Datasets:

srivatsavaasista

/

textgenerator-ds-mini

like 0

The reviewer who called this movie a bust has clearly missed the point. It's obvious he hasn't been young or innocent in a very long time, or he might have understood that the tragedy of it was that the well-meaning young characters actually thought they COULD make a difference by putting up posters and holding a rave for peace. If only it was that easy. But the cynics sit and sneer at people who earnestly try their best to make things better, as the situation gets worse and worse every single day. Well, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.<br /><br />The central theme is that revenge begets more revenge, which begets even more, in an ever-expanding bloodbath. Both sides will tell you tales of atrocities committed by the other side, which they think justify their committing even MORE in retaliation. Where does it end? And apparently he missed the significance of "the bubble" referred to in the name, which was that people living in Tel Aviv are strangely cut off from the ugly realities of what is going on all around them, which is partly why they seemed so naive. (He also seemed to think that Ashraf could slip through the checkpoints without a problem, which tells me he wasn't paying attention when Ashraf related the delays and problems he had encountered.) <br /><br />I found it very brave of the director, the screenplay writer, and both star-crossed lovers, to update the Romeo & Juliet story to a modern troubled land, and to make both lovers male. Let's be honest here: Very few people would have a problem if one of them had been a female (young love wins all hearts) -- but when people's uneasiness with their sexuality is added to the fact that, incredibly, these same people would rather have them HATE each other, then the conclusion is inevitable.

I watch a lot of movies. A LOT of movies. Getting a graduate degree in film forces one to watch 2-3 flicks a day for years. It all gets very exhausting. Mostly because I feel I have seen it all. So rare is it when I get surprised by something, mostly I hope to see something as good as I expect it to be.<br /><br />Death Bed is so unlike anything I have ever experienced I actually had to stop the DVD in order to rant about its genius.<br /><br />The rhythm of the piece is psychotic. It's structured in a way that forces the viewer to stay outside of the frame. It's not like something like Halloween with all its snappy editing and POV shots; Death bed actually comes across as kind of dreamy. The most pretentious way I can phrase it is: this is Samuel Beckett making a haunted house movie. I mean it's a manic depressive bed that eats people! And fried chicken! Out in the middle of nowhere! And there's bone hands! I can barely articulate my feelings about this film. And yeah, copping to liking this will open you up to ridicule. But things get real same-y after awhile. Its hard to be a cinephile and consistently stay engaged. I can honestly say this is a fully unique film up and down. From what it is to how its put together. We need films like that, movies that shake us out of our complacency. Consider it like existential camp. it's fun and it's stupid, but also brilliant in its weird little way. The worst horror villain of all time? Maybe, but at least it isn't a guy in a mask.

Let me first state that while I have viewed every episode of StarTrek at least twice, I do not consider myself a Trekker or Trekkie. Those are people who live in their parents basement and attend conventions wearing costumes with pointed rubber ears. I gave this movie a seven casting aside the fiction historical errors. The acting was better than average, but the plot held no surprises. They tried very hard to reverse engineer the technology but still the special effects were just to great a temptation. Now as to the historical errors, if you call them that, the first Capitan to pilot the Enterprise was Commander April, then Capt. Pike, Jim Kirk, etc.. According to a statement made by both Riker and Kirk we dicovered the Klingons and educated them and gave them the technology (that's the reason a prime directive was created) but like I said these are no reason to discredit this fine series. I hope the plots will get deeper, and then special effects can take a backseat.

This film has me seriously doubting again whether Armando de Ossorio was a good filmmaker or not... His BLIND DEAD films are praised by many fans. This I can understand. But wanna-be Gothic vampire trite like MALENKA doesn't show any signs from a gifted filmmaker. And that also goes for SERPIENTE DE MAR. It features horrible acting, a dumb plot, stupid events, a lot of other things you can expect from a bad monster-movie and also veteran actor Ray Milland, who does his best to mumble his way through this film while not having much of a clue about what he's doing in it. Apparently Milland was already very ill while shooting SERPIENTE DE MAR (his last theatrical feature) and going out with a ridiculous stinker like this, makes it all the more sad. One last appearance alongside Peter Cushing in a made-for-TV film directed by Roy Ward Baker (also in 1984) doesn't change much about it.<br /><br />But the sock puppet/sea serpent is a hoot to behold. Watch it swirl up a lighthouse and crush it. See it destroy a harbour with miniature boats. Look at it demolish bridges and munch on charming miniature trains.<br /><br />Good Badness? Yes. 3/10 and 7/10

Joseph Conrad's timeless novel, Heart of Darkness, was depicted in the 1994 movie. I have read Conrad's novel, and I must say, even though I prefer the novel itself, the movie was a great depiction. The set and costume designs brought Conrad's novel to life on the screen as we followed Marlow's journey. The acting also brought the characters to life through the mannerisms, voices, and personalities. If you have read the novel, I recommend that you also view this movie. If you have not read the novel, however, the movie may be harder to follow. Conrad's Heart of Darkness is too full of action, emotion, and information to be made into a movie that is a little over an hour and a half long. Therefore, if you have not read the novel, the plot in the movie may seem too cluttered to follow. Overall I gave this movie a seven out of ten. The basic plot of the novel was brought forth to the screen with great sets, costumes, and acting. Nothing can replace Joseph Conrad's original work however.

I am a big fan of the movie, but not for the usual reasons. I think Travolta and Winger performed at higher than average rates, I think the sets were representative of the location and the era, I liked the sound track and the Charlie Daniels Band. However, I think the photography was amazing! Since the interior scenes were filmed in the actual club and Gilley's had low ceilings--perhaps 10-12 feet high and the smoke that was supposed to simulate a "smoke-filled bar" hung 2-4 feet below the ceiling. The Camera managed to get shots through the smoke and focus on the actors, the bull, the bar, the women, the dancing, the low-level of light that actually was in the bar! What a feat! Sure there was auxiliary lighting, but in order to maintain the atmosphere of the bar, it had to be low-light shots. Ray Villalobos (the camera operator) was outstanding! He got some shots he had no hope of achieving and the impact of them brought a sense of reality to the film. Thanks, Ray--Great work!

If you watch the documentary extra, you'll note that the director is totally inexperienced and was actually a co-worker bud of Quentin Tarantinos in a video store. Put two and two together and you realise Quentin is doing a favour for his old bud, despite the bud being rather talentless. Was that harsh? Well see this film and you'll realise it isn't. Too slow in the beginning, too nonsensical in the middle, and too slow to end. That about sums it up. Eric Stolz & Delpy were the only two showing some charisma. And Kemp actually put in an OK performance. But the rest was real bad. One instance of plot stupidity was when "lead robber" accidentally leaves his mask off during the raid. So what happens? Well the other robbers decide they may as well remove theirs too! What great thinking. The violence was relentless and insane. But not in a "cool" way. Rather in a farcical way. I wondered if this was meant to be a comedy. More fool Tarantino for having his good name connected to this garbage. More fool me for watching it.

We bought the DVD of "Walking with Dinosaurs" and have been nearly ecstatic over the things that are done so very well on it.<br /><br />Many DVDs today offer the bare minimum ... the feature itself, and maybe one other language (which doesn't help the viewer at all, but makes it easier for the company to see the DVD in multiple markets). <br /><br />Not so in the case of WWD. There are so many wonderful extras and well-thought-out vignettes that watching even the *navigation menu* is interesting. The intros to each chapter in "The Making Of" DVD are laugh-out-loud funny. The quality of the sound and video is terrific. And of course the story and content ... what more could a dinosaur lover ask for?<br /><br />I did watch most of the version broadcast on TDC (narrated by Avery Brooks) then watched about half of the DVD (narrated by Kenneth Branaugh). As near as I can tell, the broadcast version slipped in a number of mostly American slang terms in the narration (i.e. in a section about T. Rex mating, Branugh says "the female is tiring of the male's attention" and Brooks says, "The honeymoon is over")and cut out some of the closer-in puppet work. I prefer the Branugh version simply because it is more complete.<br /><br />Overall, a great value and wonderful production. many kudos to the BBC and the crew that made this gem.

The story of the bride fair is an amusing and engaging one, and it is to the filmmaker's credit that he sets out to portray rural Minnesotans with the same respect ordinarily reserved for Coast-dwellers. It is weird, though, to find an independent movie, the brainchild of a single person, that is as unambitious and cliché-ridden as a committee-brewed Hollywood potboiler.<br /><br />The portrait of rural people is intended to be affectionate, I think, but these characters don't ring true to me--I have had quite a few meals in small-town diners, but never overheard a debate on the merits of different nineteenth-century English novelists. One might suggest that writer/director Semans has no more experience with rural culture than the Coen brothers, and considerably less satiric verve.

This is a lot of silliness about a woman from London who marries a tea planter from Ceylon whom she barely knows. It's full of cliches, and the Liz Taylor character is not believable. It has a marvelous set, some exotic location footage. It shows Taylor at the height of her beauty. She looks stunning.

Ok, I first saw this movie like at 9:00 on Cinemax a few weeks ago and thought it would be award winning, boy was I 180d on that. This movie bit the big one. I mean, the mother of the monsters shows her true form only at the end of the movie. I'm going " That's it? Why doesn't she show it briefly a little bit more earlier in the movie." The plot being the mother and son feast on the blood of young women. Wouldn't it be better if they just went on, you know, a killing spree killing like a couple of young women each, then having the sheriff or a cop find out about and get into the old find a way to kill the monsters,save the young woman/women, and have 1 or 2 more people killed in the process? I think it would be a hell of a lot better that way. It also sucks because the son is the main character and he gets killed first. Why not get rid of the mother first? Plus, how does she have that strength at the end of the movie when she starts killing people? She said it herself she was too weak. What the heck was wrong with Stephen this time? I can never, ever dis the acting on any movie by any actor, after all, they try their best. If it weren't for good acting, I'd have given this movie a 1/10. 3/10.

Rare and auspicious are the moments in film-making when greatness stands as a defining monument for the rest of the industry to measure themselves against and for us to immerse in that glorious moment.<br /><br />Some stories transcend their time and aspire to the lofty reaches of a classic and the stuff of legends. Throw in the refined skills of an ensemble cast of thespians who are at the very top of their game.<br /><br />"Where has all the originality gone?" It is here, as this story and it's cast sashay through a plot and story that will not only educate but also entertain even the most seasoned of Shakespearean/action/love story connoisseurs.<br /><br />I cannot begin to imagine where the writers dreamed up this extraordinary tale. Where do geniuses get this kind of inspiration? I now have hope for mankind, knowing that this kind of talent still exists gives me hope that we will make it to the stars and beyond, perhaps to the very gates of heaven.<br /><br />I have, like others before me, dreamed of greatness. Though I did not write this movie I did see it and because of this movie's noble greatness, I feel as if I have been elevated to a higher level of being, a higher level of spiritual wholeness.<br /><br />It is no wonder this kind of glory eludes most of us. What would become of our world if we all could attain this level of magnificence? We would probably be consumed in a white fire of super-nova glory as we evolve into trans-dimensional spiritual beings capable of omnipotent creative power.<br /><br />The most important thing to know, with all your heart and the very essence of your being, is that "Tomcats" is nothing like what I have been talking about. "Tomcats" is the antithesis of all I mentioned. It could very well destroy our world. For as some reviewers rate a movie on a star system, i.e. 1 through 5 stars, or even zero stars, I'm going to rate "Tomcats" a black hole.<br /><br />I am willing to donate money to a cause that will put a stop to these kinds of atrocities that, as of late, seem to be running amuck at box offices. I'm not even adverse to the use of nuclear weapons. It must stop. How much more of this can we take before aliens from outer space come down here and blow up our planet because we have so many stupid, crass, vulgar, unimaginative, and degrading movies spewing out of Hollywood? I'm not even going to dignify this movie by mentioning anyone's name that starred or produced it. I'm not even going to waste my time describing the story, since we've seen it a ba-zillion times, and all of the past versions were at least a ga-zillion times better.<br /><br />By the way my head nearly imploded during this movie, but with supreme selfless effort and lots-o-luck I survived to warn the public. You have been warned.

There is a clever little scene in The Karen Carpenter Story, where both Carpenters are in a recording studio, and Richard makes an impromptu decision to have Karen sing for the owner of the studio.<br /><br />Richard picks the wrong key for Karen to sing in, so Karen is singing above her natural range. You can see a look of bemusement on the owner's face; he figures she really can't sing. Richard quickly realizes his mistake and tries again in a different key. The next thing you hear is Karen's amazing, beautiful voice, and the owner does a priceless double take. Nicely done! For some reason, I have never forgotten that scene.<br /><br />The Karen Carpenter Story chronicles the meteoric rise of the Carpenters, and Karen's struggle to overcome anorexia. A lot of things are glossed over. This isn't a documentary, and the movie left me with a lot of questions. Very little is mentioned of Karen's solo venture (the CD was released only a few years ago. If you buy it, you will wonder why they waited. It's some of Karen's best work. The songs aren't as timeless as her work with brother Richard, but it was a great recording, in my opinion).<br /><br />I have heard it said that, you can be listening to a cheap, time-worn little radio in the middle of the Third World, that would seem to produce more static than anything else. But when a Carpenter song comes on the radio, you would think you were listening to a $1000 Hi-Fidelity unit.<br /><br />Watch this movie!

One of the most interesting things is that this 1988 film is highly touted as an `in-name only' sequel. There's nothing wrong with that except this: The return of Chevy Chase as Ty Webb. This connects the viewer to this character (from the original Caddyshack in 1980,) and makes fans thinking or wanting Caddyshack II to be similar to the first one.<br /><br />There are rumors that Rodney Dangerfield was supposed to return. He carried a big part of the first film, so his return would have put Caddyshack 2 over the top. Jackie Mason is the `new' Rodney for this movie and does a decent job, even though their comic deliveries are way different. Dan Aykroyd was great but not in the film enough. He should have been involved to the tune of how much screen time Bill Murray got in the first one. Robert Stack (Airplane!) was good in the `new' Ted Knight/Villian role. (We miss you, Ted!) Danny Noonan should have been back. So many others could have returned to show us what happened to their characters eight years later. Bushwood should not have undergone the total makeover it did. Instead, the characters involved, rather than the club itself, should have been the main focus like they were in the first one. When you watch this film, keep in mind that it isn't a major sequel and you may think it's another good or bad eighties comedy. Fans of the first should see it but don't be shocked when the comparisons between the original and Part II are so far apart.

This is the essence of the early eighties! The malls, the credit card machines, the food, the punk hair color, the soundtrack... I am in love with this movie. This sweet, intelligent Romeo & Juliet teen flick is instantly addictive.<br /><br />Martha Coolidge is one of my favorite directors. She really employs her actors, like John Hughes and Steven Soderberg, so check out -Joy of Sex- and -Real Genius-. The soundtracks for -Valley Girl- are great. If you can find a copy of the film, buy it! It's out of print and very hard to come by.

This film was absolutely awful, I even feel uncomfortable calling it a film. Its the typical "mumblecore" movie, with zero plot and a bunch of aimless whiny twenty somethings stumbling around trying to "figure stuff out". I have tried to give mumblecore a chance, but lets be honest its just horrible.<br /><br />I am not out of sync with cinema, I appreciate Dogme95 films, Idioterne is one of my all time favorite films. So I do not mind if a film is cheaply made so long as there is some (ANY) substance.<br /><br />Everything in this film is horrid, the acting, the writing (or was it all improvised?), the direction, but MOST of all, above everything else, the camera work was just plain and simple nonsense. The camera was never anywhere logical, there was no consistency. I got to admit being a guy I had heard there was nudity in this film so I thought to myself well even if its horrible at least there's nudity (yea I know, I'm a jerk). Well thanks to the uber crappy camera-work you never really get to see anything, and the things you do see, TRUST ME - YOU DO NOT WANT TO SEE. This film made me want to vomit on numerous levels.<br /><br />The dialogue made me want to vomit, the camera-work made me want to vomit, but mostly the idea that this film was praised by some legit critics, well now that more than anything makes me want to vomit.

I was unlucky enough to have seen this at the Sidewalk Film Festival. Sidewalk as a whole was a disappointment and this movie was the final nail in the coffin. Being a devout fan of Lewis Carroll's 'Alice' books I was very excited about this movie's premier, which only made it that much more uncomfortable to watch. Normally I'm enthusiastic about modern re-tellings if they are treated well. Usually it's interesting to see the parallels between the past and present within a familiar story. Unfortunately this movie was less of a modern retelling and more of a pop culture perversion. The adaptation of the original's characters seemed juvenile and usually proved to be horribly annoying. It probably didn't help that the actors weren't very good either. Most performances were ridiculously over the top, which I assume was either due to bad direction or an effort to make up for a bad script. I did not laugh once through out the duration of the film. All of the jokes were outdated references to not so current events that are sure to lose their poignancy as time goes by. Really, the only highlight of the film was the opening sequence in which the white rabbit is on his way to meet Alice, but even then the score was a poor imitation of Danny Elfman's work. Also, I'd have to say that the conversion of the croquet game into a rave dance-off was awful. It was with out a doubt the low point of the film.<br /><br />What a joke. Don't see this movie. After its conclusion I was genuinely angry.

Seriously any film with John Malkovich is usually very good. And this includes Clint Eastwood, Rene Russo, John Mahoney (Frasier), Dylan McDermott (The Practice), and many more great actors.<br /><br />Clint is getting old now but thanks he is also an awesome director (in his own right).<br /><br />We are used to Wolfgang "water films" like Das Boot, Poseidon and Perfect Storm - this was really different but just as sublimely directed.<br /><br />The premise of the assassin is as serious as it comes, the film is well paced, some of the violence is a bit... But altogether recommended (but not for kids).

For a Norris movie this is pretty tame. For an action movie it is kind of dull, and as far as predictability goes my friend and I almost had every turn of this movie nailed. It was nice that the killer's every moves were not telegraphed by the cliche's of 80's action movies, but come on, the only non-predictable move defies the plot and the set-up of the editing. Mainly, it is said rather early on that the killer (Jack O'Halloran, whom is one of the few slightly known actors) only kills women. YET, he all of a sudden stops his M.O. and kills men, huh?. I guess it can be construed and rationalized some way, but why is the movie edited to show that he is going to kill women?? <br /><br />Yet again, I'm sure that there is a reason (i.e. to build suspense), but why spend the time watching it when many other suspense movies are vastly superior.<br /><br />Fans of "Renegade" may enjoy the small cameo by Branscombe Richmond as Victor, but his brief appearence cannot save the movie and even a vote of 4 seems generous.<br /><br />

This British film version of the stage play I AM A CAMERA is based on Christopher Isherwood's "Berlin Stories." This is the source material for the famous musical CABARET.<br /><br />Julie Harris, a major stage actress of her day, reprises her 1951 Tony Award winning role as Sally Bowles. She's a far cry from the Liza Minnelli character but the basic "Sally" is all here despite the various film codes that would have blocked this story from being filmed in Hollywood. Harris is perhaps stagy but she's also quite good as the madcap and maddening Sally. Her singing number is obviously dubbed (by Marlene Dietrich no less) although Harris apparently sings for herself in other moments.<br /><br />Laurence Harvey (with the very ugly hair) plays Isherwood with zero charm and can't even make the character interesting. Shelley Winters does little with the role of Natalia (Marian Winters won a supporting Tony for the play), and Anton Diffring is OK as Fritz. Ron Randell plays the caddish Clive but seems a tad loud. Lee Seidl is funny as the landlady.<br /><br />Yet despite the overall staginess and cheap look, Harris takes center stage and she is amazing. This film was released the same year as EAST OF EDEN in which Harris gives a glowing performance as Abra. Comparing the two performances gives a good look at the talent Miss Harris possesses. These two characters couldn't be more unalike. Harris' Sally preens and prances about and growls out a very lascivious laugh. She also acts circles around the boring Harvey.<br /><br />Without the music and with a familiar storyline, many viewers may find little here to recommend this film, but it's a great chance to see the great Julie Harris repeating what was probably a very shocking role in 1951.

While I don't claim to be any sort of expert in marine life, I must say anyone with a modicum of intelligence could not possibly buy in to this notion of a whale (and not even the mother!) having a clue about revenge because it witnessed his dead mate having a forced abortion by humans! I mean, really! This is basically the whole plot. Richard Harris must have been extremely hard up for roles to have accepted this junk. This is the kind of movie that is so bad that if you paid 50 cents to see it, you would feel like demanding your money back.

Honestly I can't understand why this movie rates so well here, nor why Bakshi himself thought it was his finest film. I'm a huge fan of Bakshi's earlier work - particularly 'Heavy Traffic' and 'Wizards', but frankly 'Wizards' (1977) was the last good film he made. After that he turned to the mainstream, beginning with the diabolical 'Lord of the Rings' and then knuckling down with sword and sorcery heavyweight Frank Frazetta, for 'Fire and Ice'.<br /><br />What can I say? The story is puerile, the animation is TV quality - I insist that it's considerably worse than his 70's stuff - and whereas 'Wizards' had real imagination, quirkiness, some gorgeous background art, and an underground, adult sensibility, 'Fire and Ice' is just designed for 14 year old boys, and has the intellectual clout of Robinson Crusoe on Mars.<br /><br />Yes, if you liked the Gor books, you might like this. In my view though, this was just another blip in the slide in quality after 'Wizards' from which Bakshi never recovered (though he's done some decent TV stuff fairly recently)<br /><br />4.5 out of 10

wow this is the worst movie ever. the only reason i signed up for IMDb was so i could complain about this movie. i have never walked out of a theater or stoped a DVD but i almost stopped this one (and i should have). but i watched it all the way to the end just to get let down again with an absolutely terrible ending. wow if this is all that wes craven can produce his time is long up. I've never seen the first one and will never after watching this. its terrible acting with a terrible plot. hey looks someone is shinning a mirror at us lets go check it out. and the sad part is that when this movie came to DVD it was completely checked out at blockbuster forever. so i feel bad for all the people that saw this junk.

Well, this movie shows us that Mark Griffiths and producers think we all are idiots. If not how should we understand this:<br /><br />American pilots take off on Mig-29s. Suddenly all aircrafts turn to F-16s. Ha, a magic! After an action... Migs land. The magic again!<br /><br />Oh, did I mention that F-16s had Israel markings? <br /><br />Another magic: obviously unarmed L-39 trainers are bombing enemies.<br /><br />And more magic: while all movie is situated in Europe, we can see a desert in almost any flying scene.<br /><br />Maybe the director wasted all his magic on things above, because action scenes are incredibly chaotic and also explosions look awfully as if pilots bombarded with molotovs.<br /><br />OK, OK, this is a movie. I should write about its story... wait. A story? Yes there is SOME story in this film. And its horrible as well.

Butter Battle is an entertaining story about two fictional cities and their arms race. It is also as misguided allegory about the Cold-War and arms races in general. Yes, it is a children's book, but like so many of Theodor Seuss Geisel's works it hits people over the head with its moral.<br /><br />And that moral is what, exactly? Sure it is laudable to encourage us to concentrate more on what unites us than what divides us. It is even a good thing to encourage international cooperation. But to equate the differences between the Warsaw Pact nations and the Nato west to a difference in butter application is just plain wrong. To point out the obvious, many Warsaw Pact nations enjoyed intermittent periods of shortages of butter and bread -- they would have been happy to eat it butter sideways if it were available. On a less literal level, and whatever your political inclination, Soviet socialism versus Western (particularly Anglo-American) democracy is not a mere question of preference and custom.<br /><br />To make the point even clearer, nuclear weapons were not developed in a Cold War with the Soviets, but in a hot war with the Axis powers. There is no doubt that Germany was developing nuclear capability during the war. Should the US have refrained from nuclear weapons research putting their trust in their (less than inevitable) victory in the conventional war? Once the weapons were developed they were used against the enemy who attacked us at Pearl Harbor. What does a nation do at this point when the genie is out of the bottle? Furthermore, hindsight is 20-20, which is to say that there was no way of assuring another half crazed dictator wouldn't crop up with his eyes on developing nuclear weapons. The second Gulf War has shown the incredible difficulty in ascertaining credible threats and neutralizing them.<br /><br />In any event, the cartoon is little more than simplistic propaganda which does little to explore the nuances of the ethical questions behind nuclear armament and instead tries to inculcate fear of weapons technology into children.

I think that movie can`t be a Scott`s film. That is impossible. Do you remember Blade Runner? And Alien? Two greats movies versus a one. I hope didn´t see ever it. good bye!!

Carlos Mencia continually, violently, hatefully screaming "B**ch!" at women is like screaming "N**ger!" at black people, except it's worse. Remember, the B word, unlike the N word, is the only pejorative term that is still associated on a daily basis with violence. "B**ch!" is the last thing women hear before they are raped, beaten, or murdered. This guy is perpetuating violence by hatefully using the language of violence. Sounds like he may be a gay guy trying to cover by woman-bashing, so that he will sound like a hetero. And how about all the Nazi white guys in his audience giving the fascist salutes while their stupid little bimbo white women whimper tee hee hee at their side, clearly terrified to protest this tidal wave of woman-hating. Tee hee hee. Bet Mencia doesn't believe or support free speech for THEM! Come on, Carlos – do you want women to have the free speech to b**ch-slap you as loudly and violently and big-mouthed as you do, or do you think "free speech" is only for men to crap on women???

I saw this film when I was a young child on television (thank-you Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) and had nightmares about it for years afterwards.<br /><br />Trnka was one of the mentors for Bratislav Pojar, one of Canada's National Film Board's best animators. Pojar was, in turn a mentor and collaborator for the great Drouin. If you like Trnka you should see "Night Angel".<br /><br />The symbolism is obvious, but deftly used. The oppositions of beauty and life (the plant) are placed in opposition with the anonymity of the gloved hand. The poor puppet hero is condemned despite a lack of political agenda.<br /><br />What I most remembered was the feeling of oppression in the decor. The small room where the action takes place is the character's entire world. The invasion by the hand is a complete violation of that world.<br /><br />Beautiful and haunting film. I found a copy of this and other wonderful shorts by Trnka at the public library and showed it to my own kids. A must see.

Most of the comments have been positive but I would like to add that viewers should also focus on the sets. The set designer used a lot of beautiful art deco treatments along with beautiful buildings, stairs, doors, furniture and so forth. It is worth paying attention to. The movie is driven by characterization and symbolism which is very rich. All the gangster actors were cast - it was like seeing old friends and it was a treat. The dialog was amusing at times but stilted at times and I suppose it was meant to be that way. This is a film buff's film. It was made by people, for people who love the medium. Don't miss this one.

Now I remember what the 'indie' filmmakers were ripping off before Pulp Fiction. It was David Lynch, right?<br /><br />I hunted this thing down to see Kyle Secor. What a waste of a perfectly good Bayliss. It was so painful to watch him, sort of like when someone you love is horribly sick and there's nothing you can do.<br /><br />Nearly every cliche in the book: the desert, the psycho, the quirky mob boss, the biker, Tracy Walker (who fortunately was only in one scene, but I kept expecting him to reappear and say something strange and profound like "If a man wants to know where he's going, he's got to look at where he's been," or some contrived garbage like that). I have a theory as to why so many indies are short on location in the desert. I think it's because they can save money on lighting.<br /><br />If you like to be in pain, find this movie and give it a viewing. If you're a fan of Kyle Secor, watch reruns of Homicide on Court TV. If you want a good, quirky road thriller, check out Wild At Heart.<br /><br />There is a reason that no one has heard of Delusion! My god, what a waste of a good title.

This is the second movie about 1985, the other one was 'The Wedding Singer'. Whilst the 'Wedding Singer' was portraying the pop side of the 80's, 'Rock Star' is all about metal.<br /><br />Mark Wahlberg plays a talented singer in a tribute band of some famous rock act of the time and Jennifer Aniston plays his girlfriend. When his fixation rewards him, his whole life changes in a day.<br /><br />The story doesn't get too dramatic and it only scratches the surface of the life of a rock star. Sex and drugs are very limited in this movie, but it is full of Rock'n Roll! The music is fantastic and the concerts are directed brilliantly! The whole concert feeling is very well captured, since they used real audiences (no cgi here).<br /><br />Great direction and a brilliant performance by Marky Mark, who acts like a true metal dude!<br /><br />'Rock Star' is all about fun and if you had anything to do with the old metal scene, you are going to love this movie!<br /><br />10/10

This film caught me by surprise. My friend told me that this movie was a "chick flick." Boy, was he wrong! This movie has a great family appeal, with no sex scenes like _other_ movies. Jake Gyllenhaal does an excellent job in Homer Hickam's shoes. The supporting cast is great, as well.<br /><br />Science, coming-of-age, family quarrels, a great train scene... This film has it all. The soundtrack is good, although the score is presented quite choppily. The 50s music kicks the movie over the edge of greatness.<br /><br />The DVD is definitely worth its weigh in coal. Replay value is great - I've seen it quite a few times already.

This movie can best be described as a very long episode of a very bad sitcom. How many vaguely humorous misunderstandings can you cram into just one movie? Notes are misplaced, bags are switched, conversations are misheard, people get mixed up, situations are misinterpreted, and somewhere along the line people are supposed to laugh about something. The writers are really struggling to keep everything going, which makes the dialogues feel really forced. If anyone in this movie acted like a real person all this would be resolved in around two minutes or so and everyone could go back to their lives, but they have to keep the misunderstandings going. At times this movie also tries to go for some juvenile laughs, but all those do is remember you about how funny "American Pie" was. The scene with the nerd telling the hooker (who he thinks is a foreign exchange student) to "eat his sausage" goes on forever, not one second of it is funny. I've got to give this movie some credit though: because of the subplot about stolen money, it's not as boring as it could have been. It also has a laugh here and there, but then sadly goes back to yet another character misunderstanding stuff. Overall this movie is just way too lame.

Elfriede Jelinek, not quite a household name yet, is a winner of the Nobel prize for literature. Her novel spawned a film that won second prize at Cannes and top prizes for the male and female leads. Am I a dinosaur in matters of aesthetic appreciation or has art become so debased that anything goes?<br /><br />'Gobble, gobble' is the favoured orthographic representation in Britain of the bubbling noise made by a turkey. In the film world a turkey is a monumental flop as measured by box office receipts or critical reception. 'Gobble, gobble' and The Piano Teacher are perfect partners.<br /><br />The embarrassing awfulness of this widely praised film cannot be overstated. It begins very badly, as if made to annoy the viewer. Credits interrupt inconsequential scenes for more than 11 minutes. We are introduced to Professor Erika Kohut, apparently the alter ego of the accoladed authoress, a stony professor of piano. She lives with her husky and domineering mum. Dad is an institutionalised madman who dies unseen during what passes for the action.<br /><br />Reviewing The Piano Teacher is difficult, beyond registering its unpleasantness. What we see in the film (and might read in the book, for all I know) is a tawdry, exploitative, nonsensical tale of an emotional pendulum that swings hither and thither without moving on.<br /><br />Erika, whose name is minimally used, is initially shown as a person with intense musical sensitivity but otherwise totally repressed. Not quite, because there's a handbags at two paces scene with her gravelly-voiced maman early on that ends with profuse apologies. If a reviewer has to (yawn) extract a leitmotif (why not use a pretentious word when a simpler one would do), Elrika's violently alternating moods would be it.<br /><br />A young hunk, Walter, studying to become a 'low voltage' engineer, whatever that is, and playing ice hockey in his few leisure moments, is also a talented pianist. He encounters Elrika at an old-fashioned recital in a luxury apartment in what may or may not be Paris. In the glib fashion of so much art, he immediately falls in love and starts to 'cherchez la femme'.<br /><br />Repressed Erika has a liking for hardcore pornography, shown briefly but graphically for a few seconds while she sniffs a tissue taken from the waste basket in the private booth where she watches.<br /><br />Walter performs a brilliant audition and is grudgingly accepted as a private student by Erika, whose teaching style is characterised by remoteness, hostility, discouragement and humiliation.<br /><br />He soon declares his love and before long pursues Erika into the Ladies where they engage in mild hanky panky and incomplete oral sex. Erika retains control over her lovesick swain. She promises to send him a letter of instruction for further pleasurable exchanges.<br /><br />In the meantime, chillingly jealous because of Walter's kindness to a nervous student who is literally having the shits before a rehearsal for some future concert, Erika fills the student's coat pocket with broken glass, causing severe lacerations to those delicate piano-playing hands.<br /><br />The next big scene (by-passing the genital self-mutilation, etc) has Walter turning up at the apartment Erika shares with her mother. Erika want to be humiliated, bound, slapped, etc. Sensible Walter is, for the moment, repulsed and marches off into the night.<br /><br />At this point there's still nearly an hour to go. The viewer can only fear the worst. Erika tracks down Walter to the skating rink where he does his ice hockey practice. They retire to a back room. Lusty Wally is unable to resist the hands tugging at his trousers. His 'baby gravy' is soon expelled with other stomach contents. Ho hum.<br /><br />Repulsed but hooked, perhaps desirous of revenge for the insult so recently barfed on the floor, Walter returns to Erika's apartment. Can you guess what happens now? It's not very deep or difficult. Yes, he becomes a brute while Erika becomes a victim. One moment he's locking maman in her room and slapping Erika, the next he's kicking her in the face, having sex with her and renewing his declarations of love. <br /><br />Am I being unfair in this summary? Watch the film if you want, but I'd advise you not to.<br /><br />Anyone can see eternity in a grain of sand if they're in the right mood. I could expatiate at the challenging depiction of human relationships conveyed by this film if I wanted. But I 'prefer not to', because this is a cheap and nasty film that appeals to base instincts and says nothing.<br /><br />I'm supposed to say that parentally repressed Erika longs for love, ineffectively seeks it in pornography, inappropriately rejects it when it literally appears, pink and throbbing, under her nose, belatedly realises that she doesn't like being hurt, blah, blah, blah.<br /><br />The world has, for reasons not explained, stunted her. She apparently makes a monster out of someone who appeared superficially loving - but surely we all know that any man is potentially a violent rapist, because that's his essential nature however much he tries to tell himself and the world otherwise.<br /><br />At the end, if you have the patience to be there, there's a small twist. Before going to the final scene, where she's due to perform as a substitute for the underwear-soiling student with the lacerated hands, Erika packs a knife in her handbag. For Walter?<br /><br />Yes, you're ahead of me. She stabs herself in a none life-threatening area and leaves. Roll credits.<br /><br />If this earned the second prize at Cannes, just how bad were the rest of the entries?

Except for the Brady Variety Hour, this was some of the hokiest television I've seen in a while. The video production qualities weren't too bad, but the overall look and feel were unmistakeably early 80's. And Marie Osmond looks like she did battle with the Avon Lady.. and lost big time. WAY too much eyeliner.<br /><br />It was kind of embarrassing to watch veterans Danny Kaye and Eric Severeid take part in this. Even more interesting was watching Alex Haley talk about the African Pavillion in World Showcase that would be opening 'in about a year.'<br /><br />As of this writing it is 17 years later and it hasn't opened yet (Unless you count Disney's Animal Kingdom.) All in all though, for all the shortcomings, this still an interesting visual piece of Disney history.

Okay, I am a fan of the Nightmare series and everyone says on here that this is the worst! But it's NOT!!! Haven't's you seen Freddy's Revenge??? WTF! That was the worst of all!!! Now this movie is pretty decent and it sticks to the Freddy story and it's cool that he had a daughter etc. etc.<br /><br />And then I found out it was in 3-D!!! I was so excited, I remember when I saw it on the DVD box set I instantly skipped to the 3-D sequences. Quite a lot was in 3-D though like Lisa Zanes hand, Dream Demons, Freddy's Claw (more than once), Lezlie Dean holding a knife, Lisa Zane with a Baseball Bat, Doc's hand, Freddy's head exploding.<br /><br />I truly loved this movie because it was in 3-D, but I wish the whole movie was in 3-D not just the last 15 minutes.<br /><br />By the Way it's 15 minutes NOT TEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is one of the weakest soft porn film around. I can't believe somebody wrote this stupid story before making some changes. The guy Mike is a major wimp and moron I can't believe he didn't want to take a shower with his bride-to-be Toni and be in a threesome with the french photographer Jan. He does do a threesome with Toni and Kristi but that was short I hate that every time in Soft Core Porn Films threesomes between a woman, a man, and a woman is short but a girl-girl thing is about an hour. To the makers of these films have the threesomes alot longer this film should've have two threesome scenes not one but two.

At least something good came out of Damon Runyon's misguided attempt to sentimentalize the Mafia. "Guys and Dolls," the seemingly indestructible stage musical, was captured on film in 1955 by Joseph L. Mankiewicz ("All About Eve") in a colorful, enjoyable movie that featured an all-star cast including Vivian Blaine (from the original Broadway show), Jean Simmons (whose character bears an odd resemblance to Audrey Hepburn in "Roman Holiday") and two of the all-time great leading men, Frank Sinatra and Marlon Brando, both of whom had recently won Oscars for Best Supporting Actor ("From Here To Eternity") and Best Actor ("On the Waterfront") and were on the top of their game. One listen to Brando singing "Luck Be a Lady Tonight" speaks volumes about where the early Dylan got his voice. Stubby Kaye steals the show as Nicely Nicely Johnson, who brings down the house with "Sit Down You're Rocking The Boat." The ubiquitous Sheldon Leonard adds yet another page to his rogue's gallery of screen gangsters. The film has a bright, cartoonish look, anticipating the Pop Art of the early 1960s. The characters speak in a stylized patois, apparently based on Yiddish idioms. Although the film's social attitudes and gender roles are dated, it's all great fun, and even the gentle kidding of the Salvation Army is harmless and reflects no real animosity toward organized religion. Just seeing Sinatra and Brando in the same film is reason enough to watch this movie, but it has lots of other attractions to offer during its 149 minutes.

Great movie! oh yeah! Full of energy, full of fun, presenting our generation, our alienation: a hymn to positive thinking despite this world we live in, a tale of a great party, a tale of a bunch of friends who desperately must do something in a week end and the only thing to do is The Club. But fun and extasy keep boredom away! Very funny, nicely grotesque in a few points, nicely shot... and great soundtrack!

Spunky journalist Holly Hunter produces investigative news reports for a major news network. She's a motor-mouthed maverick, dazzlingly good at her job and with little time for romantic relationships. Enter William Hurt and Albert Brooks, two men who vie for her love.<br /><br />Brooks is an old school journalist who adores Holly because she represents everything good about journalism. They both believe that the media exists to test the Gods, educate the public and fight for truth. Children of the sixties, they embody hippie values. They're defenders of the public good. Knights who fight valiantly with pen and camera.<br /><br />William Hurt, in contrast, is a far more complex character. Initially awkward, clumsy and self-depreciating, he gradually reveals himself to be a sexy and manipulative high achiever, skilled at climbing the corporate ladder. Unlike Holly and Brooks, he's symbolic of modern media values: news as spectacle, journalism as entertainment, news anchor as celebrity, truth as subject to editing board. We want to despise him and his blip-time junk food journalism, but we just can't quite manage it. He's playing the game by its own rules. Do we condemn him for lacking a moral backbone? Do we condemn the game? Can the game exist if its rules are disobeyed? How have these rules evolved? <br /><br />This isn't Lumet's and Chayefsky's "Network", and so the film never bothers to answer or raise these questions. Content to keep things on the level of light comedy, it ends with Hurt being promoted to London Division and Brooks being booted to a tiny community network. Holly, having rejected both men, remains caught between them. The last bastion of media integrity, this spunky reporter remembers her roots, mourns the loss of Brooks and warns herself to be on the guard of future William Hurts.<br /><br />It's a cute ending, but compared to "Network" the film seems positively trite. Chayefsky's vision is one in which global media, despite its ubiquity, offers less meaningful information. He foresees a world in which globalisation has homogenized cultures, information has become subject to corporatisation and a handful of media monopolies control all international news. This is a world in which the truth is subject to shareholder meetings and economic interests. A world in which viewer ratings determine content and opinion polls dictate top stories. <br /><br />Perhaps this is why "Broadcast News", which longs for the glory days of journalism, ends on such a bittersweet note. It knows what the future holds. Made in 1987, its been living it for at least a decade.<br /><br />But today, in the digital age, things are even worse. Mergers and acquisitions have left a very small number of massive firms dominating the communication landscape. With this has come the hyper-commercialism of content, the barrier between the creative/editorial side and the commercial side all but collapsed. Today everyone might be able to start their own blog or website, but these are grass roots affairs. As the communication reach of the individual increases (due to technological progress - email, internet, electricity, air mail etc) the size of the individual's world increases likewise. He must project his voice both further and louder, futilely battling that deafening white noise, the incessant verbal static that is the global community.<br /><br />So ultimately you need two things according to democratic theory. Firstly, you need a rigorous coming of people in power and people who want to be in power, both in the private and public sector. Secondly, you need a wide range of informed opinions on all important issues of the day. In a democratic society the media system as a whole should produce this sort of culture. Unfortunately, the structure we currently have in the global system works directly against the needs of democratic journalism and a democratic society. <br /><br />8/10 – This is lightweight stuff, but a witty script, some funny moments and a brief cameo by Jack Nicholson, elevate it above most other films about journalism. Interestingly, unlike most films about the media, it never dips into satire, and instead plays things as a straight love triangle.<br /><br />Worth one viewing.

I did not expect a lot from this movie, after the terrible "Life is a Miracle". It turns out that this movie is ten times worse than "Life ...". I have impression that director/writer is just joking with the audience: " let me see how much emptiness can you (audience) sustain". Dialogues are empty, ... scenario is minimalistic. In few moments, photography is really nice. Few sarcastic lines are semi-funny, but it is hard to genuinely laugh during this "comedy". I've laughed to myself for being able to watch the movie until the end. If you can lift yourself above this director's fiasco, ... you will find good acting of few legends (Miki Manojlovic, Aleksandar Bercek), and very good performance of Emir's son Stribor Kusturica.<br /><br />In short: too bad for such a great director ! Emir Kusturica is still young and should be making top-rated movies. Instead, he chooses to do this low-budget just-for-my-private theater movie, with arrogant attitude toward the world trends and negligence toward his old fans.

Okay, I've always been a fan of Batman. I loved the animated series, and even Batman Beyond. I even read a batman comic now and then. So as can be imagined--I was a little excited when I heard about this series, and then I was SEVERELY disappointed. This series is nothing. It doesn't even begin to compare with the original series. It's like one long TOY commercial. No depth whatsoever. And what the heck was with the Joker? Who,in my most humble opinion, is the best Batman villain of ALL time and they KILLED him. I wish I could say his design was the worst part. Actually, I wish I could say there was anything about this series that was remotely creative or interesting. In short (because believe me I could say so much more)do NOT waste your time on this show, or your money.

I had the displeasure of watching this movie with my girlfriend, who, like me, is a fan of the first. This movie down right sucked! It lacked the magic of the first. You could actually understand every word the mice said, the animation is crappy, the palace is much much different from the first movie, there's new characters that were never mentioned before and were terrible, luckily the Prince didn't have many lines which kept him from sounding stupid. Basically its like The Lion King 1 1/2 except its different stories all told by the mice. The reason I'm giving this a 2 out of 10 is because the songs not sung by the characters were the most enjoyable.

Two stars <br /><br />Amanda Plummer looking like a young version of her father, Christopher Plummer in drag, stars in this film along with Robert Forster--who really should have put a little shoe black on top of that bald spot.<br /><br />I've never seen Amanda Plummer in a good film. She always plays these slightly wacky characters in films that don't quite add up, and she does so yet again in this one.<br /><br />Firstly, we have two young women, sisters, who don't resemble in the slightest, who allow themselves to be picked up, separately, by questionable men along the roadways.<br /><br />Amanda's character, Sandra, does at least have a good reason for allowing Dr. Jake (Robert Forster)to pick her up in the first place. She has been run off the road, seemingly by a maniac, and her car is pretty much destroyed.<br /><br />Warning - Spoilers ahead! <br /><br />However, as we go along, we realize Dr. Jake is not playing with a full deck any more than Amanda is. He makes every decision based on the flip of a coin.<br /><br />When Dr. Jake and Amanda arrive at a motel, who do we see but the maniac's car, and what does Amanda do but get inside his station wagon and start snooping around. What her motive was for doing this is never clear considering the man is apparently dangerous and might try to kill her. One would think the last thing she would do is place herself in such a precarious situation.<br /><br />Not only does she snoop around, but she finds some money and takes it.<br /><br />Shortly after this we have several other things that don't add up.<br /><br />Dr. Jake, with Amanda as his passenger, runs out of gas, and the two of them abandon his car and begin walking. One would think crossing a desert, he would have checked his gas gauge--this seems a very unlikely thing for him to allow to happen. Then later, he is seen driving the same car. When or how did he get the car back? <br /><br />Dr. Jake tells Amanda he knows she has taken the money. Now how would he know that? He didn't see her do it as far as I know, and she didn't tell him she did it.<br /><br />Then later we have a character named Santini (David Thewlis), the man who was driving the station wagon, give the two of them a lift and I'll be darned if he doesn't know Amanda took the money as well. How would he know that? <br /><br />It loses credibility at an alarming rate the further we go.<br /><br />When Alice, Amanda's sister (Fairuza Balk)gets in the clutches of the killer and decides her fate on the toss of a coin - one would think she would be very, very careful that the coin she swaps for a trick coin would definitely be the trick coin - but apparently it isn't.<br /><br />It's jarring things like this, that destroy any credibility this movie may have had.

This is one of those films that makes you want the time you spent watching it back, and then some, like the time you spent accidentally picking it out, the time you spent getting to the video store, etc.<br /><br />First off, the look: It's grainy, it's low budget. Now that in itself doesn't make for a bad film. But the way it was filmed makes the action look unnatural, so that's kind of distracting.<br /><br />Then, the story. 3 gals go on a gal's weekend away from guys. Of course, as EVERYONE does when going on a camping trip, they stop on the way to get earrings. When they arrive at the area in which they're going to stay, they get pulled over by Mr. Ranger Sir, who scolds them for throwing a lit cigarette out of the car at fire season, and then drives them where they're going (a remote cabin). Of course, 2 "cute guys" wander into their vicinity, and Bambi (yes, Bambi) and Aubry are immediately smitten, but apparently Bambi is smitten by anything with two legs. Mady is rather disappointed by this development because she was looking forward to a weekend of forgetting about her ex by getting sh**-faced and stoned with her gal-pals.<br /><br />Oh, and I almost forgot, there's a mean old hermit that lives up that way, that's perhaps someone to not tangle with, and the area & cabin in which they're staying have a sort of "reputation".<br /><br />So of course, sooner or later (unfortunately, MUCH later) some of our weekend wood-visitors begin to die, and find various booby traps (although a couple of them actually hit a little lower than that) and of course, the remaining campers are understandably upset. No cell phone reception of course (who would miss out on a chance to check their cell phone for reception in a movie anymore?). Mr. Ranger Sir keeps popping up at odd times & his behavior seems a bit odd but he has said he will get help.<br /><br />There's a fantastic twist to this that you just won't want to miss too, if you're still awake. Pray that you wake up to a blank screen.<br /><br />The acting in this is terrible, the production values are terrible, and the whole undertaking is just lame & I find it amazing this was even released. Avoid at all costs, 1 out of 10.

I really love this movie. I remember one time when I was in 2nd >grade, my teacher showed it to us on a 16mm film reel. This movie, however, can be a little frightening for 2nd graders such as the scene where Bill murders Nancy and seeing Fagin's face for the first time on the screen. One of my relatives is sick of seeing this movie because she studied over it in music class. If I were a teacher and could grade the people who produced this wonderful film, I would give them an A+.

How do you make a totally unappealing movie out of a story by one of America's most famous authors? Watch this film and find out. Maybe I am overrating author Carson McCullers, but I was impressed by "The Heart Is A Lonely Hunter" and was hoping for something memorable here, too. Forget it.<br /><br />Vanessa Redgrave looks like a man with her short haircut and clothing. I never found her much to get excited about in almost any movie, anyway. Rod Steiger as a preacher? How insulting is that? Unlikable characters, one after the other. Well, maybe that's the book, too, and I am being unfair to this film. I am not familiar with the story other than what I saw on screen and this was so unappealing a movie that I could never recommend it to anyone.<br /><br />It's just one backwards person after another in a backward town. Outside of some nice cinematography here and there, there is nothing to recommend. How anyone could sit through 100 minutes of this is amazing.<br /><br />I didn't even go into how bad this is directed. There is good news: this was the only film Simon Cowell directed.

"The Chipmunk Adventure" is one of the greatest animated movies of the 1980's. Alvin and the Chipmunks have always been of some interest to me, since they were what really got me into rock and roll. Neither one of the Chipmunks has any bad traits. Alvin's really the star and has all the cool looks. Theodore is the lovable sensitive one. Then there's Simon (my personal favorite), the smart one who is often a party pooper. I also like the Chipettes a lot. There's Brittany, who, like Alvin, is one who is always trying to be so popular. Then there's Eleanor, who, like Theodore, is sweet, sensitive, and loves food. Janette is the only Chipette who is not much like her counterpart; she's very naive and really clumsy.<br /><br />In the Chipmunks' very first full-length movie, David Seville is going on a business trip to Europe, and he's leaving the boys with Miss Miller while he's gone. While playing an arcade game, Alvin loses against Brittany and then says that if he had the money, he'd race Brittany around the world for real. Unbeknownest to the kids, a man named Klaus Furschtien and his sister, Claudia, who have been trying to come up with a sneaky way to deliver diamonds around the world in exchange for cash, overheard this conversation and said that they'd let them race around the world for $100,000. Alvin and Brittany accept it and go on the race.<br /><br />This adventurous movie has a lot of great songs. "Off to See the World" made for an appropriate theme song for the movie. Then there is "Getting Lucky", one of my favorite songs in the movie. "My Mother" is most likely the sappiest song in the movie, but it always makes me cry. "Wooly Bully" is the only cover song used in the movie (the rest were completely original). Then, of course, there's "The Boys and Girls of Rock and Roll", which, in my opinion, has to be one of the greatest musical numbers in movie history.<br /><br />I used to watch this movie very often, until my recorded tape of it died. I still watch the movie, though. This is actually a fun movie for people who are about to go on a vacation to a foreign country for the first time. It'll give you an idea of what kind of stuff you'd expect out of world travel. Definitely one of my childhood movies, and one that I'd recommend to 80's fans and Alvin & the Chipmunks fans.

There are no spoilers for this film as nothing could be written that could make it any worse! The dictionary definition of "puerile" should now read: "sex lives of the potato men"! Unless, that is, you like dog poo and mucous; in which case - this is the film to see! Johnny Vegas et all - what WERE you thinking!

This movie is just about as good as the first Jackass, but with slightly more disgusting skits. I wouldn't say this was as good as the first, but it came very close. Jackass fans will not be disappointed, but if you didn't like the first movie, you will hate this one. There are scenes that will be seen as Jackass classics (the elderly suits with "additions", the "cab ride", and many others), and those that you will wish you never watched (eating crap, drinking semen, etc...) Overall this movie was a good watch, and I am glad I got to see it. I'm sure this movie will not have the best rating due to critics that rate it (I sat in the press section and most of the older viewers seemed disgusted), but don't let that stop you from enjoying it.

As many of the other comments I have read have noted, I fell in love with this movie when I was a kid. My sister and I had a copy of the movie on Beta (before VHS) that we wore out. Of course it didn't help when our parents sold the BetaMax at a garage sale. Since then we have been trying to find a copy. I, like another commentator, did eventually locate a rental copy at a local video store. The owner would not part with the copy after any number of attempts to beg, bribe, and cry my way to owning the tape. GOOD NEWS! I bought a brand new, newly released, VHS copy of Midnight Madness for $9.99 on Amazon.com two days ago!!!! Finally, Disney has wizened up. Now, if they'll only rerelease Song of the South... If you love the movie, grab it. If you haven't seen the movie, it's worth a check - totally stupid humor but a lot of fun (Stephen Furst is hilarious).

if they gave me the option of negative numbers I'd use it. This movie was truly god-awful. I went into the theaters expecting it to be horrible, and it somehow managed to exceed my expectations.<br /><br />The script was weak, the acting was painful. I wanted to walk out but my friend was driving and wanted to get her moneys worth, I think we were both disappointed.<br /><br />The growing of the breasts when the girls got their super power and changing of the hair color was just wrong. Eddie Izzard just seemed wrong for the part of super villain, he came off as oddly weak and silly. Jenny Johnsons (Uma Thurman) came off as psychotic and strange, as did Matt's (Luke Wilson) friend Vaughn (Rainn Wilson.

Drew Barrymore gets second chance at high school, on undercover assignment as newspaper reporter. In flashbacks, we see that the first time around was, to put it mildly, a major disaster. David Arquette is amusing in modest role as Drew's brother, who also enrolls to help out sis. Lots of subplots endanger but never overwhelm simple charm of movie. Drew keeps making her niche as major innocent-sexy light comic actress.

I couldn't spoil this piece of crap if I wanted to. After watching Dark Harvest 1 I thought "this has got to be the worse movie ever made" then I watched Dark Harvest 2 and that made 1 seem a little better. Then I watched Dark Harvest 3 or tried too. The only thing I have to say is "when is this going to end?" Very bad acting and really bad special effects the only good thing about this movie was the boob shot. Don't waste your time of money on this piece of crap... And now I have to write 3 more lines to get this to submit. I was going to sing a song but I can't think of any right now. But the movie finally ended (though it had an ending that might mean they are going to make another one of these)

Nightmare Weekend is proof positive that some people are so desperate to be 'in the movies' they are prepared to do almost anything.<br /><br />I'm not referring to the countless women who seem quite happy to appear completely starkers in this dreadful piece of trash (after all, the naked female form is a beautiful thing and nothing to be ashamed of). No...I'm talking about those who are more than willing to co-star with a badly made hand-puppet called George. Now that is embarrassing!!!<br /><br />A bio-electronic being created by brilliant scientist Edward Brake (Wellington Meffert), George (who looks like a demented felt clown with green wool for hair) is the artificially intelligent interface for an advanced computer system that operates a revolutionary device (a silver sphere about the size of a golf ball) that, when ingested, can reverse character disorders.<br /><br />Edward's personality altering experiments have been successful on lab animals, but the cautious scientist is reluctant to carry out tests on human subjects, fearing that there may still be side effects. His evil assistant Julie (Debbie Laster), however, has no such qualms, and proceeds to use three beautiful young women as guinea pigs. Inevitably, they all turn into hideous killer mutants.<br /><br />With bargain basement special effects, a cast totally devoid of talent, and a plot that is almost impossible to follow (I took notes as I watched the film, and even then I am not entirely convinced that my synopsis is accurate), Nightmare Weekend is a complete and utter disaster that not even several soft-core sex scenes and a touch of gore can rescue.<br /><br />This film also features one of the most irritating characters I have ever seen in a horror movie: Tony (Bruce Morton), a Walkman wearing idiot who bops away to crap 80s music in a manner that makes me look like Justin Timberlake in comparison.

As an adventure mini-series, this is about as good as it gets. I viewed it when it was originally shown on HBO. Sigrid is totally believable in her role as Philadelphia, and the whole production was first rate! See all 400 minutes of it if you can. I highly recommend this mini-series. Amazing that I can't rate it officially, but for you readers/users I will let you know it's a solid 10!

Good, boring or bad? It's good. Worth your money? If you can spare it for a ticket, sure. Better than the trailer makes it seem? Yes, oddly.<br /><br />There isn't much to the script - Guards working at armored truck company move vast amounts of cash. Guards see opportunity to retire as millionaires, one of them is too honest to go along with it all, and a well-laid plan goes to hell. <br /><br />This could have been a poorly-executed Reservoir Dogs ripoff, but the skill of the cast and the director's ability to make just about anything tense pull it out of that realm and put it onto a solid footing.

Ah, the 1970's. A time when it was in to be a swinger. To be honest, today is also a good time to be a swinger but it just felt more daring then.<br /><br />Joe Sarno offers up a pretty good soft-core film. In fact, just like today, some of the actors are famous hardcore actors. Unlike today, these people were good actors and these films had a plot and character development.<br /><br />It's pretty much what you would expect out of a swinger's movie. Two couples with open relationships re-ignite the wanderlust out of the MILF of one of the women who has come for a visit. Not much more to it.<br /><br />Of course, when the MILF is Jennifer Welles then it is a different story. Not too many 40-somethings look as delicious undressed as Ms. Welles. It's worth the price alone to see Ms. Welles look at herself in the mirror as if she's Aphrodite. She's no "Stifler's Mom". She's way sexier.<br /><br />I also digged Chris Jordan's Anna. Jordan looks and sounds so much like Elaine Joyce that I thought she might be her "separated at birth" twin or even Elaine herself. Anna is always eating but must have incredible metabolism.<br /><br />Unlike 1990's soft-core porn, 70's softie porn retained the hardcore film's realism (something that 2000's soft-core has brought back on occasion, instead of the 90's music and canned orgasms) and it is here in full force. It's not real but it feels real.<br /><br />For those who enjoyed the Quebec produced "Deux Femmes En Or", you'll enjoy this one. Another classic film only on Drive-In Classics, the best $2.50 CAN a month you can spend.

Perfect double bill for the horribly corny "Beverly Hillbillies" is this equally atrocious, lame brained 'comedy', "Son in Law". Country girl Rebecca goes to wild California to attend college, only to be assaulted by the lifestyle. 'Resident Adviser' "Crawl" helps her settle in, and soon the two are good friends. Bec decides to bring the wacky "Crawl" home for Thanksgiving, with obvious "fish out of water" results.<br /><br />The only other comic angle Steve Rash (aptly named ) achieves here is a sexual one. This he bludgeons us with, but to no avail. Both comic aspects fail dismally, and you know the film is groping when "Crawl" hijacks the combine harvester and writes his name in the corn field.<br /><br />Dramatically the movie falls short too, with several attempts at family and personal counselling from "Crawl" misfiring. Between them Pauly Shore and Carla Gugino manage to raise a couple of smiles, but little else, while the rest of the cast are mere fodder. The problem is it's nearly impossible to actually like "Crawl", and you'll find yourself spending the whole flick wondering why Rebecca would want to spend a moment with him. However, if you're a fan of unintelligent comedy, "Son in Law" is right on the mark.<br /><br />Sunday, November 10, 1996 - T.V.

Nothing new is this tired serio-comedy that wastes the talents of Danny Glover and Whoopi Goldberg. Considering that this was produced by the stars and Spike Lee, it's pretty tame and tired stuff. And how come the Whoop never changes her hair or glasses over the many years this film covers? Blah!

[POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT]<br /><br />It's unlikely that Seagal will ever again scale the heights of lousitude he did with *On Deadly Ground* (mainly because no one's ever going to let him direct again), but he sure tries, don't he?<br /><br />This one's a typically brainless and badly-written little fantasy about how Indian folk remedies are much more effective than Western medicine. Seagal seems to actually believe this nonsense, although he never explains why life expectancy in the Americas and Europe is so much higher than it was in 1492.<br /><br />Kinda like he never explains how his supposed "water-fueled engines" work in *On Deadly Ground*.<br /><br />Even the "action" in this one sucks.

Divorced lawyer Rick Magruder (Branagh) stumbles drunk out of a party hosted by his firm one night and has a chance meeting with a woman named Mallory Doss (Davidtz), who was a waitress at the party and seems to have lost her car. Rick drives the woman to her home and there they discover that her car has been already parked there, seemingly by her father, Dixon Doss (Duvall). Rick and Mallory walk into the house arguing about the situation when Mallory carelessly undresses in front of Rick, and he then spends the night with her.<br /><br />Rick wakes up in the morning and Mallory encounters him later in the day, asking him to file suit against her father because of his dangerous behavior. Rick, now obsessed with Mallory and willing to do anything for her, is successful in having Dixon put on trial and sent to prison, but when he is freed by his local friends, Rick finds himself in a trouble, trying to protect himself and his children from the danger he has unknowingly brought to life.

From the mind of Robert Bloch, of "Psycho" fame, come four tales of twisty terror in this Amicus anthology film, which, while not quite as much fun, or scary, as I would have liked, still provides for some decent genre entertainment.<br /><br />It's linked by the wrap-around story of a highly skeptical Scotland Yard detective (John Bennett) who is investigating the disappearance of a prominent actor; he's advised that this case is linked to a few others by the house in which they all took place, and our film is off and running.<br /><br />"Method for Murder" has author Charles Hillyer (always delightful Denholm Elliott) haunted by his latest fictional creation, who has seemingly come to life. This sequence has some good surreal and fairly suspenseful moments, and is capped by a reasonably amusing revelation and denouement.<br /><br />"Waxworks" stars horror icon Peter Cushing as retired stockbroker Philip Grayson, who, along with old friend Neville Rogers (Joss Ackland) becomes obsessed with the image of a beautiful woman found in a macabre wax museum. Most effective in this episode is the dream sequence, although it's great as always to watch Cushing. The final images presented to us in this story are pretty shocking.<br /><br />"Sweets to the Sweet" features another well-loved horror star, Christopher Lee, as John Reid, who doesn't treat adorable moppet child Jane (Chloe Franks) with too much kindness, and it's up to new companion / tutor Ann Norton (Nyree Dawn Porter) to find out why. The mystery of this particular episode is handled excellently; the film-makers wisely don't tip their hand so it comes as more of a genuine shock as we get the full truth of this unhappy family. The "dying" moments are particularly horrific.<br /><br />"The Cloak" has the most outright comedy of the four; Jon Pertwee, one of many actors to have played the role of Dr. Who over the years, is a lot of fun as a vain, temperamental horror movie star (in fact, he's the highlight of this story) who, infuriated with the lack of quality in his latest low-budget film, goes out and buys his own cloak. Said cloak has strange powers, which I dare not reveal here. Sexy Ingrid Pitt is a welcome presence as Pertwees' companion; one wonderful example of the humor here is a knowing jab taken at none other than Christopher Lee!<br /><br />The wrap-up story then concludes in a predictable but still effective way as Detective Inspector Holloway learns that he should have taken all of the warnings given him more seriously.<br /><br />Underscored by Michael Dress's unusual, striking, and eerie score, "The House That Dripped Blood" is an entertaining mix of stories; while I don't enjoy it quite as much as, say, "Tales from the Crypt", it's still good fun. Capably directed by Peter Duffell, it moves slowly but surely towards each of its chilling conclusions, and is certainly a good film of its type.<br /><br />7/10

Here he is. A new horror icon for the new millennium. Better than Freddy. More dangerous than Jason Vorhees. More evil than Michael Myers. Hard to believe, I know. But his time is here....<br /><br />Ray The Prick.<br /><br />Yep, the antagonist, Ray is a complete Prick. This is partly because of the naughty things he does. Also because he has a scar (oh, scary) on his face. But mainly because Ray The Prick has been milked.<br /><br />Yep, Ray doesn't channel evil. He doesn't even become cursed, not even by a voodoo spell. Nope, Ray The Prick has been milked. As DeNiro once said, "You can milk anything with nipples". And Ray has been milked. Of evil.<br /><br />How do you milk evil you ask? Snake nipples, I reply. Snake nipples.<br /><br />Why Ray you ask? Because he's a Prick, I reply. Capital P.<br /><br />Watch out for the New Line Pictures extravaganza entitled "Freddy Vs. Ray The Prick".<br /><br />Thought your new horror saviour was Jeeper The Creeper? Well not any more, cause Ray The Prick is here. And I'm frightened.<br /><br />Pity about the atmosphere-less, PG-13, unoriginal workmanlike quality of the film though, because Ray's a star.

My friend & I rented this movie and within the first 5 mins we had no idea what was going on. It felt like it should have been over within the first 15 mins. It was a terrible movie, my little brother could have been a better actor than some of the ones in the movie, and the plot (if you can call it that) was full of holes. Never would I recommend this movie to my worst enemy, yet anybody I actually like.

I saw this movie because every review I read of it said that it was one of the scariest movies of the new millennium. I really don't understand what all of the hype was about. For one thing, the dialogue in this movie was laughably bad ("What if something strange is going on?"...what????). The acting didn't blow my socks off either. It could have been because the script barely gave the actors anything to work with....the characters are purely 2-dimensional to me and I didn't give a hoot about them at all. Another thing is that the movie extremely boring. Extremely. Sure, there are a couple of "jolts" here and there, but for the movie's 112 minute length, it sure didn't use it's time up wisely. Most of the movie contains characters talking about stuff that had barely anything to do with the plot. What was the point of that??<br /><br />To top it off, the movie makes no sense. Yes, I believe I understood the intentions of the ghosts, but how that fits into the events that actually occur in the movie is beyond me. Also, much of the movie is played out in little vignettes, which makes the story hard to follow at times. And don't even get me started with the ending. What exactly happened there?<br /><br />I can give Kurosawa credit for placing some truly frightening images throughout the film. There are very creepy shots of ghosts and other unsettling images. If they reflected more on those images and elaborated on them, it would have made the movie much stronger. But they didn't, and instead elaborated more on social commentary, which was interesting, but again, portrayed in an extremely dull way. Yes, it's a message movie. Okay, fun. I'll just get the message of my review right out here in the open: find a better way to spend your spare time than watching this.

Slaughter High is about a boy named Marty. He was harassed, and picked on in high school. A group of kids played several pranks on him, and these pranks were REALLY bad. The last prank ended tragically.<br /><br />cue to 5 years later. The gang of kids meet up again for a reunion. One of them set it up at the old high school. The school is now abandoned, and they have to break in. For some reason, the Janitor is still there, but he tells them to go ahead and have fun because they give him a beer.<br /><br />They start partying ,and looking at their old lockers, and they see something of Marty's. One girl feels sorry for Marty but another guy calms her down.<br /><br />Once the kills begin, it is great. Every kills is creative and gory. We see a figure in a jester mask, hunting them one by one throughout the school. It appears Marty is back to exact revenge. After the first person is killed, they find out they are locked in the school. They begin looking for a way out.<br /><br />Now, there are a number of illogical things in this movie. First of all, I don't know anyone who has a 5 year reunion. Second of all, after the first kid dies, a girl gets blood all over her. They all run away in a panic, yet she runs to the bathroom, and finds a bathtub. Hrr friend has just been killed, and she decides to take a bath!? More importantly, why is there a bathtub in a school bathroom. Anyways, the bathtub doesn't seem to really work....and she dies a horrible death this is an 80s movie. it is a horror slasher. WHO CARES if it has some illogical parts. I for one don't. This movie has really great deaths. The ending.... there is a twist. Having recently seen Haute Tension, I can compare the two. The only way they are similar is that there is a twist, which kind of left me disappointed.....THEN right after the twist, comes a great, if not the best kill, in the movie.<br /><br />After the last kill, the killer looks at the screen and also does something crazy, and it was the perfect way to end the movie. It has me going "wow..."

A friend warned me that this was the worst movie he had ever seen. I was curious, because it had developed a bit of a cult status. I like a lot of odd indie cult movies so I gave it a shot. I have to agree with my friend. It is a steaming pile of dung. I am sorry to the people who love this movie, but I can recommend much better stuff if you want to watch a twisted indie cult film. Try Peter Jackson's Dead Alive (aka Braindead), Cemetery Man (aka Dellamorte Dellamore) , or Modern vampires.

Seven Pounds stars Will Smith as Ben Thomas, an IRS collection agent who has an ulterior motive for meeting those who have gotten behind on their tax payments. Thomas caused the deaths of seven people whilst driving talking on his phone and the movie follows his attempt to try and atone for his, quite frankly, unforgivable crime.<br /><br />The story line is as subtle as a brick through a green house window. What you see is exactly what is happening - even the ending of Titanic was more surprising when compared to Seven Pounds. There is absolutely no twist whatsoever, there is never any confusion or doubt as to what is happening.<br /><br />Normally I only like Will Smith when is in full Bad Boys mode. The guy is at his best when sporting a gun, driving a Ford GT and saying "Aw Hell Nah" as whenever he tries to act serious it only comes across as a pathetic attempt at trying to gain an Oscar which he is so obviously is desperate for. This is probably the main reason why I wasn't looking forward to the movie, although here he is very understated. There are flashes of comedy but they are subtle, in fact it was the most understated Will Smith performance I have ever seen and for that reason alone he was fantastic and ironically should be nominated for a major award.<br /><br />The supporting cast were all grand too - Rosario Dawson looked pretty much at deaths door the whole film and Woody Harrelson and Barry Pepper were fine as where all the other bit players.<br /><br />Overall it is a weepy - but it isn't throwing all the usual clichés and sentimental violins to give you no other choice but to cry. There were a few times that even my hardened heart nearly broke. You will be hard pressed not to find one of the situations that does not relate to your own life which makes it seem all the more real.<br /><br />I would give it 8/10. The Will Smith show moves onto drama without all the desperation of The Pursuit of Happiness and comes of all the better for it.

One of America's most brilliant film directors was without question Elia Kazan. His directorial genius was not particularly suited to taut thrillers, since Kazan needed more room to breathe and to be slower and more subtle. However, 'Panic in the Streets' is a first-rate social thriller and is if anything more relevant to today than it was to 1950 when it was released. The themes of illegal immigrants, people-smuggling, imminent plagues, rapid transmission around the world of diseases (a worried Richard Widmark says: 'I could be in any American city in ten hours and in Africa tomorrow.'), ethnic isolation and ghettoism are today's concerns more than ever. This film features a spectacular film debut by Jack Palance, and a wonderful performance by Barbara Bel Geddes, two casting strokes of genius. Richard Widmark is allowed not to be a psychopath for once, and is a deeply caring, warmly loving, intense hero of the people. He leads basically a one-man campaign to stop an epidemic of pneumonic plague in New Orleans, struggling to convince sluggish politicians and complacent policemen that there is a problem. There is a race against time to find the small-time crooks who have contracted the plague from a dead illegal immigrant within 48 hours, before the whole city, and as they are always reminding us, the whole country, are endangered with the worst thing since the 1919 flu. One amazing scene where Jack Palance, who is infected, is prevented from climbing aboard a ship by a rat-barrier on the rope is ironic in the extreme, reminding us in the most gruesome terms that humans can be the worst carriers and vermin of all. The highly dramatic chase scenes in what they call 'the coffee factory' at the wharfs rivals the most inventive climax scenes of Hitchcock, and with just as spectacular a setting. Many non-professionals appear in the film, which has the gritty realism of, well, something called reality. Kazan really takes the cameras into places where even people rarely went, and where even rats would have thought twice. This film was a major feat of social realism. If it lacks the electricity of the most highly charged thrillers, it is because Kazan took it so seriously that he could not hype it up, for after all, the threat of plague is serious enough to scare anybody without the need for extra guns and molls. The only unfortunate thing about the film is the title, which gives a false suggestion of superficiality. But Kazan was anything but superficial. He clearly considered this project a public duty, to alert us to genuine possibilities. If only those possibilities had diminished today, but alas, they are getting worse every day. One day, after a worldwide plague, this film may be shown to a few survivors as an example of how an outbreak was contained on film, but its lessons were forgotten.

This film is just a shame. Orlando, Florida seems to becoming a more recognized filmmaking area (like Vancouver's rise to prominance). The Brothers was shot in Central Florida and this short film is a bit of a setback for the area (which made great strides with the Indie film Walking Across Africa and the great HBO miniseries From Earth To The Moon).<br /><br />I will try to be as honest as possible. I think Orlando was the perfect place to film The Brothers. It had the potential to give a new spin on the 'Boy Band' craze. After all, both N'Sync and the Backstreet Boys come from this area. But, The Brothers falls short probably because of a weak script. Both lead characters are flat with almost no development (part of this could be the amatuer actors, but some of it is certainly the way the script was written).<br /><br />Also a problem is the choice of jokes. Many of the jokes are too repetitive (they do come off funny the first time, but it does grow to be a bit boring). Some of the 'concert' scenes are staged poorly (and many of these scenes also don't seem to move the story along in any way).<br /><br />I had high hopes for this one, but alas its a disappointing effort. I also hope the best for the upcoming feature based on this short. But I think the best thing for filmmaker John Figg is to move to different genres (quickly). Comedy isn't his strong suit. But, its indisputable that he definitely is one of the more prominant filmmakers in the Orlando area (its just a shame that right now he's infamous, not famous).<br /><br />

These writers are trying to re-create the characters they have on "scrubs" in a different occupation however the characters they are stuck with have no charisma or acting ability not to mention the writing seems poor and effortless. These guys are trying to create something that would be good if the writing wasn't so disgusting which is leaving the shows only lifeline to be two attractive teachers that that are barely keeping it alive. The humor in this show seems like it is trying to target an audience with an I.Q. of 40 or below. Another reason why this show is becoming a failure could be that the writing on the show "scrubs" is excellent and this show has to follow it up leaving the viewer in an odd position not knowing whether to cry or to just lose hope in new sitcoms all together. This is just my opinion but i think these guys should stop now before they humiliate themselves anymore than they have already.

i saw this film by accident and this movie was an accident...well it must of been. blonde women being stalked,the villain appearing then disappearing getting from one place to another in minute's then disappearing and reappearing,hiding.he was'nt even a super hero so i don't know how he did it.he could'nt frighten a cat and that's not hard to do.<br /><br />the old "mirror in the bathroom"is just not scary anymore in fact it stopped being scary years ago. you had the cop on the trail of the villain,another cliché(played by idris elba with a very convincing American accent,he's from London) the director did'nt have a clue and has made a film full of cliché's and make's "scary move"which was a COMEDY look scary. pathetic!

You can debate Prince's acting talent, or even his choice to parody his own life in this film. There is no debate about his musical talent either then or now. He seems like a shadowy has-been twenty years later, but the music remains relevant and fantastic. <br /><br />Having lived through the hype of this movie (graduated high school in'85) I can tell you that there was nothing bigger at the time. From Tipper Gore (Al's wife) trying to censor "Little Nikki" and every thing else under the sun via the PMRC (Parents Music Resource Center) to every "Air Band" at the time impersonating Prince, it was the absolute hottest thing out. For a few weeks at least, Prince was bigger than Madonna and Michael Jackson. <br /><br />We all waited for the film and were soooooo excited when it premiered. It didn't disappoint. EVERYONE was caught up. I was an MTV junkie at the time(they actually played music then....all the time)Prince played at least once or twice an hour. I must qualify this commentary by saying that, at that time, my favorites were Billy Idol, Oingo Boingo, The Fixx, Flock of Seagulls and others in the Punk/ New Wave genre' The music of Prince at the time transcended all types and styles. One of the reasons that some of it seems so cheesy and contrite now is that it was SOOOOOOOO big then. All the things that remind you of the 80's were iconic then. It was mainstream and it seems like a cliché' now. It got so popular that it became ridiculous. It's like the rappin' Granny commercial for Wendy's Hamburgers. <br /><br />It looks stupid now because EVERYONE was caught up in it (sadly, kind of like a bizarre purple macarena or something. Anyway, I hope this gave you all a little insight.

This is one of the most daring and important of the so-called "Pre-Code" films made in Hollywood during the 1930s. Unlike some Pre-Code films that occasionally dabbled in subjects that would have never been allowed after 1934-5, this film fully immersed itself in a very sordid yet entertaining plot from start to finish. The conventional morality of the late 30s and 40s was definitely NOT evident in this film, as the film is essentially about a conniving woman who sleeps her way to the top--and with no apologies along the way. This "broad" both enjoyed sex and used it on every man who could help her get rich--something you just never would have seen in films made just two or three years later.<br /><br />The film begins with Barbara Stanwyck working in her father's speakeasy. In addition to being her boss, he is also her pimp and encourages her to sleep with a local government official so that he'll allow the illegal bar to operate with impunity. While not especially clear here, it appears as if Daddy has been "renting" his daughter's body out for a long time.<br /><br />However, after nearly being raped and attacking this man by breaking a bottle of beer over his skull, Barbara has had enough and heads to the big city. It doesn't hurt that the still blew up and killed her father, but her feeling that she was whoring herself out and had nothing to show for it appeared to be the impetus to move.<br /><br />Despite the Depression, Barbara uses sex to get a job at a huge mega-bank. She starts out at a pretty menial job as a file clerk, but in the space of what seems like just a few weeks, she sleeps her way from one job to another to yet another--until she is sleeping with the head of the bank and his future son-in-law!!! This all ends in tragedy, but Babs doesn't seem too shook up over the deaths of these two men. In fact, some time later, she is able to insinuate herself into the life of the NEW CEO and once again she's on top (perhaps in more way than one).<br /><br />Now so far, this is a wonderful movie because it was so gritty and unrepentant. Barbara played a 100% sociopath--a woman with no morality and no conscience--just a desire to squeeze as much out of life as she could no matter who she hurt in the process. However, the brave writers and producer "chickened out" and thought it important to tack on a redemptive ending. Considering that this woman was so evil and conniving, her change of heart at the end was a major disappointment and strongly detracted from the film. In many ways, this reminded me of the ending of JEZEBEL--as once again, a wicked person somehow "sees the light" and changes at the not-too-convincing conclusion.<br /><br />My advice is to try watching RED-HEADED WOMAN and DOWNSTAIRS. RED-HEADED WOMAN is much like BABY FACE but features no magical transformation at the end--the leading lady really is a skunk down deep! In DOWNSTAIRS, a film very much like RED-HEADED WOMAN, the roles are reversed and a man (John Gilbert) plays a similar conniving character. Both are classics and a bit better than this film.<br /><br />This film is an amazing curio of a brief period of often ultra-sleazy Hollywood films and in this light it's well worth seeing for Cinephiles. Also, fans of The Duke take note--John Wayne plays a very small part in the film and it's very unusual to see a very young Wayne playing such a conventional role.

After spending five years in prison, Dr. Thomas Reed, played by the incomparable Vincent Ventresca, exiles himself to Purgatory Flats and winds up tending bar. He soon meets the luscious, angel-faced Sunny (Alexandra Holden). "You are wicked." he tells her. "You have no idea." she replies as she sips her Slo Comfortable Screw and languidly drags on her cig. Reed finds himself entwined in the violent troubles of her family and the femme fatale story unfolds set against the desolation and desperation of the oil-drained western town.<br /><br />Canny direction. Great performances. Superb entourage work. And some lust scenes that sizzle like the sun in Purgatory.

Wow... what... a whirlwind. The 30's is a decade with plenty of movies of every type I can imagine, especially during the early talkies phase. There were movies which are painfully static and dull, like "Dracula" with Bella Lugosi, and there were those that just don't give it a rest, sometimes in a good way and other times not. This is one of the films that don't stop for a minute, and that is both a wonder and a pity. Lloyd Bacon, who also directed "42nd Street", must have been the king of the Depression Era musicals and he was probably excited with the possibilities sound brought to the world of cinema, for he filled this picture with it. There mustn't be a full minute or two without music or someone speaking. It's completely crazy! I was thinking the movie deserved a 5 (or a 6, tops) because the pacing was very poor, since it was insanely fast and I sometimes didn't know what was happening and what to think. The characters seemed to just running to and fro places, talking about things which didn't interest me and probably no one else. I thought I was just going to be rewarded with a small headache. I noticed Lloyd Bacon also cast the female lead in "42nd Street", Ruby Keeler, and "42nd Street" was a movie whose ending was the best part of it. And you know what? It happened the same thing with "Footlight Parade"! The ending is absolutely incredible! It has become, hands down, the most impressive musical I have ever seen. The final part presents us some musical numbers and those are, believe me, something that make seeing the other rest of the movie worth. The numbers are flawless! There are three big bits and the most impressive is surely the second one. Suddenly the screen was filled with gorgeous and inventive camera work, beautiful people and plain entertainment that made me forget my small headache.

I've seen this film on Sky Cinema not too long ago.. I must admit, it was a really good Western which features 2 of the big names.. On one side, there's Charlton Heston, playing the infamous and retired lawman Samuel Burgade. On the other.. The late James Coburn playing the villainous Zach Provo.. seeking revenge on Burgade no matter what the cost..!<br /><br />The good thing about this film was there was some really good characters.. Most of the actors played it out really well.. Especially James Coburn, who I find that he was really mean in this film.. But that how it was..<br /><br />Christopher Mitchum, who I've seen everywhere in other films.. Playing Hal Brickman.. I felt his character was left out in the cold, but he manage to get himself back in by teaming up with Burgade, to bring down Provo's posse's!<br /><br />All in all, it was a great film.. Very good to watch.. Great score from the late Jerry Goldsmith..<br /><br />Wonderful piece of Western persona..! 8 out of 10.

First, let me start off by saying this film SOUNDED very interesting: A serial killer copycatting the works of Edgar Allan Poe (who is one of my writers of all time). Sounds cool, right? Yeah, definitely not. Probably the worst film I've ever seen. Ever. And that's not an exaggeration. I've seen a lot of very, very bad movies. This one takes the cake. And I was even prepared for a bad movie before going into it.<br /><br />Perhaps the writer should've studied some law enforcement procedure: If you have the name of the killer, his entire life's history, a criminal record, and HIS ADDRESS, where is the first place you should look? Hmm. . . possibly. . . his house? What?! NO! That's a preposterous idea, Anthony! How could you suggest something so obvious and level-headed rather than going to a bowling alley? *spoilers end* Honestly, sometimes I can forgive a movie if the writing is good but the acting is bad, or vice versa. . . but this just had everything wrong with it you could possibly find.<br /><br />I think my biggest pet peeve was how the police/FBI acted.<br /><br />For example: Black FBI Agent: "Okay, endangered female, just sit here in this car in an empty parking lot while I go inside and look around the potential crime scene where a serial killer is supposed to be. Sound good to you?" Moronic Female FBI Agent: "Yeah, sounds a-okay to me. Go right ahead. I'll be sure to not focus on my surroundings or at least check the perimeter." Black FBI Agent: "Excellent, that's what I would do!" Honestly, if you want to be in law enforcement, rent this movie so you can learn how not to act. . . or if you're a human and want to learn the same.<br /><br />0.5/10: A half-point just for getting a film produced and in stores. Congrats.<br /><br />-AP3-

Director and auteur Jean-Pierre Rappenau was 8 years old during the spring of 1940 as France's Third Republic disintegrated in a matter of a few weeks. It was a time, he says, when "all the adults were a little bit insane." He and the production staff have lovingly and meticulously recreated that world in a film where all the characters are essentially fictional. The structure, a classic farce, is ideal for the period as multiple plot lines zip and intersect only to come together in a logical, satisfying conclusion. The peg for this plot is Frederic, played by brilliant newcomer Gregory Derangere, who is fully up to playing opposite Adjani, Depardieu and Ledoyen. The real strength of the film is in its supporting performances. M. Rappeneau has cast the film exquisitely with actors who volunteered ideas for both action and dialogue and who know and prove that it is possible to fully realize a character with just two short sentences of dialogue. Though not yet as widely influential as Renoir's 'Rules of the Game,' 'Bon Voyage' richly deserves to be a companion piece to that classic. Though it demands a lot of the audience, it gives much back. One of its demands is tolerance for a certain coyness and misdirection as to the exact genre we are watching: a crime melodrama, no, a spy thriller, ah, a romantic comedy. Recommend it to cinemaphile friends. Just be sure to let them discover for themselves that it is a romantic comedy.

I gave this movie a very fair chance, and it betrayed me. This is very little more than a black and white excuse to bore the hell out of the audience even as the egotist Bogdanavich (who did way better with TARGETS) gets "great performances" out of a ton of hams in their debuts. Lots of teenage sex clichés come out of this movie, such as Doing the Teacher's Wife, Impotence, Doing the Ugly Prostitute(which is very awkwardly shot and grinds things to a complete halt, not that things were really going anywhere anyway) and skinny dipping.<br /><br />I suppose this movie is supposed to be funny because of all the sex nonsense, to me, it was just annoying. I was seriously much more entertained by cleaning my finger nails than watching this mess.

Snap, crackle, pop! The jarring sound of every change in camera angle. And that's not to mention the white flashes and the clipped endings to almost every spoken sentence. What on earth were they up to in the editing room? Or could it be that this approach was intentional? Surely not. What purpose could it serve? Despite all its technical short-comings, this is an interesting film depicting a day in the life of Joe, a hustler, determined to earn $200 for his wife's pregnant girl friend. Joe Dallesandro is outstanding as the easy-going, passive, laid-back young man who is willing to let the other person do most of the talking while he listens with a faraway look in his eyes.<br /><br />The story is meagre and sketchy, documenting the uncertain life led by a man who relies on casual street sex to support his young wife and baby. One thing is certain, Joe is uninhibited when it comes to disrobing for sex or posing for an artist. Understandably so, for he has a handsome face and and equally handsome body.<br /><br />There is a scene in the film that is remarkably effective. There is no sound, no dialogue. Joe stark naked is crouching on the floor feeding crumbs of cake to his little baby. There is a beautiful serenity and tenderness captured in these quiet moments.<br /><br />Another scene of amusing interest is the one in which Joe desperately seeks a loan of $100 from a gym friend, coming to the point of asking in a very circuitous approach.<br /><br />Joe tries to look interested but is hesitant in his conversation when an artist gives him a non-stop resume of Greek and Roman art. It's a preliminary to another occasion when Joe divests himself of his clothes and poses as the discus thrower in true classical style.<br /><br />At the end of the film we gain the impression that we have got to know Joe pretty well. After all he has uncovered more than his soul.

This movie took me by surprise. I first saw it more than 10 years ago, and it stays with me still. It's got it's just plain boring points, and I, personally, would have ended it differently- this has not in the least bit discouraged me from watching it over and over and recommending it to others. The acting is _fantastic_. The cast and director do an amazing job with the script, and anyone who likes 'different' movies, who has the patience to sit and say, "What the hell is this?", and allow themselves to be drawn in should give this film a chance. If you just want Alan Rickman to be goofy or to see things explode this is not the movie for you.

The Movie is okay. Meaning that I don't regret watching it! I found the acting purely and the most of the dialog stupid ("oh no, this was my grandmothers bible!"). It's sort of bad remake of U-turn. A man arrives to a desert town out in nowhere, meets the wrong people and falls in love with the wrong woman. And off cause get's involved in something, he thought he could leave behind him. The movie is quite predictable and there is really nothing new in it. When it's finish, you didn't really care. Most of the characters are stereotypes, specially Brian Austin Green!! All in all just another movie from the states, but okay entertaining on boring Wednesday night. IMDb vote: 4/10

Where to begin? Anachronism? High tech cross bow with a scope in about 500AD? Arrows with explosive charges in 500AD? A monster Grendel that looks like a robocop and obviously never interacts with any of the weapons fired or swung against him? The heart torn out of his victim's chest without any sense of contact? Possibly the blond who would fit in on a recent fashion show with her make-up and streaked hair? The ancient Danish court represented in Classical Greek style? The queen played by Marina Sirtis more savaged by her makeup artist than by madness? The effects are way too weak to carry this story. There are some stories that don't mind or even benefit from cheap effects, but this Grendel isn't one of them. <br /><br />What about characters who seem to jump about in their attitudes without motivation? A bravado idiot prince whose home has already been savaged more than once by the monster Grendel seems to have less respect for the danger he faces than Beowulf who was sent from afar from the land of the Geats to help the desperate Danes. In this it feels more like an old cowboy western than any kind of myth.<br /><br />Beowulf is an ancient tale from an era with almost no literary tradition and much of both its sentiment and its drama is obscure. I suspect that any modern telling which doesn't make an intelligent attempt to penetrate the obscurity must fail. I didn't love the recent "Beowulf and Grendel" which sees Grendel essentially as human and sees Hrothgar and his Danes as too arrogant and stupid to recognize Grendel's attacks as well-justified vengeance, but I had to respect its revisionist position that Hrothgar's Danes were a bunch of macho thugs who never grasped, even after it was all over, that they had brought this nightmare on themselves, and therefore, the original story of Beowulf, as it was written, was a misrepresentation of the real story. I think there's a more complex meaning to be understood than that, but this "Grendel's" terrible secret that Grendel's attacks are tied to previous human sacrifice doesn't really bring us closer to the shame experienced by Hrothgar and the Danes. <br /><br />This Beowulf has little to recommend it as traditional myth or as modern fantasy. I give it a 4: higher than it deserves, but always hopeful that a poor effort will draw attention by someone who is up to telling the story intelligently. In the meantime, Sci-Fi's movie-making seems to be following the NASA policy that it's better to build lots of probes that fail than a few that succeed.

Admittedly, before seeing House of Wax, I assumed it would simply be a second tier low quality teen slasher film following in the footsteps of such movies as The Darkness or Amityville Horror. After catching an advanced showing at my college campus, I can honestly say that the people at Dark Castle have done an excellent job with the task of making a slasher. <br /><br />Starting with the usual staples of a teenage horror film such as the small group of friends departing on a road trip, coming across an odd detour taking them through country back-roads, meeting creepy locals, after the slow but mandatory back-story this movie really reaches a fast clip. Paris Hilton appears in this film as many already know, but I really have to give it to her for her ballsy performance. Clearly her acting wasn't worth an Oscar, but the filmmakers use her appearance to its fullest by squeezing two blatant satires of her, let's just say, less noble media appearance into this film. Ms. Hilton also claims the title for the greatest death scene in the movie, and not simply because it was her death scene.<br /><br />This movie is full to the brim with jumpy moments and cheap scares, but Jaume Serra has definitely created quality suspense and tension between the characters. The causes for the horror are in part based on making the audience care for the characters, which we do. By making the usual buildup followed with a loud noise and jerked camera some other scary moments. These standard movie techniques adopted from many movies past are almost perfected with this film, and provide many good scares. In fact there isn't a slow moment after they get to the small town where the dreaded House of Wax museum is. <br /><br />This film owes a lot to many previous movies of this and other genres, though I'm not too sure how much came from the original 1953 movie of the same title. References to such movies as both Texas Chainsaw Masacres, Saw, and even Titanic, (see Paris Hilton's big death scene and you'll know what I mean) are common, but in the end the payoff will leave you scared and fulfilled if you are looking for a good scare with a few laughs. Not bad.

1) Men over the age of 25 that refer to themselves, without irony, as having "game", or being either a "player" or a "baller". Gentlemen, from here on in it's a swift descent into starring in your own real-life version of "A Night at the Roxbury". <br /><br />2) Saying "The V.I.P." The term "V.I.P." in and of itself isn't bad, but when preceded by "The" it instantly becomes part of the Douchebag Dictionary. This goes double for white people. <br /><br />3) People that make TV shows based on stuff that they don't know isn't cool and then go on IMDb posing as "fans", (...right...) moreover, one of whom is from the "United States" (hey, me too!) to bitterly insult members of their potential audience for inevitably thinking their show sucks. Minus 1 additional demerit point if they employ any variation on the oh-snap-nice-one-bro justification that "If you don't like the show you obviously can't get laid." <br /><br />4) Canadian Hip-Hop/R&B sensation Massari...a random addition to the list at first glance, but at the end of the day Massari gets the gas face for the simple reason that his particular brand of low-rent American-aping uncool and general Aqua Velva douchebaggery dovetails with the overall sensibility of "Keys to the V.I.P." <br /><br />5) Last but not least, "Keys to the V.I.P."...for all the above reasons and more.

when i first saw this movie i was literally rolling around on the floor laughing (especially when they were getting chased by the water, and when the guy drove through peoples gardens, i mean would it hurt to drive around the washing line?) the special effects! this movie clearly didn't have a big budget. either that or the guy left his toddler in charge of the controls. the water coming out of the damn looked like a close up of a can of beer that had fizzed up. what were the actors thinking? did they actually believe that it was a good movie? or did they just really need the money? not that they would've earned a lot. when i first saw this, i was like 'god, how old is this?' when i looked on the info about it and saw that it was made in 2003, i thought my TV was broken.<br /><br />this really is a disaster movie, in more ways than one.

Rugged David Innes (solid Doug McClure) and doddery Dr. Abner Perry (a delightfully dotty Peter Cushing) drill their way into the earth's core in their spiffy mole machine. The duo discover an ancient prehistoric world populated by dangerous gigantic beasts and human beings who are used as both food and slaves by evil telepathic pterodactyl men. Director Kevin Conner, working from a blithely silly script by Milton Subotsky, maintains a constant brisk pace throughout and treats the exceptionally foolish premise with astonishing seriousness, thereby giving this picture a certain clunkily earnest quality that's amusing and endearing in equal measure. The lovably hokey (not so) special effects are quite (unintentionally) funny. The cheesy array of cut-price creatures in particular are positively sidesplitting: cruddy guys-in-obvious-shoddy-rubber-suits pterodactyl men, equally rinky-dink savage ape-man brutes, and a hilariously ludicrous fire-belching frog thing who blows up real good. One gut-busting highlight occurs when McClure mixes it up with a fat and clumsy giant reptile. Another priceless scene depicts a dinosaur clutching a doll in its slavering jaws. Moreover, we also get some rousing rough'n'ready fisticuffs and an exciting climactic slave revolt. It's a total treat to see Cushing gleefully ham it up in a rare broad comedic part and become an unlikely, but enthusiastic arrow-slinging action hero in the last third of the flick. The ever-luscious Caroline Munro looks positively yummy as the fetching Princess Dia, plus there are nice supporting turns by Cy Grant as gallant warrior Ra and Sean Lynch as treacherous coward Hoojah. Mike Vickers' neatly varied score alternates between jaunty orchestral music and wonky droning synthesizer stuff. Alan Hume's crisp cinematography adds a glossy sheen to the infectiously inane proceedings. A complete campy riot.

Another Aussie masterpiece, this delves into the world of the unknown and the supernatural, and it does very well. It doesn't resort to the big special effects overkill like American flicks, it focuses more on emotional impact. A relatively simple plot that Rebecca Gibney & Co. bring to life. It follows the story of a couple who buy an old house that was supposedly home to a very old woman who never went outside, and whose husband disappeared in mysterious circumstances a century ago. Strange things begin to happen in the house, and John Adam begins to turn into the man who disappeared, who was actually a mass murderer. Highly recommended. 8/10

Pathetic attempt to use science to justify new age religion/philosophy. The two have nothing to do with each other and much of what is said about Quantum Physics in this mess is just plain wrong.<br /><br />Examples? Quantum theory supports the ideas in eastern religions that reality is an illusion. How? Well, in the world of the subatomic, you can never definitely predict a particles location at a specific time. You can only give the odds of it being precisely at one spot at one time. Also, the act of observation seems to affect the event. Solid particles can pass through barriers. All of this, so far, is accurate. But then they assert that that means that if you believed sincerely enough that you could walk through a wall, you could indeed do it. This is complete poppycock. Instead, the theory asserts that at our level, it is possible for you to walk through a wall, but it is merely by chance and has nothing to do with belief. Also you'd have to keep walking into the wall for eternity to ever have even the remotest chance of passing through the wall, the odds are so astronomically against it.<br /><br />This is but one example of how they misrepresent the science. But much more annoying is the narrative involving an unhappy photographer, played by Marlee Maitlan. About halfway through the picture it becomes so confused as to be incomprehensible. Something to do with negative thoughts leading to addiction and self-hate. There may be some truth to that, but Quantum physics has nothing to do with it.<br /><br />Plus, string theory is the hot new thing in physics nowadays. Instead of wasting your time with this dreck, I suggest you rent The Elegant Universe, an amazing series done for NOVA on PBS that gives you a history of physics from Newton and gravity to Ed Witten and M Theory in only 3 hour-long episodes. Quantum mechanics is explained there quite well if you want to know it without the fog of metaphysical appropriation.

I rented this movie, but I wasn't too sure what to expect of it. I was very glad to find that it's about the best Brazilian movie I've ever seen. The story is rather odd and simple, and above all, extremely original. We have Antonio, who is a young man living in Nordestina, a town in the middle of nowhere in the north east of Brazil, and who is deeply in love with Karina. The main conflict between the two is that, while Antonio loves his little town and has no wish to leave it, Karina wants to see the world and resents the place. As a prove of his love for her, he decides to go out himself and bring the world to her. He'll put Nordestina in the map, as he says. And the way he does it is unbelievable. This is a good movie; might be a bit stagy for some people due to its different editing job, but I think that it's also that that improves the story. It's just fun, and it makes you feel good.

We all know a movie never does complete justice to the book, but this is exceptional. Important characters were cut out, Blanca and Alba were essentially mushed into the same character, most of the subplots and major elements of the main plot were eliminated. Clara's clairvoyance was extremely downplayed, making her seem like a much more shallow character than the one I got to know in the book. In the book we learn more about her powers and the important effects she had on so many people, which in turn was a key element in the life of the family. In the movie she was no more than some special lady. The relationship between Esteban and Pedro Tercero (Tercero-third-, by the way, is the son and thus comes after Segundo-second-) and its connections to that between Esteban and his grandson from Pancha García (not son, who he also did recognize) is chopped in half and its importance downplayed.<br /><br />One of the most fundamental things about the book that the film is all but stripped of: this is called "The House of the Spirits." Where is the house? The story of 3-4 generations of a family is supposed to revolve around the "big house on the corner," a line stated so many times in the novel. The house in fundamental to the story, but the movie unjustly relegates it to a mere backdrop.<br /><br />If I hadn't read the book before, I would have never guessed that such a sappy, shallow movie could be based on such a rich and entertaining novel.

Horror/Sci-Fi that is interesting as it is laughable. F/X pretty good...for what you manage to see. A made for TV thriller that is not as bad as the worst of them. Jeffrey Coombs plays a brilliant although misguided scientist that tampers with stem cell research and manipulates human DNA with that of a hammerhead shark. The horrifying results give birth to one hell of a killing machine. A group of scientists led by William Forsythe and Hunter Tylo are invited to a remote island to check out the brilliant new experiment. Of course, after laughing and stammering in awe...Coombs' creation, by the way is his own son fused with a hammerhead, is let loose to hunt down one by one his father's colleagues. Revenge is not always rewarding. Also in the cast: Elsie Muller, G.R. Johnson, Arthur Roberts and Velizar Binev.

I loved this show so much and I'm so incredibly sad its canceled i thought it came back too, but just two stupid weeks. Thats terrible. i hate how we never find out how everyone ends up. it sucks. Bring it back! ABC has stupid shows like Supernanny and whatnot but doesn't give time to good ones like Six Degrees. If they're complaining about ratings it was probably because they had a bad slot because this was truly a good show, something I could relate to and anticipated. JJ Abrams delivered, he's awesome, I wish ABC could just trust him enough to complete the story. I loved the entire cast too. I couldn't wait to see how everyone would someday meet each other at once. Everyone's story is now left incomplete, now I'll never know if Steven and Whitney would get together or Carlos and Mae. I wanted to see what would happen to Laura or Damien and everyone else. This is really such a downer.

When I first rented Batman Returns, I immediately thought it was going to be less than exceptional. I mean, Jack Nicholson was undoubtedly the best part of the first, so without him, how could there be a good movie? Simple, throw in Danny DeVito.<br /><br />Batman Returns is an arguably more dark movie than Batman. There are more villains here, less actual dark comedy in a lot of aspects, and more nerve-striking issues. However, the music is similar to the first if not darker. The scenery is definitely more depressing than the first, every detail right down to the time of year. This movie follows the same comic-style format we came to love in the first Batman.<br /><br />Now for the performances. Michael Keaton thankfully returns as Batman/Bruce Wayne. He was great in the first movie, and just as much in this sequel. There was not enough screen time in the world for Keaton as Batman, need MORE! Danny DeVito gave an award-winning performance as The Penguin, the most grueling, disgusting, lovable, angry, evil, sad, pathetic villain ever to grace a superhero movie. You hate him so much yet feel so bad for him at the same time. And it explains him down to the last detail too, making it all the more conflicting. Michelle Pfeiffer was excellent as Catwoman/Selina Kyle. Two completely different personalities in one. She actually got a good amount of back story as well. Christopher Walken didn't disappoint as Max Shreck, the greedy, judgmental, selfish CEO of the power company. Michael Gough also thankfully returns as the lovable Alfred, and he was just as good here as well. Pat Hingle also returns as Gordon, although I feel he was really never in the spotlight.<br /><br />With lots of great twists and sub-plots, Batman Returns is sure to please any fan of the original.<br /><br />9/10

It is a Frank Zappa axiom that "music journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read." If you ever needed proof that musicians can't talk, this is the film for you. Repeated attempts at profundity stumble over themselves to end up in monosyllabic comments delivered in awestruck voices: "Wow." (Thank you, Idris Muhammed.) This film is pretentious but, while much of the pontificating from Youssou N'Dour and his gang of merry men (and one token woman) grates, the music saves the day.<br /><br />The main idea behind the film (what I take to be the main idea, dredged out of the inarticulate commentary) is interesting. To gather a group of musicians from America and Europe and take them on a journey through the different styles of music that grew up in and out of slavery, back to their roots in the music of West Africa, and a concert in the old slave fort of Gorée off the coast of Senegal. We are treated to gospel, blues, jazz and variations of these, including some fantastic drumming both in New Orleans and Senegal. There's also a good deal of N'Dour's own compositions.<br /><br />Sadly, that's another weakness. It's never entirely clear what N'Dour himself wants to achieve. To some degree, the film appears to be an exercise in self-promotion on N'Dour's part. He wants to play his own music, jazzed up to some degree and performed in the company of a bunch of musicians he admires. He's clearly a little embarrassed by this and early in the film obtains the blessings of the Curator of the Gorée museum.<br /><br />The clash between the different agendas shows through in several other places. For example, somebody obviously felt that it was not possible to tell the story of black music without involving a gospel choir, but N'Dour and most of his mates are Moslems (a point made repeatedly throughout the film). The whole early sequence involving the black Christians is uncomfortable and then they disappear from the story until the close harmony group (the only black Christians who can hold a tone?) turn up in Dakar at the end of the film. (To be fair, they turn up triumphantly and perform the best piece in the film.) If the story of black music needs to nod in the direction of gospel, why not also in the direction of Latin America? Where are the black musical influences from the Caribbean and Brazil? Samba? Reggae? Then there's Europe. Here the black diaspora doesn't seem to have produced any musicians of calibre, since N'Dour chooses to draft in Austrian guitarist and a trumpet player from Luxemburg. Are they in the team just because N'Dour has played with him before? What I personally found most irritating, though, was the long sequence which tried to recreate a kind of 60s beatnik/black power/Nation of Islam cultural happening in the New York home of Amir Baraka (a.k.a. Leroi Jones). Hearing people talk about the importance of "knowing your history", and then in the next breath perpetuating ignorance. Why do so many African-Americans believe that taking an Arabic name is an assertion of their African roots? And why do they think Arabic Islam is so much more admirable than European Christianity? Who do they think established the trade in African slaves in the first place? The film doesn't have much to say about the situation in West Africa today beyond the platitude that "present conditions" are a consequence of all the brightest and best having been shipped away for 300 years. The Senegalese appear to be a poor but happy, musical gifted folk, friendly and welcoming, respectful of their elders (and not above fleecing the visiting Americans in the fish market). Is this ethnic stereotyping or just my imagination? There is no comment on the armed guard that N'Dour and the camera crew seem to need in the opening sequence as they walk through the streets of Dakar.<br /><br />There is also a strong implication in the film that the slaves who were taken from Dakar came from Dakar. The similarity between the folk drumming style of New Orleans and the folk drumming style of Senegal is cited in evidence. The last thing the slaves heard before they were shipped away was the drumming of their homeland, bidding them farewell. Except, of course, that by and large, the slaves shipped from Dakar did not come from Dakar. They were captured or traded from the interior by the coastal Senegalese and sold to merchants of whichever European power currently held the Gorée slave fort. The people of Dakar are not the descendents of Africans who escaped the slave trade, they are just as likely – more likely – to be descendents of the people who sold their black brethren into slavery and exile.<br /><br />The two agenda's clash again in the final part of the film. There are two separate endings. On the one hand, the concert which N'Dour and Co have been rehearsing and preparing along the way and which they deliver in the courtyard of the Gorée slave fort. The other end comes when the Harmony Harmoneers sing the spiritual "Return to Glory", in the seaward doorway of the slave fort. This is deeply moving, even if it is hard to believe the performance is quite as spontaneous as it appears.<br /><br />This is a film that is flawed. Unclear of the story it is trying to tell and tugged in different directions. Irritating, confusing, beautiful and emotional by turns. Watch it (listen to it) for the music and the feeling, but don't expect enlightenment or intellectual rigour.

Ten years ago I really wanted to see this movie on the cinema. But I missed it, and then forgot about it. Oh boy, am I glad this movie didn't get to ruin my teenage eyes back then.<br /><br />I saw it yesterday, and seriously, this must be among the 10 worst movies ever made. And I'm talking about movies which has had too much attention, such as those wonderful trailers on TV, and too much money spent on actors and the making of the movie.<br /><br />The script sucks and the acting sucks even worse, do I need to say more?<br /><br />Please, Hollywood, NO MORE ARNOLD!!

I give this movie a 4 cause I'm a die hard fan of the video game series. the graphics and animation are excellent and its nice to see the whole gang in CG form Sephiroth's still cool<br /><br />now the reasons it only got a 4 well the characters feel like planks of wood with some of the worst voice acting I've ever seen(I've watched epic movie)<br /><br />the movie just seems cloud orientated so much so that it make even the fans embarrassed with cloud this and cloud that. clouds mentioned so much that it make you not want to see him in this movie <br /><br />the villains have the award for the worst villains ever (i was more scared by the wicked witch of the west) <br /><br />all the other characters in this movie are simply put in the movie for a nod to the fans and doesn't take it further then that<br /><br />wtf's with the chilly chally???<br /><br />summary: waited 9 years for this movie and this is what i get a large pointless and boring cut scene i beg the head of square cenix to shoot the man responsible for this burn every copy of the movie and any one involved in it and create a new movie from the ashes's (it would be nice to make the movie in live action and based on the original game)

The Gilmore girls is about a mother who had a daughter when she was 16. Now the daughter is 16 (in season 1) and they live like sisters. Sharing everything, trusting each other completely.<br /><br />I like The Gilmore Girls but I am not sure why. The mother, named Lorelai (Lauren Graham), and the daughter, named Rory (short for Lorelai, played by Alexis Bledel), are both very beautiful women, they are both funny and they are charming in their own ways. There are some funny supporting characters, such as Luke (Scott Patterson). He and Lorelai like each, may be even love each other, but neither of them really acts on it. They have their little moments. There are some other supporting characters, most of them very funny, and with their won touching moments.<br /><br />What I like the most I think is to see the relationship between the young mother and the daughter who is becoming an adult. The dialogue between them is quick, sharp, funny and sometimes touching as well. The band they have is beautiful. The Gilmore Girls makes you feel good so try it.