't even need to have served in the military to know how stupid some of the action sequences are. The only risk it takes is in trying to make a stupid political statement with what is a heartbreaking subject for those directly involved. Keep the tongue firmly in the cheek, and it might be watchable.

Somehow they summed up the 60's, ten years that radically changed our country, in four hours. And what a painful four hours it was. They trivilized the major events and happenings and they "claimed" it was about two families yet you barely saw the african-american family. If I were NBC I would be ashamed and embarrassed for airing such trash. What was amusing was this happy-go-lucky family you saw in the very beginning was tortured in so many ways, but managed to attend every major 60's event through the country. And the second family was such a non-factor. They devoted maybe five or six scenes total to this family. That poor son... Please NBC, do not make any movies about any other eras....leave that to PBS and the History Channel

Once again the two bickering professors must join together to save the lost world. The five members of the first expedition return (see The Lost World, 1992, for a list of actors). A man seeking oil brings a drilling crew to the plateau. Instead of striking oil they tap an underground volcano which threatens all life in the Lost World. The oil crew clash with the native people and the scientific expedition. Although the situation looks hopeless.... (I'm not going to tell you the ending).

people claim its edited funny but they had to cut it down substantially in post production. i have harry as a professor right now at ucsd, and honestly its one of the best classes I've had, its rather funny to here about what happened in making the film cause harry is so animated. i originally watched "joy of life" for another class where harry did a voice over in the film, and started watching this film after i started the class. Harry originally did some performance work, and is really genuine about creating moments that move you, especially when you have to re edit things until you hit on that moment, but its something you see in this film.

This is the worst movie I ever paid to see and with the exception of "They Saved Hitler's Brain" the worst movie I have ever seen period. When this movie came out I was a big fan of SNL and SCTV and therefore was anticipating what I thought would be the funniest movie that could be produced since it did not have the restrictions the TV improv shows must deal with. <br /><br />The writers must have thought we will throw in some grossness, some flatulence jokes, some cheap sex and hey we have a risky side splitting laughable comedy. The game show skits are nothing more than cheap unimaginable take offs on Let's Make a Deal with stupid grossness. The sit com take off involving the single girl and her boyfriend was just plain bad high school humor. The stun gun advertisement was suitable humor for Seasame Street. The LA subway skit was bland humor using tasteless bloodiness. The french chef walking around blind constantly uttering "there is no difference" with a french accent was, well you get my point.<br /><br />The only funny skit involved Chevy Chase which lasted for a whole minute. This means you get 60 seconds of entertainment in this movie. Oh yea I've read the comments about the entire country being stoned in the 1970's and you will like this movie if you are high. Well most of the country was not stoned in the 70's. If the inept writers were stoned it must have been on drowsy sinus medicine. There were 4 other people in the theater besides myself when I saw this movie. Of course word did not get out yet about how bad the movie was.

I didn't even watch this whole movie. Now, I like 50's sci-fi movies even when they are wildly inaccurate but this one just annoyed me. For one thing, one member of the crew on the spaceship talks and acts like he might have made it into the tenth grade. He sounds like he ought to be on a bowling league, not a space ship. Out the window of the spaceship the crew is marveling at Earth and this boob says 'Can you see Brooklyn?' and another guy says 'Sure'. And the boob says 'Gee, I wonder who's pitching?' Pardon me a moment, I think my sides are splitting.<br /><br />When they first get up into orbit the boob says 'The moon is just for looking at! Take me back down!' Watching the crew making stretched mouths and screaming from the G-forces of acceleration during takeoff is also not one of the better moments of the film. (Perhaps the film's best moment can be identified by a big "THE END" on the screen.)<br /><br />We also find out that they can't open the hatch because 'the boob' greased it before they took off. Sure, a space vehicle is going to be 'greased' by a member of the crew, who we later learn has never even had a space suit on before and doesn't know anything about zero gravity. As Baby Huey the overgrown fat cartoon duck once said, "That sounds logical!" The no-gravity-in-space effects are so bad it's painful to watch. (Everyone knows, in the absence of gravity, everything tends to go UP.)<br /><br />How this movie gets 6.3 stars out of 10, when other vastly superior films don't rate any higher, is a mystery to me. I really do like old sci-fi movies but this one is not realistic, and the lame attempts at character humor by throwing in that boob from a gas station grease pit does not work at all - it just ruins the movie. I think in retrospect it's not the whole movie I hate so much as the fact that 'the boob' is so obviously not someone who would be on a space ship - not even to 'grease the hatch.' OMG. I wonder if he checked the fan belts too. Maybe if they'd left 'the boob' off the trip it might not have been QUITE so excruciating. Even so, it's only average. What everyone else is raving about, I don't know.<br /><br />You want to watch a neat 1950's space movie? 'Rocketship X-M' beats it all to heck. Maybe not so much 'realism' but a more serious story and less goofy characters.

Being a Russian myself, sometimes it's hard for me to get the reference jokes about American TV personalities or celebrities. Apart from that, Family Guy is the smartest, funniest and most politically incorrect shows seen on earth. The voice acting is excellent and sounds clear enough even for a non-English speaker as myself to comprehend. Animations are good too, maybe even too good for a TV-show. Here we have the equivalent of the Adult Swim Channel, but nothing there simply compares to this gem. Not even Simpsons or South Park. Hope the creators will continue to entertain and amuse us. Don't want to see the whole thing spiraling down into mediocre entertainment.

Now I know why this movie can be bought for so cheap at the video stores. I was curious since it had three big-name stars yet was among the 'B' movies that the video apparently can't even give away! The answer is, it is a film that would attract a very limited audience: an over-50 crowd with very Liberal sensibilities.<br /><br />Who else who watch Robert Redford, Willem Dafoe and Helen Mirren give, essentially, a basic message that "cheating on your wife is okay so long as you still love her." That's the nice "feel-good message" here, particularly at the end at the end of this strange kidnapping story. Who wrote this script.....Bill Clinton?<br /><br />I say "strange" because the kidnapper is the nicest kidnapper (Dafoe) you've ever seen, except at the end. He unties his hostage (Redford) frequently, which no kidnapper would risk, has casual conversations about family matters, etc. It's all ludicrous! Well, the L.A. Times says it's "an intelligent thriller." Ha ha. Well, that confirms what most people know of the L.A. Times. For those of you who believe that, and haven't seen it, I won't spoil it with more of the gigantic holes in this story, particularly at the end. The fact is, it's an insult to anyone with intelligence.<br /><br />Anyway, you can't fool all the people all the time, as critics have yet to figure out. Here is another film they touted that justifiably bombed at the box office and video store.

Three horror stories based on members of a transgressive Hindu cult that return home but changed in some way. In the first story our former cult member is now in an insane asylum and is visited by a reported who wants to find out about what went on at the cult. Somewhat slow going as story is told in flashbacks while the two sit on chairs and face each other. Reporter is particularly interested in what lead to the death of the participants. What seemed rather boring suddenly turns very exciting with a surprising twist in the story. Things get quite bloody.<br /><br />Second story has a violent young criminal visiting a psychiatrist for mandatory therapy. The patient seems to have some type of agenda but the psychiatrist is up to the task. Again, things slow down a bit and get weird. Then there's a strange twist in the story that is very well written and surprising.<br /><br />Final story deals with spiritual healer who claims to be able to remove the persons illness from them with his hands. One of the patients is a former cult member, so the successful healing gets more complicated. Again, we are surprised by a twist. Has a pretty gory scene in there.<br /><br />There some nice female full frontal nudity as well as male full frontal nudity for some reason. I found the stories to be very well written and the director succeeds entirely in setting up each story with its surprising twist and the gory aftermath.<br /><br />Note: review of the German DVD.

Giallo fans, seek out this rare film. It is well written, and full of all sorts of the usual low lifes that populate these films. I don't want to give anything away, so I wont even say anything about the plot. The whole movie creates a very bizarre atmosphere, and you don't know what to expect or who to suspect. Recommended! The only place I've seen to get this film in english is from European Trash Cinema, for $15.

I have to agree that the movie is not the best I've ever seen, but I would like to make mention that the actors portraying Tommy and Jimmy Dorsey were the actual Dorsey brothers. As actors, they were wonderful musicians. The movie, based on their famous split, would have been better had professional actors played the parts. Many movies made during this time frame took advantage of the popularity of Big Bands. Most often, the movies were not that good because musicians are not actors by trade. Most of the movie-going audience didn't go to see Tommy or Jimmy Dorsey playing themselves; they went for the plot and the music. I've never been much of a Dorsey fan, but the music is good even today.<br /><br />I have to comment on a previous post regarding the actors who played Mom and Pop Dorsey and that their accents would be considered extreme by a Dublin audience. Arthur Shields and Sara Allgood were actually Irish actors, both born in Dublin. You might remember Mr. Shields as the Reverend Mr. Playfair in The Quiet Man and Ms. Allgood as Mrs. Monahan in Cheaper By The Dozen.

The only good part of this movie was the ending. You know the part of the movie where the lights come on and you leave to go home. No no that may be a little harsh - the dancing in the film was sensational but unfortunately that is where the plot ended. As long as the cast was dancing and not talking the movie went along well. As for Chayanne's debut - not too bad but hopefully his next film will have a little more depth. As for going to see the movie wait for the rental or TV. Do not make the same mistake I did and pay 8.50

I'm not a stage purist. A movie could have been made of this play, and it would almost necessarily require changes... comme ci, comme ca. But the modest conceits of this material are lost or misunderstood by the movie's creators who are in full-on "shallow blockbuster" mode. It would be hard to imagine a worse director. Perhaps only Josh Logan & Jack Warner could have ruined this in the same way Attenborough did.<br /><br />Onstage A Chorus line was a triumph of workshopping as a production method. Dancers answering a casting call found themselves sitting around shooting the crap about their stage-career experiences (very 70s!). Then Bennett and Hamlisch took some time, handed them a song and cast them as themselves. ...astonishing! Unbelievably modern. The 'story'of ACL is (in turn) about answering a casting call for a play we never have a complete view of, because the play doesn't matter. It was meta before the idea was invented, 25 years before Adaptation noodled with a similar idea. ACL was also another in a reductivist trend that is still alive, & which is a hallmark of modern creativity: that technique itself is compelling... that there's more drama in an average person's life than you could ever synthesize with invented characters. What a gracious idea. The stage play had one performance area (an empty stage) and three different ways to alter the backdrop, to alleviate visual tedium, not to keep viewers distracted. The space recedes and the actors stories are spotlighted. It worked just fine. That was the point. All these ideas are trampled or bastardized. Set-wise, there wasn't one, and no costumes either until the the dancers came out for their final bows, in which the exhilarating "One" is finally, powerfully, performed in full (gold) top hats and tails, with moves we recognize because we've watched them in practice sessions. The pent-up anxiety of the play is released --- and audiences went nuts. <br /><br />After Grampa manhandles this, it's like a mushed, strangled bird. He clearly has the earlier, respected All that Jazz (and Fosse's stage piece Dancin') in mind as he makes his choices. Hamlisch's score was edgy & interesting for it's time, but time has not been kind to it. It's as schmaltzy as "jazz hands." And that's before Attenborough ever touches it. He's remarkable at finding whatever good was left, and mangling it. <br /><br />A simple question might have helped Attenborough while filming this, "Could I bear spending even a few minutes with people like these?" A major issue for any adaptation of the play is how the 4th wall of theater (pivotal by it's absence in theater) would be addressed in the film format. There's never been a more "frontal" play. The answer they came up with was, "I'm sorry.. what was the question?" The cast has been augmented from a manageable number of unique narratives, to a crowd suffocating each other and the audience, and blending their grating selves together. I was well past my annoyance threshold when that annoying little runt swings across the stage on a rope, clowning at the (absent) audience. The play made you understand theater people. This movie just makes you want to choke them.<br /><br />Perhaps Broadways annoying trend of characters walking directly to stage center and singing their stories at the audience (Les Miz, Miss Saigon) instead of relating to other characters started here. But the worst imaginable revival of the play will make you feel more alive than this movie. <br /><br />A Chorus Line is pure schlock.

Even though this film is 11 years old, I just rented it yesterday, and I found it to be a really touching film. The story of true friendship in the face of a very real monster is an inspiration and quite touching.<br /><br />While I did not care much for the amount of language used by some of the young actors--especially from Renfro--I understand that art is imitating life. Renfro once again does a magnificent job of the rough-and-tough, very (and I mean VERY) disturbed wannabe bully (his role in The Client comes to mind), and Mazzello does a wonderful job of the witty, somewhat quirky, Dexter--a child who realizes that his life must end too soon.<br /><br />While there are so many touching and funny moments in the movie, I have to say that my favorite was when the boys were cornered by Pony in the abandoned church, and Dexter (Mazzello) cut himself, saying his blood was poison. While very resourceful, and somewhat amusing seeing a grown man running away from two little kids, it's one of the hardest scenes in the film.<br /><br />Definitely check this one out, but prepared with your Kleenex--you'll need it!

This was one of the dullest movies I have seen in some time. I'm in my late 40s, and watched it with my son-in-law (early 20s) and son (17). The scenery was beautiful, but the story was a bust. We watched about an hour of it and turned it off. I spent more time on my iphone during the hour that we watched it than I spent actually watching the movie. I gave it a 3 because I enjoyed the scenery and cinematography; otherwise I would have given it a 1. I'm sure there are people who are really into the "art" of it all who will find my review appalling but we're all entitled to our own opinions, right? I couldn't figure out if this was supposed to be a "chick flick" where the focus was on the mother, or if it was supposed to be a movie for guys, with the focus on battle and adventure. In my opinion, it didn't succeed in either.

This is one of Stan Laurel's best solo comedy's, before the 1927 teaming with Oliver Hardy. Laurel is a very good actor in the film, and provides good comedy. The best scene in the film is when Stan dances with Mae Laurel (his real-life common law wife), at the Cafe Espanol. Stan does silly dances that are funny, without you hearing the music. I will recommend this to any Stan Laurel fan.

The unlikely duo of Zero Mostel and Harry Belafonte team up to give us some interesting performances and subject matter in The Angel Levine. It's one interesting twist on the themes from It's A Wonderful Life.<br /><br />Zero is married to Ida Kaminsky and the two of them belong to a special class of elderly Jewish poor in New York. Mostel used to be a tailor and proud of his trade, but his back and arthritis have prevented him from working. Kaminsky is mostly bedridden. He's reduced to applying for welfare. In desperation like Jimmy Stewart, he cries out to God for some help.<br /><br />Now maybe if he had gotten someone like Henry Travers things might have worked out differently, but even Stewart had trouble accepting Travers. But Travers had one thing going for him, he was over 100 years off this mortal coil and all his ties to earthly things were gone. God sent Mostel something quite different, the recently deceased Harry Belafonte who should have at least been given some basic training for angels before being given an assignment.<br /><br />Belafonte hasn't accepted he's moved on from life, he's still got a lot of issues. He also has a wife, Gloria Foster, who doesn't know he's passed on, hit by a car right at the beginning of the film. You put his issues and Mostel's issues and you've got a good conflict, starting with the fact that Mostel can't believe in a black Jew named Levine.<br /><br />This was the farewell performance for Polish/Jewish actress Ida Kaminsky who got a nomination for Best Actress in The Shop on Main Street a few years back. The other prominent role here is that of Irish actor Milo O'Shea playing a nice Jewish doctor. Remembering O'Shea's brogue from The Verdict, I was really surprised to see and hear him carry off the part of the doctor.<br /><br />The Angel Levine raises some interesting and disturbing questions about faith and race in this society. It's brought to you by a stellar cast and of course created by acclaimed writer Bernard Malamud. Make sure to catch it when broadcast.

This film was a waste of time, even rented on DVD. If super-speedy camera shots get any faster than this, we might as well pay twenty bucks to get in the laundromat, get popcorn, and watch the dryer spin. Jet Li is so much better than this. One can only hope that he won't be making deals anytime soon to make another cliche-ridden film like The One.<br /><br />If there's one film you should avoid, this is "The One".

This movie had so much potential - a strong cast, a reasonably strong idea and clearly a decent budget. I'm not sure where it all went wrong, but each of those elements was wasted. The story went nowhere, the characters were hollow to say the least and the result was a very boring, pointless, waste of a film. I hated it. Judging by the other votes, I'm in the minority here and must be some sort of freak. However, I thought this movie was dreadful. I had high hopes, but was very disappointed. A particular disappointment was Jody Foster's character. A very cocky "fixer" of sorts makes a nice idea. Jody was confident and sexy, but the character did nothing and went nowhere. Denzel Washington played the same character he always plays - enjoyable but nothing new.

I rented this film out having heard of the fuss about it not being put up for an Academy Award, but after watching it, it's easy to see why it didn't. Despite the beautiful photography, the film is incredibly slow moving, despite having hardly any plot.<br /><br />The plot is about a young boy trying to come to terms with his parents' death in what may or may not have been an accident (the film is never clear on this), and how his grandfather used to tell him fairy stories. The fairy stories contain the only bits of interest in the plot, but they're very short, and don't really seem to have any point. <br /><br />The first fairy story in particular concerns a boy trying to get a magical flower to his dying girlfriend to save her life, but the boy delays by tasting the flower first to make sure it is not poisonous which results in him being a few seconds too late to save his girlfriend - the grandfather then pronounces that the moral is that the boy was too impatient, but that doesn't make any sense because it was overcaution and slowness which resulted in his failure. Perfect metaphor for this film really. <br /><br />The photography of Skye is beautiful though, but then Stardust which was released this year is another film about fairy stories filmed in Skye and beautifully photographed - and it's infinitely better than this one.

Incarcerated train robber near Yuma breaks free his chain-gang and heads for the retired sheriff responsible for killing his wife (as well as a hidden stash of gold which remains hidden thanks to the screenwriter). Attempt to bring the western genre up-to-date with 1970s-style violence and brutality isn't even in the same league as some of the new-fangled westerns which came out of the late-'60s. It is impossibly simple and square, with the female characters merely around as punching-bags and possible rape victims. As the former sheriff back in command, Charlton Heston gives one of his laziest, least-inspired performances ever (he has one good moment, attempting to read a letter and fumbling for his glasses). James Coburn, as the half-mad half-breed, is pretty much on auto-pilot as well, but Coburn has a way of turning even the hoariest dialogue and situations into something prickly and unnerving. It's his show all the way. *1/2 from ****

I liked this film a lot. The actors were great, particularly Potente, who is different in every role; Fürmann, who is also able to play anyone; and Loos, who spices things up (she is also a talented singer - she sings the song "My Truth", heard when one character cranks up the stereo in the lab).<br /><br />Anatomie is a good horror flick, which pays attention to its characters. It is also very gory at times, and the set design is innovative. It is too bad they had to make a sequel, which is nowhere near the original.<br /><br />On a side note, two other things definitely worth mentioning. The DVD is not dubbed, which makes for a better experience of the film. Also, make sure to keep watching after the final credits start rolling.

If you ever visited Shenandoah Acres as a child and wondered, could there be a worse vacation spot in the world? Well, you could have watched this movie and had your answer. Flavia (a.k.a. Fistula) Macintyre's dude ranch is often frequented by business casual Gordon, at least since resident water witch, Jessica, was 13. But Jessica can find much more than fresh spring water with that divining rod – buried "tray-shure," lost jewelry, dead bodies, even a talisman that will keep her from dressing like a slut and raising drinks with a phony beat and a Suzanne Pleshette look-alike while hypnotized by a disembodied head. Evil, evil evil.

Corridors of time. The movie you can watch if you're looking for a sophisticated way of suicide. Some use guns, ropes, or gas, but you want to ruin your brains ? Do not wait any longer ! Corridors of time is probably one of the biggest possible mistakes : thinking Christian Clavier is able to act and to bring you fun. I do not miss the 45 francs this poor thing cost me : sometimes, one has to reset its evaluation system looking at the absolute zero. This film deserves a 2/10, but that's only because I like Jean Reno. Too bad for him, he also stars in Ronin. I think I'm gonna dislike him...

I have long tried to understand why people like Shakespeare so much and every few years I give him another go. I was hoping that this play/film (my 6th different Shakespeare play) would unlock the lucky casket and marry me to the riches of this literary Demigod. Bah, I clearly chose the wrong key.<br /><br />Once the phrase "pound of flesh" had been uttered 10 minutes into the film, the main parts of the plot were transparent, which grinds along with a languid script and lifeless acting. At every step, the plot is laid bare two scenes in advance. The concept that a dying aristocrat would persuade his daughter to choose her future husband by means of a lottery is incredulous. It is no surprise who wins the matrimonial jackpot because Bassanio's a main protagonist in the play.... and he's the third man to try .... and there are three caskets to choose from ... and his friend risks his life to pay the dowry. The only genuine surprise that I had watching this film is that it did not end immediately after the resolution of the court case. However as soon as the ring treachery began it was immediately apparent what would transpire.<br /><br />OK so I know that millions of you love Shakespeare not for the surprise in the well known stories but for the depth and passion of the characters. But I felt nothing for the characters. Rather than gripped with suspense and admiration during the court scene I sat there impassionately hoping that it would be over, soon, please.<br /><br />One day, I might just find a Shakespeare play that does something other than bore me.

I agree with so many of the other reviewers here. This was a great film and an even better novel by Robert Fish. Unfortunately, I believe the author died before he could see this film made. The performances are all top rate, with the three principles (John Glover, Ben Cross, and Veronica Hamel) seemingly made for their roles. The exteriors, both in Europe and Israel, seem very authentic, and the 4-hour miniseries length was just right for the telling of this story. Fortunately, I DID tape this when it was on television and have enjoyed watching it ever since. I can say unhesitatingly that it holds up even to this day. I gave it a rating of 10. If you haven't read the book, you should really find a copy. This would be an outstanding film to release on DVD with extras that could easily include interviews from the cast.

...and boy is the collision deafening. A female telephone lineman is taken over by the spirit of a recently-deceased ninja, strips down to her undies, pours tomato juice on her body so her boyfriend can lick it off, performs a seductive dance, then goes off to kill the policemen who killed the ninja she's possessed by. Only to be hunted down by a one-eyed ninja master. Just like in real life, eh? Enlivened only by Sho Kosugi's martial arts choreography (and his declining to put his obnoxious kids in this one), you really have to see this to believe it. It's the ultimate mix of totally at-odds genres.

This film was both entertaining and thought-provoking. I'd recommend it to everyone who wants to be moved and challenged. Great acting, directing - and it is Canadian to boot! It is a film that families can enjoy and serious movie lovers. The locations in Ontario evoked such a sense of nostalgia for the era. With so much garbage and superficial hype selling these days it is great to see that someone could back an independent flick. For any family that has risen to overcome a challenge or an obstacle - be it financial or illness - this film strikes a resounding chord! It approaches the idea of the afterlife in a contemporary way - without cheaply capitalizing on all the "gohst" and supernatural themes that have become staples in Hollywood and the TV networks.

ORCA is not exactly bad, but it's not really Richard Harris's finest hour either. As a demented, Ahab-like fisherman, Harris gets into a game of death with a vengeful killer whale after killing the whale's "wife" and unborn child. Charlotte Rampling plays a whale expert who gets involved with Harris. She yells at him a lot about how important it is to leave nature alone. He doesn't listen and somehow ends up in the arctic battling the revenge crazed whale. There are no special effects to speak of except for what looks like a round mirror for a whale's eye --- there are endless shots of Harris reflected in the eye so the audience understands that the whale knows who he is. Bo Derek, as one of Harris's crew has a particularly unpleasant run in with the Orca and most of the supporting cast, including Robert Carridine, Will Sampson and Keenan Wynn don't fare very well either.

My husband and I just got done watching this movie. I was not expecting it to be this good! I was really astonished at how great the story line was. I'm usually very good at figuring out twisty plots...but this one had me. I loved it! I'm going to have to watch it again before I take it back. I might even have to buy it. :)

In "Brave New Girl," Holly comes from a small town in Texas, sings "The Yellow Rose of Texas" at a local competition, and gets admitted to a prestigious arts college in Philadelphia. From there the movie grows into a colorful story of friendship and loyalty. I loved this movie. It was full of great singing and acting and characters that kept it moving at a very nice pace. The acting was, of course, wonderful. Virginia Madsen and Lindsey Haun were outstanding, as well as Nick Roth The camera work was really done well and I was very pleased with the end (It seems a sequel could be in the making). Kudos to the director and all others that participated on this production. Quite a gem in the film archives.

This has got to be the worst movie I haver ever seen Nielson in. This movie just does not have what he needs to be funny. I think the reasons that the Naked Gun and the like movies is that they did not require Nielson to be funny. He just played the roles as straight as he could while all of the comedy that went on was mostly visual. But when you put him in a movie where he has to be funny, he isn't. The movie had only one good part, and this may be considered a spoiler by some, and that the beginning credits were animated. If the whole movie had been animated, it might have been good. I had no intention of seeing this movie when I saw the ads for it, and the only reason I did see it was because the tickets were given to me by someone who won them in a radio contest. This is the first and probably only movie I have ever walked out on. On a scale of 1-10 I give this movie a score of -100.

Of course, the original is better, but this isn't as bad as everyone says! Yes, it is made up into 3 stories, but hey, so what?! I thought it was quite good to be honest. I actually liked how Anastasia changed a little when she fell in love, it shows what love can do. The stories were not so bad either.<br /><br />I liked Cinderella's voice better in this too. I have nothing against her voice in the original, but I just think it sounds better here, more nicer. I liked her personality in this too, she had more of a backbone, yet she was still kind.<br /><br />So, I'll give Cinderella II:Dreams Come True a 7/10.

She's not Michael Jordan<br /><br />Think of all the marvelous NBA players whose career light has been dimmed for no other good reason than the timing of their birth. Their names might trip as easily off the public's lips as Russell, Cousy, Byrd, Magic, McHale, Oscar, Wilt, the list goes on; but the volume gets turned down a little, for Stockton and Malone, Charles, Patrick and all the other great players who always lost the headlines to Michael.<br /><br />I've seen it written that Gretchen Mol's career flamed out in the wake of the cover article in the 1998 Vanity Fair issue which predicted inevitable superstardom for Ms. Mol. It was later said that she had been over hyped. I disagree.<br /><br />I still remember that for some time after I saw "The Devil's Advocate" in '97 or '98, I would get confused as to which actress played Mary Ann Lomax. Was it Mol or Theron? Oh yeah! Charlize Theron was the one in "2 Days in the Valley" and "Mighty Joe Young" and Gretchen Mol was in "Donnie Brasco", "Celebrity", and "Rounders".<br /><br />By the time I had seen "The Thirteenth Floor" (Mol) and "Sweet November" (Theron), I pretty much had them straightened out but I still put them in the same mental file drawer. Both were highly talented, had sweet faces, similar body types, short blonde hair and so on.<br /><br />Theron, though, was offered more work. I loved her as Sara Deever and as Adele Invergordon her beauty was downright intimidating.<br /><br />In 2003 "Monster" was released and from that point until the handing of the Oscar itself, all of filmdom knew who the "Best Actress" award was going to. And deservedly so! Theron was Aileen Wuornos. The only way to get a more accurate understanding of what made the real Aileen Wuornos tick would be to somehow replay the digital video trapped in Selby's head. And for a major talent to make herself that physically unattractive! Unheard of!<br /><br />Then in 2005 "The Notorious Bettie Page" was released. Mol's performance was extraordinary. Maybe she was standing in the shadow of Ms. Theron. It was like the ballroom for the victory celebration for the losing Presidential candidate, nobody came and nobody cared. It was viewed as a continuation of an old tale, once promising actress with a declining career does a nudie part in a "B" movie. Ho hum! No, no, no! Wrong! No matter what you may think of the film (and I enjoy films about the fifties) if you pass on this one you'll be missing one of the better performances of that year. Ms. Moll was every bit as much Bettie as Ms. Theron was Aileen. Unfortunately Aileen, to the film-going public, is the more sympathetic character. For whatever reason, an amoral, sociopathic killer is less embarrassing to us than a naïve, unsophisticated, uninhibited, religious girl whose most capital crime was to live her life totally trusting and completely exposed. Bettie Page was one of the icons of the fifties. Her photos and films never sexual, never pornographic, but she presented as a near caricature of all things kinky. There was no sense of realism, only parody. Ms. Moll captured the very essence of the character. She gained 20 pounds to add some zaftig to her normally slim figure and when she posed for various photographers in the film, her body was Bettie's. Her full frontal lack of any inhibitions accurately fits everything which has been published about Bettie. Cinematic nudity normally depicts eroticism or sexuality. In this film it's all about innocence. Seeing Gretchen/Bettie nude didn't make me want to jump her but instilled a desire to protect her from all the horrors that people can inflict on each other. If you pass on this film you'll be missing out on one of the best performances of recent years. By the way, shame on the MPAA for giving this an R rating.

I decided I need to lengthen up my review for my all time favorite film. Unlike other war films that focus on the event, Apocalypse Now takes the viewer into a psychological head trip. The sheer surrealism makes the body uncomfortable, yet you can't lay your eyes off of it. Based off of Joseph Conrad's Heart Of Darkness, Apocalypse Now slowly descends its protagonist, Willard (Martin Sheen) into madness, most likely the same way Kurtz plunged into insanity. The production of this film is notorious for its delays provided by the monsoon season and for Brando's unprepared performance (he read his lines from cue cards). There is a documentary titled Apocalypse Now: A filmmakers Apocalypse which shows the hell everyone went through in making this.<br /><br />The opening sequence is one of the most famous and popular in any film. As the blade of the helicopters are heard in slow motion and napalm is dropped in the trees, the song "The End" by the Doors can be heard. The next shot is of Willard in his bed with the fan on, so the noise of the helicopter coincides with the fan. We are informed that he does special missions for the military, mostly assassinations. When his next mission is given to him, he is baffled. "Charging a man with murder here is like giving a speeding ticket in the Indy 500." The man he has to kill was a respected colonel that has gone insane and isolated himself along with tribes people. Kurtz is ordering atrocious acts that are carried out by these people and he must me stopped. Willard does not go alone however. He is carried on a boat with several soldiers and they come across several battles. Along the way, they meet Lieutenant Colonel Bill Kilgore "Hoorah" about the war. Willard ponders that if Kilgore is that crazy, what could Kurtz be like. There are many scenes that portray Willards plunge into insanity: The tiger attack, the slaughter of innocent Vietnamese, the nonstop rain, the piled dead bodies scattered about, and the deaths of his crew members. When he reaches the Kurtz compound, he is greeted by the village people and a hippie photojournalist (Dennis Hopper). Instead of assassinating Kurtz right away, Willard begins talking with him and his conscience begins to doubt what he should do. Kurtz, on the other hand wants to die. He is tired of the war and wants to go down as a soldier. Willard kills him with a machete while in unison, a buffalo is sacrificed with several machetes by the people. Once they realize their leader has been slain, instead of killing Willard, they hail him as their new king. Willard rejects the offer and leaves them.<br /><br />The cinematography here is absolutely breathtaking. The colors are grain free, something that is rare in older movies. I can watch it muted and admire the beauty of the scenery.<br /><br />The acting ensemble is terrific, with everyone playing their parts well. Many criticize Brando for some reason, but I think he nails his role as a depressed lunatic who is beaten up by the war.<br /><br />The soundtrack and the score are haunting, and provide the mood for the film. I am wondering what instrument they used in that guitar-like sound when the credits roll? There have been many parodies of this film, but my favorite quote comes from Marge Simpson when she explains to Homer why a character with the same name on a police show is behaving like an idiot: "Your character provides comic relief for the show, like um, Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now." Those who have seen the movie know why this is hilarious.

While Rome goes mad celebrating Hitler's visit - uniforms, bands, parades - two outsiders stay home, in a large building, and wind up meeting. She is Sofia Loren, who is the wife of brutish public servant and mother of six children. He is Mastroianni, a radio speaker who's been fired because of his homosexuality. Both of them need company and understanding, both f them find it in each other.<br /><br />The movie covers a span of a few hours. The color are faded and everything takes place with a sound track of military marches and hysterical radio announcers. Strangely enough, the Nazi anthem - the Horst-Wessel-Lied - ends up becoming a romantic musical theme.<br /><br />Beautiful movie, excellent recreation of a special era in Italian history and a touching, sad story. Mastroianni is as good as we have come to expect and Sofia Loren does a superb job, very far away from her usual truck driver's pin-up, Neapolitan fishwife personas. Don't miss it.

My what a director's intuition can bring on material that needs just the right nudge in the right directions. Young Mr. Lincoln is filled up with some 'old-fashioned' values, which in retrospect, despite its two-dimensional portrayal, is at least more respectably done than one might see in the pap in current cinema. What makes it work so extremely well as it does, in all its simplicity and grandeur, is that its a truly great courtroom drama in the guise of a history lesson. <br /><br />We all know of Abraham Lincoln as the 16th president that did the emancipation and after the Civil war got assassinated. But as the lawyer in his earlier years he was charismatic, funny in the most unexpected places, and a true gentleman. He's not some superhero that can do no wrong (which was Fonda's only apprehension to the part before signing on), but a figure with possible flaws that are surpassed by his innate goodness and clear sight of right and wrong.<br /><br />It's suffice to say that John Ford is exceptional as a storyteller almost without trying. Actually, it's a lie, he does try, but he makes it sort of effortless in the studio system; he worked in an independent manner while also pleasing simultaneously Zanuck, so he was pretty much left alone to his own succinct practices in "editing in camera", and not moving it around so as to not waver far off from the story. It's this strength of conventional wisdom that somehow works hand in hand with the material, as a kind of companion piece to the full-blooded Americana in 1939 as seen in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (only here it's the law and not politics). <br /><br />Fonda is terrific in the lead- his first with Ford- and never lets us loose sight of Lincoln past the make-up and extra boost in the shoes. Fonda's own personality, in a sense, as it would in Grapes of Wrath and My Darling Clementine, comes out in the character of Lincoln. However unlikely it might be, there's no one else from this period that could have played him then: he's mature and wise, but has the gumption to prove himself in this case of a convoluted he-saw-that-but-did-she murder case.<br /><br />Only in little bits and pieces, like that final shot which superimposes Lincoln walking down the road with his monument, and a couple of small instances during that big parade scene early on, seem pretty dated. As far as the goals set out with Young Mr. Lincoln, there were all met by Ford and his crew and cast; it's not as hokey as one might think going in, and it's got a strong balance of humor and genuine pathos.

Zombie Review #3<br /><br />**Spoilers**<br /><br />Few films are actually "so bad they're good", and Zombi 3 is not just bad, it's wretchedly, unforgivably bad in so many ways that a whole new language may be needed just to describe them all<br /><br />More than that, it's a film credited to Lucio Fulci that even by his standards has absolutely no coherency, sense or reason. However we can't blame Fulci as it wasn't really directed by him but by Bruno Mattei, who doesn't even have Fulci's sense of style to help carry the film. Mattei seems to have brought little to the film but staggering ineptitude.<br /><br />So, I'm ashamed to say how much I enjoyed every worthless minute of Zombi 3. It has no redeeming features - in a genre known for thin characters, weak story, and lack of film making skill, Zombi 3 pushes the boat out but in doing so it's even funnier than Nightmare City.<br /><br />The "action" starts when the "Death 1" gas is stolen from a military base, and damaged in the escape. Who is the thief, why did he steal it, and why did the US military think that creating cannibalistic legions of the living dead would be a good idea? All these questions and more will fail to be answered in Zombi 3....<br /><br />After hiding out at a hotel, the infected thief goes mad from all the green plastecine growing on his face before being tracked down by the army who somewhat foolishly decide the best way to dispose of his corpse will be to burn it, sending "Death 1" up into the atmosphere resulting in... zombie birds! Who then attack people and turn them into zombie people!!! (if zombies are cannibals, why don't the zombie birds just attack other birds?)<br /><br />Then we meet our "heroes", a trio of horny GIs and a coachload of girls. There's a couple of other guys with them too, but they're not important - NO ONE is important here. You'll be hard pressed to remember anyone's face, let alone their name or find a reason to care about them. They end up hiding out at the same hotel as the thief ("a week ago this place was buzzing with life, now it's buzzing with flies!") but there's no escape from the undead.<br /><br />By this point you'll either be completely sucked in or you'll have turned the damned thing off. The script is so appalling even the greatest acting in the world couldn't save it, so it's just as well they have some of the worst - and not just the human characters, the zombie acting here is an all time low. There's no consistancy in how the zombies behave - some shamble about in the time honored style, others engage in full on fist fights or charge around with machettes, not to mention the zombies who are still able to talk (a gimmick that gives the film it's HORRIFYING TWIST ENDING). They die from gunshots to the chest (rather than the head) and even get knocked out by a good left-hook. How can you punch out a zombie???!!!!! In fact the emphasis on badly done 80s action often makes it resemble an episode of V...<br /><br />The zombies also spend a lot of time hiding, seemingly waiting for hours in ridiculous places on the chance some poor sap will pass by and get the fright of their life. They hide in bushes, in garages, in huts, on roofs, in the water, and even underneath pregnant women. At one point a zombie follows a woman up the stairs. To kill and eat her? No! To push her into the water, those zombies and their wacky sense of humour!<br /><br />There is plenty of gore though. Limbs are hacked, wounds ooze green pus, and there's much in the way of flesh eating and people getting their faces mushed in. There's nothing to match the originals eyeball piercing, but if bad make up effects are your bag you won't be let down.<br /><br />All this and I've not even mentioned the awful music, the inexplicable flying zombie head, the scientist whose acting actually manages to stand out as REALLY bad, or the final chilling punchline.... in an ingenious twist on the originals radio station being overrun by zombies, Zombi 3 gives us an actual zombie DJ!! "He's gone over to their side!" our escaping hero's cry, before vowing to continue fighting against the undead in a sequel that sadly never came.<br /><br />Zombi 3 is rubbish - it would be no loss to the world if every single print was destroyed and all records of it's existence erased, yet somehow I feel my life is richer for having seen it.<br /><br />Did I say richer? I meant 88 minutes shorter...

This movie is not just bad, not just corny, it is repulsive. Something about Daphne, about the creepy call-girl, about the whole damn (and I use the word literally) film radiates a grotesquery that would offend a brothel mistress. This film makes my skin crawl, makes me regret having reproductive organs, and makes me feel unclean.<br /><br />One of the things that bothers me most about this movie is that they used such a good concept. A creature that makes fantasies with disastrous results, rather than the cliché Worst Nightmare and the overdone Twisted Wish, is a truly fascinating film idea.<br /><br />Thought: The reason why hobgoblins need to be killed before day is that they are attracted to bright lights. During the day, bright lights don't show up well, so they could go anywhere.<br /><br />Count the Hobgoblins: Four hobgoblins drive out of the film studio, and yet at least nine of the pernicious plush-toys are killed throughout the course of the movie.<br /><br />Discussion Question: If you had a frigid, demanding, unappreciative girlfriend, would you enter garden-tool-combat with a military chunkhead? Explain.

This show was a pleasant surprise after watching Mad TV on a Saturday night. Spike is an excellent host that you can tell is still getting used to it but he is doing great adjusting to his new job. I can imagine it being a difficult transition from writer(Seinfeld) to host however, unlike a lot of new talk show hosts he does not let airtime ride while trying to figure out what to do next. He is quick-minded and each segment and section rolls into one another smoothly. It also doesn't hurt that he's kinda sexy in a nerdy type of way so he's not hard on the eyes like Leno or Letterman. I can't remember the exact episode date that was my favorite but I especially LOVED the Idiot Paparazzi skit with a fake J-Lo and Katie Holmes. Great New Show!!

<br /><br />This movie sucked! The first one was way better. No one from the first has returned in this dumb sequel and in some way that is a good thing because of the bad acting but the characters in this film are not even better. Killjoy in the woods? Come on! Give me a break! I'm suprised killjoy's friend the Blair Witch didn't show up to make a cameo. Bad acting, bad story and just plain out silly and boring. DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME!

A virtual carbon copy of The Cave save for a fewer lower budget effects and a slightly different plot. I knew the movie was going downhill when I saw the fake campfire flikering lights clearly reflected in a facial close up of one of the actors. The conflicts between characters and subplots seemed to serve no purpose whatsoever, and added nothing to the film except fewer moments of silence. The acting wasn't as bad as the typical B movie, and there was some believability in their fear, but as professional cavers, they seem to be too psychologically unstable for their chosen profession. Overall not worth wasting $4.50 to rent.

I really enjoyed this movie. I have probably watched it 2 dozen times or more and still enjoy it. Being an old Navy guy, Im still stirred by the rousing rendition of Anchors Away! I also love the "McHales Navy" pirate atmosphere. I could have done without the female dive officer but Im just old fashioned I guess. She was still good to look at, lol, espesially after the crew got done with her laundry. The cook, sonarman, and electrician made the movie. Loved the salty old engineer and his first class PO too. And Grammer actually did a very commendable job of being a misfit Officer. I loved the "driving scene" as they passed the golf course on the way into port, lol. Pure Navy! And I swear I had an XO that was just like that little weasel... Im am so glad this is out on DVD, about bloody time. :0)

I didnt know what to expect . I only watched it on a rainy sunday afternoon on pay tv . Right from the start it drew me in . The music and settings and characters were excellent . I hadnt heard of any of the actors but they all were outstanding . A wonderful thriller .<br /><br />Now that ive read other comments on this movie referring to past versions and the book , i will be endeavouring to find out more on this great movie

'One-Round' Jack Sander is called that because he's a carnival boxer who fights any man in the audience. If they can last one round, they win a prize--a popular way to draw customers into traveling shows long ago. Jack is in love with the ticket girl, Mabel, though her head is quickly turned when Bob Corby enters the ring to try his chances with Jack. What no one at the fight knows is that Bob is the champ, so he's able to beat Jack--though it takes him some work. As a result, Bob asks Jack to become his sparring partner and give up the carnival circuit. Later, Jack improves so much that he, too, becomes a legitimate boxer. Slowly, he works his way up the rankings until he's nearly ready to take on the Champ.<br /><br />In the meantime, the Champ and Mabel start running around behind Jack's back--even though by now Mabel has married Jack. So, when the final fight occurs between Jack and Bob, it's very personal and Jack is ready to kill him. Is he good enough? Will rise justifiable rage against Bob help or hinder his performance? Tune in and see.<br /><br />This film was directed by Alfred Hitchcock and while today this sort of film seems strange for a director known for mystery-suspense films, back in the 1920s, Hitchcock had no fixed genre which he directed or wrote (he did both for this film). In fact, in many ways this film is more indicative of Hitchcock's silent style, as a somewhat similar plot came up in one of his next silents, THE MANXMAN (also starring Carl Brisson as the wronged husband). So, while this seems a lot like a standard boxing film of the day, it was not a radical departure for this great director--even with its rather formulaic ending.<br /><br />Overall, while a bit predictable and having Ian Hunter playing a boxing champ seems silly, the film works well. While far from a perfect silent, it's well worth seeing and packs a nice punch.

This "screwy comedy" seems very forced. Indeed, the actors TRY very hard to make a go of an essentially unfunny script. And, as a result it doesn't really go anywhere. The idea of a woman finding out she was pregnant after getting a quickie divorce just isn't all that funny. And then, when Cooper sneaks off with the baby because he doesn't want it put up for adoption just seems terribly unfunny and it's really pushing hard to turn this into a comedy. It's really a shame, too, as the actors were more capable than the script and I found myself just bored by the whole mess. Considering that Cooper made so many GOOD comedies, I recommend you see them instead.

Eskimo is a serious movie about the cultural chasm between an indigenous population and the encroaching white man. Although filmed in a documentary style seemingly with non-professionals, Eskimo is a skilled production that contains a believable story the audience will want to see through to the final shot.<br /><br />The native Eskimo simply has different beliefs and behaviors about women and life than do the whalers that darken his landscape. When an Eskimo man loses his mate, it is natural that other men share their women with their friend. It is also usual for their women to want to take the place of the missing spouse. All of this seems natural in the context of the desolate foreboding Arctic setting. The trusting Eskimo falls prey to unscrupulous white whalers (with heavy European accents) that do not view these natives as their equals. Deceit, drunken orgies, rape, and death occur after the Eskimo men depart for work on the icy cold seas. Eventually the lead Eskimo (Mala) realizes that he has been duped and he takes his revenge. The audience would have cheered in the 1930's theaters.<br /><br />Enter the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the moral dilemma of whether to bring back Mala for trial. The Mounties are played as feeling policemen that know this is not a cut and dry case. Will the Mounties get their man? Is it fair to hold Mala to a code of behavior outside of his traditional society? Is there a way out that does not punish Mala? Is it inevitable that the white man's law must prevail? Is there no hope for innocence?<br /><br />This is not a great movie, but one that you will enjoy for the depth of the issue addressed in a very different setting. I suspect that the filming of the sequences with animals was done before today's disclaimer that none were injured in the making of the film -- so beware of the raw nature sequences. Highly recommended.

This is the funniest movie I have ever seen. However, I have laughed harder at plenty of movies. This is because Best In Show's brilliance lies not in slapstick or one-liners, but in sophisticated and layered verbal wit. The improvised dialogue is is so quick that you end up laughing not at each individual joke, but only until after several jokes build on one another, each disarming your senses until the jokes climax and you can't help letting loose.<br /><br />It's a well-shot film, but what makes it extraordinary is the acting. I was impressed on my first viewing, but when I watched it after having learned that virtually every scene is improvised, I was amazed. It was thoroughly enjoyable to see the comedians work off each other, build jokes out of nothing, and completely immerse themselves in their characters.<br /><br />I imagine the golden days of Second City were like this.

First, let's get the "hoopla" out of the way.Hedy Lamarr was regarded as one of the most beautiful of women and the movies were a perfect medium for the many to see her beauty on screen.Here we have Hedy as a young fresh-faced 20 year old speaking in her native Austrian.I recently bought a 1990 uncensored version of this 1932/3 classic.Yes we see a brief close up of Hedy bare from the waist up but although she filmed the swimming & runaway horse scenes naked, the director Gustav Machaty uses the cover of branches, reflections in puddles, medium and long shots to show her thus in this famous scene; so don't go imagining there are any lascivious close ups or clinches.Her boyfriend , Pierre Nay keeps his clothes on at all times.Yes, fairly daring for its day but how innocous it looks now through 2003 eyes.<br /><br />As other learned reviews have stated this film should be looked at for the imagary, expressionism, and allegorical statements it makes with pictures of drops of water forming a ripple on the surface of a pale of water, farm machinery, landscapes etc.Sweet sounding strings run for most of "Extase's" length and the film has a "feel" of a transition between silent and sound in its direction and concept.The script is highly minimalist and economical the story being mainly imparted through the medium of facial and bodily gestures with just a few words of German spoken by the actors with English subtitles beneath.Even these few words seem almost superflous in the general lyrical vein which runs through the film.<br /><br />Put very simply this is the story of a young girl who marries a much older man (why we are never told and what did Eva see in him anyway?Money?), who is then trapped in an unconsumated and loveless marriage.She then returns to her father having left her husband and her father has to lie to his son in law.After a ride on her horse Eva decides to take a swim in the buff and loads up her clothes onto her horse's saddle.However her horse gets romantic notions itself and gallops off to greet its stablemate.Hedy rushes out of the lake naked and tries to recover her mount but an engineer at work sees and retrieves the horse then looks around for its owner.And so the romance is born.Her husband seeing that his rival must win Eva, later decides to shoot himself but I thought this was rather illogical and its main weakness bearing in mind his previous loveless relationship with Eva.<br /><br />Despite being a 1990 reissue title on VHS, the sound being 70 years old, is a bit soft and with background crackles, in line with films of its age.After a period of mourning our handsome boyfriend obviously is so in love with Eva he imagines her as a mother with an infant so we have to assume they live happily ever after.Just let the imagary wash over you and disabuse your mind of the style of films even of late 1930's vintage.This is a lyrical piece that can be enyoyed for its own sake and not just for its eye catching title.I gave it 7/10.

Rock Star: INXS was the best music TV series I have ever watched! It had some of the greatest rock n' roll songs ever written, performed by 15 very talented singers/performers. It also had (in my opinion) the most heart-felt, feel-good, surprise endings in all of reality TV. It actually made me shed tears of happiness for the winner!!! Over the 13 weeks of this televised competition, the viewing audience got to know and became familiar with all of the contestants. After 30-some episodes the remaining contestants seemed more like friends than just some more strangers competing against each other on a reality TV show. And the fact that INXS was, and still is, one of the greatest rock n' roll bands EVER just added to the emotional tension created by this wonderful reality series. If you don't have the series recorded, ROCK STAR: INXS the DVD is a great alternative.

When I was younger, and today, Mr. Bean is a work of genius. Three-time BAFTA nominated Rowan Atkinson stars as the almost silent (miming) human looking alien dropped onto Earth causing chaos and mischief wherever he goes. He has tried to do an exam, put his pants on in front of blind man (he didn't know he was blind), gone to church, tried to dive at a swimming pool, made lunch on a park bench, seen a scary movie, changed in his car, had a picnic with a fly intruding, spent Christmas with his girlfriend (Matilda Ziegler), looked after a baby in Portsmouth, been to Room 426 of The Queens Hotel in Portsmouth, won a pet contest with his Teddy, driven on top of his Mini on a new chair, and even met and knocked out the Queen. Guests included Rudolph Walker, Richard Briers, Angus Deayton, Nick Hancock from They Think It's All Over, Caroline Quentin, The Day Today's David Schneider, Richard Wilson, The Fast Show's Eryl Maynard and The Vicar of Dibley's Roger Lloyd-Pack. It was nominated the BAFTAs for Best Comedy (Programme or Series) and Best Light Entertainment Programme. Rowan Atkinson was number 18 on The 50 Greatest British Actors, he was number 24 on The Comedians' Comedian, and he was number 8 on Britain's Favourite Comedian. Outstanding!

If scientists behaved in a way that H.G. Wells was confident they would in the future, history wouldn't quite have turned out the way it did in Things To Come. Were almost 80 years past the point that Wells wrote The Shape Of Things To Come on which this film is based and no closer to the world he describes than before, in some ways farther away.<br /><br />Though such well known players as Raymond Massey, Ralph Richardson, and Cedric Hardwicke are in the cast, they're more caricatures than real characters. It's the main weakness with the film, it's devoted to Wells's philosophy of science will solve all problems and the rest of us are backward fools.<br /><br />Massey's characters, two generations of the same family holds that supremely optimistic view. Cedric Hardwicke is a skeptic who feels man is rushing too far forward. And Ralph Richardson is a warlord arisen from the destruction of another Thirty Years War fought with modern weapons. By the way as the atomic bomb had not been invented, poison gas was deemed to be weapon that almost destroys mankind.<br /><br />According to Wells, science and conquest can never mix. Scientists as a group are far too above the world of politics to engage in such things. In Wells's lifetime scientists certainly fled the rightwing fascistic governments of Hitler and Mussolini. Those same folks however in order to defeat them, subordinated themselves to the Allies and fashioned the atomic weapons that ushered in the modern age. If they behaved as Wells would have liked them to, someone like Albert Einstein would have headed a junta of scientists who would have established a new order after World War II. <br /><br />Wells got it wrong both in time and in development. He apparently never envisioned the computer as well as atomic power. Computer programmers are far more likely to be our rulers in a brave new world than scientists at the moment. Still Things To Come, aided by the direction of William Cameron Menzies and the sets created offer an interesting glimpse into the mind of H.G. Wells, certainly a respected thinker of his time though he didn't quite get right the shape of Things To Come.

Sniper gives a true new meaning to war movies. I remember movies about Vietnam or WWII, lots of firing, everybody dies, bam bam. "Sniper" takes war to a new level or refinement. The movie certainly conveys all of the emotions it aims for - The helplessness of humans in the jungle, the hatred and eventual trust between Beckett and Miller, and the rush of the moment when they pull the trigger. A seemingly low-budget film makes up for every flaw with action, suspense, and thrill, because when it comes down to it, it's just one shot, one kill.

Into a happy household comes the gypsy girl, played by Myrna Loy. With her amazingly wild hair and voice that sounds very high-pitched and weird, it's hard to believe this is Loy!! She bears no similarity whatsoever to the refined and funny character Nora Charles who she played in the Thin Man movies. Instead, she overacts so badly that you'd almost expect her to be in an Ed Wood movie. What a huge difference a few years made in the quality films she got as well as her acting ability!! On top of the horrendously silly character, the film also fails because it just isn't interesting or exciting--just very, very stagy and stupid. The only thing good about it is the Vitaphone sound system--making the sound quality of this turkey about the best I have heard from 1929. Heck, it was even better than most 1930 films, so the sound technician at least has something to be proud of--all others, forget it.<br /><br />This is a movie that even the host of Turner Classic Movies referred to as a "guilty pleasure" because the movie is so bad! And, after having seen it I disagree...slightly. The movie is simply bad.

Legend has it that at the gala Hollywood premiere screening of 2001: A Space Odyssey, about 20 minutes into the film Rock Hudson yelled out "Would somebody please tell me what the hell this movie is about?" Well, I have Rock beaten by about 19 minutes, 59 seconds. This movie made absolutely no sense at all. Who were those people? Where were those people? What were the rules of the game called Quintet? Are there any rules to Quintet? Were Robert Altman and his cohorts making the movie up as they went along? What was Paul Newman thinking when he signed on to this? Maybe ol' Fast Eddie saw Zardoz and thought "Well if Connery can get involved in a futuristic film that makes no sense, so can I." Maybe the good stuff is on the cutting room floor and all we get to see is the incoherent stuff. Also, did all the cast get to keep their individual funny hats? You never saw such bizarre looking hats all in one place in your life. Quintet just confirms what I've always thought: when Altman's good he's superb, but when he's bad, he makes stuff like Quintet

So when I first saw commercials for Greek I did have a few questions to how they were going to approach Greek life, if they were going to give away sacred frat and sorority secrets, if they were going to focus on the brother and sisterhood a fraternity or sorority brings, or what most college kids think of Greek life as a huge party.<br /><br />Luckily, it covered everything. The story plot was great, it gave you a character to love, hate, someone you want to be like, someone you don't want to be like, and of course a crazy roommate!<br /><br />It was one of my first looks at what writers believed Greek life to be like, and I can honestly say they hit the nail pretty dead on.<br /><br />I love how one of the biggest things they covered throughout the season was the relationship between Rusty and his crazy roommate. Its hard enough moving away from home, and being forced to live in a small room with someone you don't even know, then come to find out.. you have nothing in common. Probably every college bound freshmens worst nightmare.<br /><br />Rustys sister Casey was pretty much the typical girl on campus EVERYONE is jealous of. What didn't she have? Oh thats right.. Evan all to herself. Rebecca and Evan had an "affair" early into the season, which made you feel fairly sympathetic for Casey. Her character evolved, and her relationship with Rusty became more and more loving and outgoing. <br /><br />Cappie is one of the most fun loving characters, and absolutely insane. One of my favorite episodes included him getting completely trashed at a strip club, and Rusty having to call Casey to bail them out. I like how they addressed the issue of gay people in Greek houses, Calvin was a very real feeling character, and I really respected him because he stuck to his standards. So Jen K was fairly crazy, but she actually liked Rusty. It was surprising and I continued to question her from the start, but of course, I did want it to work out between her and Rusty.<br /><br />I am definitely looking forward to the return of Greek. It takes you into the truth of Greek life, something that a lot of people look past. One of the biggest things that frats and sororities are known for is parties and drinking. Greek is a great show, and the characters are easy to relate to.

1st watched 11/7/2002 - 2 out of 10(Dir-John Bianco): Pretty lame gangster movie about a Godfather-like family in Brooklyn who like to say four-letter words a lot and kill people. The only thing of interest here was their attempt to show the feds being a lot like the gang. This is the only attempt at good film-making. The rest of the movie was predictable, and cheaply-made. The quality of the photography on some of the scenes inside bars and floozy joints almost made you think there was a problem with your DVD player because of the bad contrasts and some of the actors were hard to hear at times because of the bad sound. The acting was pretty-much characatures of all your favorite gangsters from better movies with corny names like Vinnie `Knuckles' and Jimmie `Tattoos', and the plot pretty much followed those patterns as well. So, go see a better gangster movie before you put your money out for this one.

I did not like this movie. I rented it hoping it would be something like the 10th Kingdom. I was disappointed when I discovered it wasn't. I also found it just plain nervracking. The acting was bad, the characters where unbelievable and the time jumps were crazy. I only recomend this film if your in the mood to see a crazy dude running around, but I'm sure there are better films with the same thing. I can't believe I wasted my time on this one.

I wonder why I haven't heard of this movie before. It's truly a magnificent comedy (I'd say farce, but it's too well acted and I'd hate to denigrate it's quality). A comedic character study about the travails of mid-life crises, the inequity for gays who can't have their long-time unions recognized, and the general differences of people who can't fit nicely into society, that pairs Kathy Bates and Rupert Everett to a wonderful effect. Forget Julia Roberts and Rupert; Kathy Bates and Rupert should do another movie together. The anxiety-ridden, acerbic and outrageous daughter-in-law, Maudie (Meredith Eaton), is a truly wonderful character. If you liked the Tales of the City films, you'd like this quirky charmer.

Look, this is quite possibly one of the best movies America has to offer the rest of the world. To hate this movie is to hate freedom itself. I remember that the early 80's were a time of uncertainty. The economy was weak, communism threatened us all, and nuclear destruction was almost a certainty. Out of that confusion came a hero, Stroker Ace. Ned Beatty's performance in this movie showed he was never again to be type cast as a one dimensional victim in the wilderness. His triumph is an inspiration to all. The on-screen chemistry between Burt and Loni draws obvious comparisons to Brad and Jennifer. Jim Nabors is a poet. Go see this movie tonight!

I am sorry folks, but I have to say I really cannot understand the overwhelming feelings everybody gets by seeing this movie...<br /><br />When I saw it I looked at my watch to know how much more time I had to spend with this Kindergarten nonsense.<br /><br />So why this verdict?<br /><br />First of all: The movie tells a story that doesn't deliver any excitement! It is not even the amusingly distorted reality of a Quentin Tarantino we used to know. This story could have come out of every little kid's head. It doesn't have anything intelligent in it, neither anything inventive and it goes on for hours... the story has appropriate content for about 30 min. The rest is just awfully enhanced scenes that are supposed to leave a somewhat cool image. Doesn't work. Even the previously seen cutbacks that Tarantino often uses just confuse and are not in any way cool. <br /><br />Second: Some guys go to Germany and kill Nazis. Ah really? Do they? The only Nazis they killed were a handful of guys, one of them being man enough to rather die than betray his companions. Is this the ugly face Tarantino wanted to give the Nazis? A brave soldier that is more valiant than any of the "Basterds"? Certainly not --> fail And what happens to the terrible Nazi-killing Basterds? Well they all get killed by Nazis except two who are taken hostages --> wow, what terrible revengeful monsters they are...<br /><br />Third: Any characters? Yes one! The only role and the only gleam of hope for the entire movie is Chritoph Waltz who is building a truly deep and very detailed character here. Great acting! Brad Pitt really sucks and is completely out-acted by Waltz. Never seen a such a weak performance by Pitt... And the rest? Well, some Germans you've never seen before and will never see after. When the movie started and I saw the group of the seven Basterds I hoped to see something like the "Magnificent Seven": A group of extraordinary guys, each one with a distinct character, making their way to their destiny fearless and knowing... I was then very disappointed, when I saw the "inglourious Basterds". No details at all, no characters, no real men, just some random guys you won't remember who were not given any chance to differentiate themselves... But in fact you don't even need to differentiate, cause the "Inglourious Basterds" except Pitt hardly play any role in this movie...<br /><br />So I was really disappointed, and seeing this movie on place #40 of the greatest movies of all time is the only thing about this, that leaves me with my mouth opened...

Put a DVD of this flick in a time capsule, and it will definitely illustrate for future generations a perfect example of one which warrants the minimal rating on a 1-to-10-star scale.<br /><br />Bill Cosby and Ray Romano have been at the top - in ratings and with tens of millions in earnings annually - with their television series'. Yet each has had no success in big-screen offerings. This has also been true for other TV personalities - perhaps because many of the stories which are presented for two hours or so seem more suited to either a 10-minute skit, or at most, the 22 or 23 minutes of drama during a half-hour program.<br /><br />This film, however, doesn't have one single element which would warrant two or three minutes of time on MAD TV, SNL, or anywhere else on a screen or stage.<br /><br />Its origination date is listed as 2002, but release date - to DVD only - is shown as 2004. It also was filmed not long before Rodney Dangerfield's death, so its one redeeming value is that it probably provided at lease a few hundred thousand more dollars for his heirs.<br /><br />I'd never heard of it, but found it when turning-on my set, and frankly became fascinated by it. Some movies are so truly awful that they rate a sort of top rating in reverse - so bad that you can move the dial backwards to a 9 or 10. "Plan 9 from Outer Space" is the best example - and the Bruce Jenner/Village People opus, "Can't Stop the Music," is another.<br /><br />Unfortunately this flick falls short even there. Even if Rodney's earlier work (as well as some of his fellow cast-members') fell short of "Citizen Kane" or "Casablanca," there were many moments of humor and a story providing at least a modicum of interest.<br /><br />Unfortunately, this presentation doesn't seem to possess even a minute or two's worth of such material.

I decided to watch this on FearNet on demand for free because I figured well, nothing else looks enjoyable. And it turned out to be quite a good little horror surprise! The film serves as an anthology of four urban legends told from the point of view of four teenagers whose car breaks down in the middle of nowhere. After they decide to build a campfire in the woods, they begin to tell their spooky stories and the movie transitions to the events in the stories.<br /><br />The Honeymoon- a newlywed couple traveling cross country in an RV to Las Vegas is terrorized when they park in a wooded area by evil beings that hunt by the full moon. (I won't spoil that for you!) The Hook- Amy Smart and James Marsden, (probably the most famous people in the movie besides beautiful Christine Taylor) play the young couple who come face to face with the maniac that has a hook for a hand in this most recognizable short.<br /><br />People can Lick Too- this is probably the scariest and most dark of the stories. A young girl chats with another girl on the internet, but it turns out that it's actually a man who is obsessed with her and he proceeds to break into the house when she's alone. This was really chilling.<br /><br />The Locket- This is also a great story with Glen Quinn and Jacinda Barrett, who play a motorcyclist and a beautiful mute girl who are terrorized by ghosts from a previous century in a mysterious farm house. This was good but it was the weakest of the entries.<br /><br />The group around the campfire slowly develop their own terrifying experience in their segments between stories, and the end of this movie is surprising and really awesome! Overall this is not bone-chillingly scary but it's certainly a great little guilty pleasure that horror fans alike would definitely find worthwhile!

Personally, I absolutely love this movie and novel(I read the book first and decided to see the movie). First of all the plot is truly original and one of a kind. The acting is also great and i love the cast. Judd Crandall (plays Fred Gwynne) fits his role perfectly and really sells it to you. There are also a few corny lines thrown in there (Idk if they were meant to be corny), but they really will lighten up the mood and provide a good laugh. The Maine atmosphere is really a perfect spot to film this movie and it kind of draws you in throughout the movie. Not only will you love it but you'll want to see it again and again, I recommend this 100% to any horror fan!!

or anyone who was praying for the sight of Al Cliver wrestling a naked, 7ft tall black guy into a full nelson, your film has arrived! Film starlet Laura Crawford (Ursula Buchfellner) is kidnapped by a group who demand the ransom of $6 million to be delivered to their island hideaway. What they don't count on is rugged Vietnam vet Peter Weston (Cliver) being hired by a film producer to save the girl. And what they really didn't count on was a local tribe that likes to offer up young women to their monster cannibal god with bloodshot bug eyes.<br /><br />Pretty much the same filming set up as CANNIBALS, this one fares a bit better when it comes to entertainment value, thanks mostly a hilarious dub track and the impossibly goofy monster with the bulging eyes (Franco confirms they were split ping pong balls on the disc's interview). Franco gets a strong EuroCult supporting cast including Gisela Hahn (CONTAMINATION) and Werner Pochath (whose death is one of the most head-scratching things I ever seen as a guy who is totally not him is shown - in close up - trying to be him). The film features tons of nudity and the gore (Tempra paint variety) is there. The highlight for me was the world's slowly fistfight between Cliver and Antonio de Cabo in the splashing waves. Sadly, ol' Jess pads this one out to an astonishing (and, at times, agonizing) 1 hour and 40 minutes when it should have run 80 minutes tops. <br /><br />For the most part, the Severin DVD looks pretty nice but there are some odd ghosting images going on during some of the darker scenes. Also, one long section of dialog is in Spanish with no subs (they are an option, but only when you listen to the French track). Franco gives a nice 16- minute interview about the film and has much more pleasant things to say about Buchfellner than his CANNIBALS star Sabrina Siani.

I bought this movie just to see Bam because i was really loving him, but after seeing this i don't like him much. I mean, his acting was good and everything i guess, but whenever it showed the totally unnecessary skate scenes i was just saying to myself, "Alright, we know you're a professional skateboarder, now can we get back to Ryan Dunn?" Dunn, Rake, and Brandon really made the movie in my perspective.<br /><br />I noticed that Jenn Rivell, (obviously), and Missy Rothstein were both in Haggard, but who Bam was dating at the time? Anyways, i actually enjoyed Haggard and i think it's really like no other movie i've ever seen. It's sort of in it's own category.

Clearly this film was made for a newer generation that may or may not have had an inkling of Charles Bukowski's work. The autobiographical Henry Chinaski character in Bukowski's stories was brilliantly portrayed to perfection by Mickey Rourke in 1987's 'Barfly', also starring Faye Dunaway. Anyone who has seen 'Factotum' should certainly see 'Barfly' to get a better look at how Bukowski wrote his character. 'Factotum' lacks the greasy seediness of Bukowski's screenplay and the fearless hopelessness of his loner hero. The inadvertent humor that bubbles through in the dark desperation of Chinaski's misadventures doesn't work for Dillon as it did so admirably for the overweight filthy blood-soaked Rourke. Rourke's character makes the pain and pleasure of the previous night's misbehavior a place-setting for yet another grueling ugly day in the life of a drunken misanthropic unknown writer. Dillon's character misses these marks in favor of a strutting, handsome, relatively clean-looking wanna-be writer that scarcely passes for any moment in that of Chinaski's story. Dunaway's sleazy heroine Wanda is the perfect complement to the ne'er-do-well Henry. The women in 'Factotum' can't hold a candle to Dunaway's 'distressed goddess' and the use of more profane sexual subject matter in 'Factotum' proves to be more of a crude distraction than a tip of the hat to Bukowski's raw and unapologetic portrayals of dysfunctional relationships. I was stunned at how many of the exact same scenes were used in 'Factotum' (Marisa Tomei buying all the stuff and charging it to the old man is an exact rip-off from 'Barfly').<br /><br />If you want to see the best Bukowski stories on film, see 'Barfly' and 'Love is a Dog From Hell' (which also goes by the title 'Crazy Love').

The Cavern: 2 out of 10: Blair Witch meets The Cave and gives me a headache.<br /><br />I have something to ask all film schools, could you please teach future directors how to hold a camera steady. Flailing the camera around like Aunt Betty with 12 drinks is headache inducing.<br /><br />Also film is primarily a visual medium directors may want to point their camera's in the general direction of the action. Film also requires light to work. Perhaps a light source should be employed so one can see the action on the screen. I know it is a cave movie but there is absolutely nothing frightening about watching pitch blackness for minutes at a time.<br /><br />For that matter showing the film upside down doesn't indicate confusion on screen it indicates confusion in the editing booth.<br /><br />A last note to the director I'm sure there was a good reason to have a horribly fake CGI campfire. I honestly can't for the life of me think of one.<br /><br />Now on to the screenwriter. Try to make at least one character likable. I'd prefer two or more but one decent person I can root for or care about might help. Also if you are going to have flashbacks make them relevant to the story.<br /><br />If you are going to have a surprise ending it is probably best if it doesn't contradict every single thing that comes before it. And try adding some fancy spelunking terms to a cave movie. You might have wanted to start with spelunking.<br /><br />The Cavern is a pretty bad film, poorly shot with a confusing, improbable and anticlimactic ending.

I actually saw this movie at a cinema. At the time, I was working shifts and went there during a matinée on a hot summer day when I couldn't sleep. The cinema was air-conditioned.<br /><br />It was an early multi-screen complex and I somehow got into the wrong venue. I had intended to doze through something else. But as things transpired, there would be no sleeping. Shortly after the wrong movie began, I was additionally disconcerted by a group of female cleaners who came in and used it as their social club. I was the only other person there, and it is a measure of the movie's appeal that they habitually expected the place to be empty and asked me if I minded their presence. I didn't.<br /><br />Within about half an hour, the cleaners' conversation proved to be more interesting than the entertainment I had paid for.<br /><br />This movie oozed out of the screen with the cheesiness of very stale mayonnaise. The kind that has little dark, hairy, tufts growing on the surface. I particularly remember my senses being assaulted by strident cords of music that would blare out with very little warning, and even less meaning. The cleaners provided an anticipatory cue by putting their fingers in their ears.<br /><br />It was about some city bird going to live in the sticks amongst a load a backwood folk, putting them straight but at the same time being taught a moral lesson or two herself. Like you do. A sort of 'journey of discovery'. There was a sententious smugness about the whole production. In particular, the leading actress had an irritating habit of staring at every hick with a kind of intense beatific compassion, as if she herself were the patron-saint of thickies.<br /><br />And I believe at some stage she wrote a book.<br /><br />Long before the end, I had become fascinated by one of the cleaner's hushed and breathy tails of sexual impropriety.<br /><br />One suspects that there are some to whom sitting quietly for a couple of hours and not having to think, constitutes a meditation. The best that I can say is that I would not want to share their salad.<br /><br />I have never seen this movie advertised as showing on television, which surprises me. It is just the sort of pap that is screened in the afternoon to punish the unemployed for not having jobs.<br /><br />If you ever work shifts, be sure to get into the right theatre. Or hope for some cleaning ladies.

This movie was in one word. Terrible. First of all the people who invented that thingie that puts you in the TV, are slightly insane! Secondly, the three teens are so obsessed with the show, it's scary! The movie was stupid, and no effort or thought was put into it!

First off, this really is my favorite film ever. I don't need to give anyone a description because every a**hole does that. I am literally obsessed with this practically bloodless, cheesy, lame effects having', boom-stick showing', badly edited, 80's metal horror masterpiece. The director (I heard) had hoped for a hit at the box office so that he could do sequels and have a FREDDY/JASON type of deal for himself. Damn, I wish that could've went down like that! The soundtrack's banging'. The acting's good....CHECK THIS MOFO OUT. and any die-hard fans out there, feel free to email and chat sometime. Midgetorgy....I can be found at YAHOO.

The first DH wasn't that great, but I really didn't expect it to be. But this horrible movie was just beyond criticism. I really try to look on the bright side and give movies like this a chance, but I just could not find a real good thing about this one. I appreciate what Bill Cowell was trying to do, but this movie was just soooooo boring. The story of the movie really isn't that bad. In fact, it's somewhat original. But the movie form is really as bad as a lot of people say. In my opinion, this one ranks right up there with "The Off Season", and "Dracula 3000". I know a lot of people really trash and put down movies like this, but I really can't think of any other good things to say about it.

I've seen some Bible-based trash. This one tops it all. To make matters worse, it lasts about three hours. A horrible waste of time, unless you want to match your kid's biblical knowledge against the innumerable aberrations. Do yourself a favor - take a walk in the Sahara instead. Since I am required to give you a ten line statement of why not to watch this movie, let me just say there is absolutely no redeemable quality to it. God's conversations with Noah are ridiculous. The whole thing has a stench of "let's make the Biblical account look retarded." The basic logic goes, if they spent the money on a biblical film, why not make it worthwhile? Since the basic logic is not met, something is amiss. The movie starts with a disclaimer about Poetic Licenses taken...that is the understatement of the century. Poetic rape. But then, poetic would be an unmerited favor.

This movie was amazing. I was in tears by the end of the movie. Okay, I know the acting sucked but that's not what was important. The message came through loud and clear about God's love for us and Jesus's sacrifice. The movie was realistic and showed actual human feelings whether it be Pete's anger of the blond girl's sneers or the guy that asked questions. But it also showed the joy that comes from a true relationship with Christ. The cars were awesome and the actors were very hot and that attracted my eye. But what I liked most about this movie was the clear Gospel message. The mother and pastor supported Ben in his new walk with Christ and tried to be a godly example to others. Nicky D showed that no matter if you have all the world has to offer, without Christ, it doesn't matter. Nina showed how a misguided but good person can easily miss the mark. I loved this movie and think that it will bring many teenagers to Christ.

This film is about so many things. Most obvious is the hold that film can have over an audience and how capturing life on film can be a kind of magic. There is also the tense relationship between China and the West as many Chinese saw (probably rightly so) the "Barbarians" as trying to take over and pollute their way of life. Liu even seeks to preserve their way of life on film because he sees that it will one day disappear. Their is also Liu's internal conflict between the loyalties and traditions of China versus the self-determination philosophy of the West. All these themes are woven quite skillfully into a coherent and enjoyable whole by Hu. A very enjoyable film.

Preminger's adaptation of G. B. Shaw's ''Saint Joan''(screenplay by Graham Greene) received one of the worst critical reactions in it's day. It was vilified by the pseudo-elite, the purists and the audiences was unresponsive to a film that lacked the piety and glamour expected of a historical pageant. As in ''Peeping Tom'', the reaction was malicious and unjustified. Preminger's adaptation of Shaw's intellectual exploration of the effects and actions surrounding Joan of Arc(her actual name in her own language is Jeanne d'Arc but this film is in English) is totally faithful to the spirit of the original play, not only on the literal emotional level but formally too. His film is a Brechtian examination of the functioning of institutions, the division within and without of various factions all wanting to seize power. As such we are not allowed to identify on an emotional level with any of the characters, including Joan herself.<br /><br />As played by Jean Seberg(whose subsequent life offers a eerie parallel to her role here), she is presented as an innocent, a figure of purity whose very actions and presence reveals the corruption and emptiness in everyone. As such Seberg plays her as both Saint and Madwoman. Her own lack of experience as an actress when she made this film(which does show up in spots) conveys the freshness and youth of Jeanne revealing both the fact that Jeanne la Pucelle is a humble illiterate peasant girl who strode out to protect her village and her natural intelligence. By no means did she deserve the harsh criticism that she got on the film's first release, it's a performance far beyond the ken and call of any first-time actress with no prior acting experience. Shaw and Preminger took a secular view towards Joan seeing her as a medieval era feminist, not content with being a rustic daughter who's fate is to be married away or a whore picked up by soldiers to and away from battlefields. Her faith, her voices, her visions which she intermingles with words such as "imagination" and "common sense" leads her to wear the armour of her fellow soldiers to lead them to battle to chase the invading Englishman out of France.<br /><br />And yet it can be said that the film is more interested in the court of the Dauphin(Richard Widmark), the office of the clergy who try Joan led by Pierre Cauchon(Anton Walbrook, impeccably cast) and the actions of the Earl of Warwick(John Gielgud) then in Joan herself. The superb ensemble cast(all male) portray figures of scheming, Machievellian(although the story precedes Niccolo) opportunists who treat religion as a childish toy to be used and manipulated for their own ends. The sharp sardonic dialogue gives the actors great fun to let loose. John Gielgud as the eminently rational Earl whose intelligence,(albeit accompanied by corruption), allows him to calculate the precise manner in which he can ensure Joan gets burnt at the stake and Anton Walbrook's Pierre Cauchon brings a three dimensional portrait to this intelligent theologian who will give Joan the fair trial that will certainly find her guilty. Richard Widmark as the Dauphin is a real revelation. As against-type a casting choice you'll ever find, Widmark portrays the weak future ruler of France in a frenzied, comic caricature that's as close as this film comes to comic relief. A comic performance that feels like an imitation of Jerry Lewis far more than an impetuous future ruler of France.<br /><br />Preminger shot ''Saint Joan'' in black and white, the cinematographer is Georges Perinal who worked with Rene Clair and who did ''The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp'' in colour. It's perfectly restrained to emphasize the rational intellectual atmosphere for this film. Preminger's preference for tracking shots of long uninterrupted takes is key to the effectiveness of the film, there's no sense of a wasted movement anywhere in his mise-en-scene.<br /><br />It also marks the direction of Preminger's most mature(and most neglected period) his focus is on the conflict between individuals and the institutions in which they work, how the institution function and how the individual acts as per his principles. These themes get their most direct treatment in his film and as always he keeps things unpredictable and finds no black and white answers. This is one of his very best and most effective films.

You have to start worrying when you see that Michael Madsen is leading the Cast of any movie. I wont go through the list of shame that is his movie career.<br /><br />I watched 45 minutes and still was not sure what really was going on. The movie consisted of a love hate relationship between Madsen and Argento, Which basically was Madsen insulting her, threatening violence and generally treating her like dirt. She on the other hand loves him, then shes doesn't, then she does, the she desires him, then she loves him again......whats wrong with you woman !!!! <br /><br />The Script is awful, lousy soundtrack and pointless aggressive and crude sexuality which i believe was added to entice some viewers as the movie has little else to offer. I would have given the movie a 1 but it just about managed a 2 with a little excitement in the last 20 minutes. It did actually answer one question in the final few minutes but i am not going to share that, i will make you suffer for the full movie like i did.

Curiously, Season 6 of the Columbo series contained only three episodes and there is very little evidence of quality in at least two of the scripts, based on this outing for the "man-in-the-mac" and also "Fade into Murder".<br /><br />Furthermore, it is not a coincidence that Peter S. Feibleman penned both the aforementioned scripts (incidentally he plays the part of the murdered security guard here).<br /><br />This adventure is very rarely compelling and many of the performers just look disinterested with the material. The story is rather weakly developed with some protracted periods of boring conversation.<br /><br />Columbo is also shadowed by a colleague here(similar to "Last Salute to the Commodore") but the entertainment value is minimal. To add to this, Celeste's Holm characterisation, which is intended to provide comedy, induces embarrassment rather than laughs.<br /><br />The script wavers off to deal with the family history and the murderess does enough to gift Columbo the case, though there is never a credible discussion relating to the motives of her crime.<br /><br />Ironically, what turns out to be, arguably, Columbo's worst adventure produces the funniest moment in the series. He quizzes a male hairdresser and has a haircut/manicure at the same time. The next 5 minutes are hilarious - it's just that Columbo's hair is so perfectly groomed, then he can't afford to pay the bill and then, when he makes enquiries at a jewellers he keeps glancing in the mirror to admire his hairstyle!<br /><br />Sadly, this is the only decent moment from a script that looks like it has been cobbled together in ten minutes. <br /><br />For Columbo completionists only.

I am so impressed, really. I expected cheesy gamer humor and nothing else.<br /><br />OK, there's a ton of pretty geeky humor. But the movie is so well done. The acting is quite good.<br /><br />The dialog, while gamer cheesy at times, I guess to cater to the gamer crowd, is not bad at all. At times it's even, dare I say, great.<br /><br />When the female gamer, who built this non traditional fighter type character rather then the usual (min/max) type gets all these additional attacks (seem right, I did not check the rules,) it was cool.<br /><br />The sets are amazing for what must be a fairly low production movie.<br /><br />The story moves right along. The transitions from game world to real world are well done. A male playing a female character would sometimes be played by a female, and sometimes by himself. Pretty clever, I thought.<br /><br />The guy who decided to play a female, but kept forgetting he was female was good for a lot of laughs. He even said tag at one point, and the female walked on to play the role ( sorry, I did not look her name up, she did great though.) The guy always trying to "get some", got a bit tedious, but I guess that was more gamer humor.<br /><br />There was just so much to like about the movie. Lighthearted. Fun! Very well done and I am saying that as a movie fan, not a gamer (and I am not a D&D player.) As I said I expected SO much less.<br /><br />Movies often don't hold my attention, I end up listening to them while working on my computer. This one held my attention. I can't give a movie much higher praise.

I will keep it to bullet points so here goes: 1. Very badly scripted. 2. Tries to be like Resident Evil. 3. Zombies slow and docile one minute the next minute Raging lunatics. 4. Never saw blood clean up so easily! 5. Special effects not as good as the original "day of the living dead". 6. Acting not as good as the "Bold and the beautiful". 7. It looks like it was written in 1 week and made the next week.<br /><br />Basicaly Med team plus Special Forces go into a Zombie infested university to find the first Zombie and extract a serum to cure the plague. All die except the 2 main stars so predictable even though unarmed and swarmed with 100s of zombies they survived. However special forces (who were trained at kindergarten school scouts) only took 1 zombie to kill them even though they had weapons. Also the obligatory jerk on hand to fill any gaps. Overall load of rubbish.

This film is a quite entertaining horror anthology film (along the lines of Tales from the Crypt) written by Robert Bloch (author of Psycho). It's good fun for horror fans and has an excellent cast. The movie should also be required viewing for Doctor Who fans since Jon Pertwee (the third Doctor) has an amusing role as a rude and obnoxious horror star!

NATURAL BORN KILLERS (1994)<br /><br />Cinema Cut: R <br /><br />Director's Cut: NC-17<br /><br />It's an unusual Oliver Stone picture, but when I read he was on drugs during the filming, I needed no further explanation. 'Natural Born Killers' is a risky, mad, all out film-making that we do not get very often; strange, psychotic, artistic pictures.<br /><br />'Natural Born Killers' is basically the story of how two mass killers were popularised and glorified by the media; there is a great scene where an interviewer questions some teenagers about Mickey and Mallory, and the teenager says 'Murder is wrong.... but If I was a mass murderer I'd be Mickey and Mallory'. Mickey describes this with a situation of 'Frankenstein (the monster) and Dr. Frankenstein' - Dr. Frankenstein is the media who has turned them into these monstrous killers<br /><br />Most Oliver Stone films examine the flaws of the America, the country that the director loves and admires. I guess 'Natural Born Killers' is about the effect of mass media, technology and how obsessive as a nation, Americans are (and most of the world) over things such as mass killers and bizarre situations.<br /><br />The killers played by Woody Harrelson (Mickey) and Juliette Lewis (Mallory) are executed astonishingly by two excellent actors who step into the lives of two interestingly brutal killers. Mickey and Mallory believe that some people are worthy of killing, perhaps in the cruel theory of Social Darwinism (survival of the fittest) - Mickey says in his interview in prison, that other species commit murder, we as humans ravage other species and exploit the environment; the script is interesting, but it is questionable how much this film amounts to, in the sense of making us think about society and human behaviour, rather than the intensity of a 2 hour bloodbath that we have seen.<br /><br />The last hour of the film takes place in a maximum security prison; we see the harsh realities of prison life; the attitudes of the warden etc;overfilling of prisons - maybe Stone is questioning the future, the path that society is leading to.<br /><br />Two other interesting characters; First, a reporter who runs a show about 'America's Maniacs' and is obsessed with boosting ratings, that he goes to any length to capture the story of Mickey and Mallory. The other is police officer Scagnetti, an insane, perhaps sadistic officer that is in love with Mallory - he also has some weird obsession with mass killers, since his mother was killed during the massacre at Waco, Texas by Charles Whitman.<br /><br />The cinematography is superb; different colours, shadows, styles create a feeling of disorientation; the green colour most evident of all is green, to resemble the sickness of the killers (in the drugstore when they are looking for rattlesnake antidote).<br /><br />The camera work is insane; shaky, buzzy, it takes some determination to get use to it and accept it. Highly unorthodox, psychedelic and unusual.<br /><br />'Natural Born Killers' does not glamourise the existence of insane murderers, it questions it and how we as the public may fuel this attribute...<br /><br />Although the above review sound quite positive, I did dislike the film. Quentin Tarantino, who originally wrote the script for the film, was not pleased with the altered screenplay and he asked for his name to be removed. I can see why. While mildly interesting at times, Natural Born Killers is a mess of a picture.<br /><br />4/10

B Movie? Yes. DIY? Yes. First Movie? Yes. But Aestheically A+. This movie definitely had some bad sound/editing/lighting/acting/etc. etc. problems. However, this movie has many positive things about it. First off, the most annoying character dies first! Second, its made to be a parody/funny B Rated Horror movie. The comments our killer makes to his victims left me and my friends rolling around on the floor laughing.<br /><br />The problem is a lot of people try to take every independent movie and expect it to be a masterpiece. Take it for what it is, a bunch of kids right out of high school made their first movie. For what it is, just that, it is really good.

Garson Kanin wrote and directed this look at "modern day" Las Vegas and the gap between generations, his first directorial effort since the 1940s! David Janssen is somewhat miscast as a big-shot casino owner who reunites with his son (Robert Drivas, who looks disconcertingly like an older Jason Bateman). Janssen approaches every scene the same way: defensively, with a chip on his shoulder. Playing this role cool and laid-back is asking too much from Janssen, who barks at everyone like a grouchy put-upon husband (he even chews out Don Rickles and makes him cry!). His son, a ne'er-do-well in search of his own identity, makes hip comments about how young people look down on Vegas (give them another ten years), and his disapproval of Dad's lifestyle causes friction. Brenda Vaccaro is cute as a self-conscious secretary and Edy Willaims has a fun bit as a showgirl at an audition. Unfortunately, "Where It's At" doesn't have much else going for it other than the now-dated ruminations on ethics between adults and their kids, some quick T&A shots and amusingly jaded satirical bits on the high-stakes world of gambling--most of which has been covered by now, ad nauseum. ** from ****

Poorly-made "blaxploitation" crime-drama aimed squarely at the black urban market of the early 1970s. Pam Grier stars in the title role, that of a nurse who becomes a one-woman vigilante after drug-dealing thugs make Coffy's little sister a junkie. Violent nonsense plods along doggedly, with canned energy and excitement; only Grier's flaring temper gives the narrative a jolt (she's not much of an actress here, but she connects with the audience in a primal way). Not much different from what Charles Bronson was doing at this time, the film was marketed and advertised as crass exploitation yet still managed to find a sizable inner-city audience. Today however, it's merely a footnote in '70s film history, and lacks the wide-range appeal of other movies in this genre. *1/2 from ****

To most of us, life is an unfolding process of love. For others like Soo-mi, however, it is dominated by darkness and fear. Based on the Korean folk tale Jangha and Hongryun, Kim Ji-woon's brilliant Gothic horror story A Tale of Two Sisters revolves around two sisters, Soo-mi (Lim Su-jeong), and Soo-yeon (Mun Geon-yeong), who are part of a dysfunctional family that live together in a creepy Victorian-style mansion. Feeling alienated from the world, they cling to each other for survival with the older Soo-mi obsessively protecting the younger Soo-yeon against danger. For Soo-mi, however, not coming to terms with the circumstances surrounding her mother's death means mental illness and a mind at odds with reality.<br /><br />While we may recognize staples such as haunted houses with apparitional sightings, doors that open and close on their own, a cruel and overbearing stepmother, and other events of high strangeness, A Tale of Two Sisters superbly explores deeper psychological meanings including the inability to let go of inner demons and the misplaced desire for revenge. Soo-mi says "Do you know what's really scary? You want to forget something. Totally wipe it off your mind. But you never can. It can't go away, you see. And... and it follows you around like a ghost." There is a time line but it is left for the viewer to unravel. The plot cannot be summarized, only suggested and the film keeps us wondering whether what is happening on screen is objective or subjective.<br /><br />In the film's opening, Soo-mi, an obviously disturbed young woman, is being questioned by a doctor in a setting that looks like a mental institution. When the doctor asks her to describe what happened "that day", the film flashes back to when Soo-mi and Soo-Yeon return to the home of their father Moo-hyeon (Kim Kap-su) and stepmother Eun-joo (Yum Jung-ah). The stepmother is hostile and resentful and the father is passive and distant but it is obvious that it is Soo-mi who is really hurting. As the girls try to readjust, they are constantly frightened by a presence in the house, which may be nightmares or supernatural occurrences.<br /><br />Soo-mi sees a figure at the foot of her bed that hovers over her and oozes black blood, a dinner scene in which the guest apparently sees a ghost hiding under the sink and goes into convulsions, a monster emerges from between the legs of one of the sisters, people mysteriously disappear from photographs, and many other maniacal schizophrenic devices to keep the viewer dangling on the edge of insanity. While we sense that much of the story is the projection of someone's mind, we do not know whose and the film keeps us constantly challenged, at least until an important clue is offered in the film's second half.<br /><br />Shot in gorgeous low-light cinematography, A Tale of Two Sisters has a unique elegance and other worldly beauty that transcends all the scares, and there are plenty. It is haunting in more than one sense of the word and its images may stare back at you when you least expect or want them to. While the film may not offer the weary traveler much in the way of light, it shows us where we can end up if we opt for the darkness. In the words of a wise observer, "Blame is never the answer - whether it is blaming yourself or others. Rather, the answer lies in stepping out of judgment entirely - both of yourself AND others. Forgiveness and understanding have great power of healing."

This delectable fusion of New Age babble and luridly bad film-making may not "open" you up, to borrow one of the film's favorite verbs, but it might leave your jaw slack and your belly sore from laughter or retching. Based on the best-selling book by James Redfield, first (self) published in 1993, this cornucopia of kitsch tracks the spiritual awakening of an American history teacher (Matthew Settle) who, on traveling to deepest, darkest, phoniest Peru and sniffing either the air or something else more illegal. Namely what he discovers is a schlock Shangri La populated by smiling zombies who may be nuts or just heavily medicated, perhaps because they're often accompanied by a panpipe flourish and an occasional shout out from a celestial choir. Although there's a lot of talk about "energy," that quality is decidedly missing from the motley cast whose numbers include Thomas Kretschmann, Annabeth Gish, Hector Elizondo and Jurgen Prochnow, all of whom are now firmly ensconced in the camp pantheon. For those who care, the plot involves the military, terrorists and the Roman Catholic Church; Armand Mastroianni provided the inept direction while Mr. Redfield, Barnet Bain and Dan Gordon wrote the hoot of a script. In short, easily the worst film seen in 40+ years of viewing movies.

Oh, my. Oh, this is a *really* bad movie. The acting is absolutely atrocious, the script is god-awful, and the photography is simply dreadful.<br /><br />What does make this movie stand out, however, is that you never once care about a single soul-- good guy or bad guy, living, dying or dead-- in the entire 87 minutes. "Oh, s/he died? Huh... Figured they would" was the best reaction I could muster after each murder. Characters are so black-or-white that with the volume turned off, you could still figure out who was who. While the cast's voices had an odd monotone quality throughout, their faces give the impression that you're looking at an old silent movie with a lot of eyebrow waggling, exaggerated frowns and "pensive looks". Each character is a humorless, passionless, one-dimensional one-trick pony; once they fulfill whatever their particular role in this fiasco demanded their creation, they are summarily dismissed.<br /><br />It vaguely made me think of what would happen if Thomas Borch Nielsen (director/writer of "Skyggen", American title: "Webmaster") decided to do a low-budget version of "American Psycho" and got kind of distracted along the way.<br /><br />This isn't a particularly gruesome movie; the cold, passionless cast ensures that. It isn't an offensive movie; the director plays it so safe that no one could possibly find it so. It is, simply and after all, a bad movie.<br /><br />Avoid it. We were not so fortunate and actually paid to watch this bomb on Pay-per-View. As part of my penance, I'm writing this review.<br /><br />Enough said.

For those that were interested in knowing how exactly humanity came to be encased in big red pods that make me crave pomegranate, there is the duo of the "Second Renaissance" shorts. I'm not exactly sure why they are split into two parts, especially since they're credited as one on the DVD (and are these shorts viewed on any other format but the DVD?), but they're informative even if they have a few gaps.<br /><br />What really makes this first part stand out, from the second part and the rest of the animations as well, is the parallels it shows between robot uprising and civil rights. Graphic homages to slavery, fascism, concentration camps, and mass graves are mixed with verbal references to the Million Man March and humanity's God-complex. In fact, "God" is never really referenced by these shorts, instead replaced by "Man's own image".<br /><br />As far as the shorts go in the collection, "The Second Renaissance: Part I" is by far the most effective in bringing out emotion. It's a sorrowful and disturbing view of the potential of humanity to become "the architect of its own destruction." Some may be turned off by some of the concepts this short rips directly out of previously established science fiction literature, but then again, that's basically what most of the Matrix series has done, and it's been a driving force behind its success.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB

The beginning of this movie was good. It started to get really dumb after he told the people he wanted to kill himself. I think if I came from a little town like that I would be offended after seeing this movie. They made a lot of these people look dumb and crazy. How could these people have so little to do that they follow him around all day. A lot of times these people were telling him ways to kill himself like they were urging him to do it. How can so many people have little respect for other people? I also think they could have made a much better ending for this movie. There were some good parts to this movie also. Some people might like it, but I wouldn't recommend this to anyone.

French cinema had always been very strong when comes the time to present historical subjects. 95 % of the time, they never make errors. This film is of one of the best of the genre, due to very very strong acting by Depardieu and Pszoniak. Wajda work, as the director, is truly a wonder. Everyone should see this great film.

Not even Emeril Lagasse cooking can save this disjointed, overheaded idiotic nonsense, starring emeril lagasse as a TV chef from the food channel,who with help of the crew to try to make the show better, poor plot and stupid script throw this show down the drain, Robert Urich wasted in the poorly supporting role and sadly this was his last one ever(R.I.P.), <br /><br />This is the worst show of 2001 and it will be on the list of the worst shows of this decade.<br /><br />I Feel Very Sorry for Emeril Lagasse for making this sitcom, he even said himself it stunk.<br /><br />It's hard to believe that they are the same producers of designing women that did this mess.<br /><br />TV Review: 1 Star

After reading about this documentary, I rented it and watched it with my teenage children. It was amazingly well-balanced, showing each side's perspective and leaving many questions unanswered. This is as it should be. I don't watch a documentary to be told what to think. I watch it to learn and to draw my own conclusions.<br /><br />Afterward, we took a trip to Waco and visited the Branch Davidians at the site of the conflagration. This was a potent lesson in seeing for yourself. And it drove home the basic underlying honesty behind "Waco: The Rules of Engagement." If you just open your eyes and look, the facts can speak for themselves.

Fay Grim is, on its face, a tale of espionage and intrigue told with a nod and a wink. As the sequel to his extraordinary Henry Fool, Hal Hartley creates a surprising blend of film noir and hardboiled spy thriller that starts with a knowing smile and large dose of laughter and turns as poignant and warm as any film I've seen this year.<br /><br />Parkey Posey is Fay Grim, an unwitting Mata Hari caught between the love of her exiled husband Henry Fool and the questionable intentions of a charming CIA operative. As Agent Fulbright, Jeff Goldblum is a master of wit and sarcasm, in a role that seems tailored to his talents. He has never been better. James Urbaniak is Fay's brother Simon, jailed but renowned for his wildly popular books of poetry. His love of his work and his sister brings a jolt of passion to contrast the dour nature of the spies which eventually populate Fay's world. And Liam Aiken is Fay's oversexed 14 year-old son. Although that may be redundant. Aiken's understated style is remarkably "old soul" for someone his age.<br /><br />The entire film is shot Dutch angle, the off-kilter style made famous by Orson Welles and used primarily in horror films and psychological thrillers to impart a sense of foreboding. In Fay Grim, using that style from opening credits to closing is intriguing at first, deceptively clever the next. For just as the viewer begins to fall for the perfectly timed comedic elements and wit of Hartley's brilliant script, something happens. The film takes a dark yet strangely comforting turn as these characters magically become sympathetic before our eyes. What began as dark comedy morphs into romantic drama, and the transition is masterful. Slow pacing gives way to breathtaking action, and we are sucked right into the vortex.<br /><br />In the end, Hartley's sharp dialog combined with the amazing performances of a perfectly matched ensemble cast makes for a delicious cinematic cocktail. Told with the luxury of one able to write, produce, direct, edit, and even compose the music, Hal Hartley has crafted a smart, sexy tale of espionage with tongue just barely planted in cheek. Fay Grim is one part Dashiell Hammett, one part Raymond Chandler, and one part Ian Fleming, shaken and maybe stirred as well.

I foolishly read the back of the DVD cover of this movie in Best Buy about a year ago, and said to myself, "Seems funny, plus it has Michael Clarke Duncan, how can I lose!" I proceeded to pay $15.99 plus tax for it. I took it over to a friends house and we both stood aghast at how poorly it was written and acted. Wooden performances abound. All the "hilarious" and "outstanding" performances promised never seemed to arrive. After 90 minutes I hung my head in shame, knowing that I could never get that 90 minutes or $15.99 back. I literally almost cried as well, because if that was what could be considered "comedy" I didn't want to believe in movies anymore. My friend and I constantly informed a friend of ours of the horror of this movie to the point that he needed to see it just to understand how bad it was. Over the holiday season this year I watched it with him because he didn't want to watch it alone. This was my next horrible mistake, because as I watched I just became angry. I began to yell at the movie, and I'm not one to talk to movies period. Everyone I know that has even glimpsed this movie has agreed its the worst they've ever seen. My sense of humor is sick and twisted and often offends my friends, but that could not save this movie even. The fact that this movie is not on the bottom 100 list on IMDb is astounding. The fact that its rating (at the time of this writing) is 3.6 is a crime against humanity.