Datasets:

srivatsavaasista

/

textgenerator-ds-mini

like 0

Coonskin might be my favorite Ralph Bakshi film. Like the best of his work, it's in-your-face and not ashamed of it for a second, but unlike some of his other work (even when he's at his finest, which was before and after Coonskin with Heavy Traffic and Wizards), it's not much uneven, despite appearances to the contrary. Bakshi's taking on stereotypes and perceptions of race, of course, but moreover he's making what appears to be a freewheeling exploitation film; blaxploitation almost, though Bakshi doesn't stop just there. If it were just a blaxploitation flick with inventive animation it could be enough for a substantial feature. But Bakshi's aims are higher: throwing up these grotesque and exaggerated images of not just black people but Italians/mafioso, homosexuals, Jews, overall New York-types in the urban quarters of Manhattan in the 70s, he isn't out to make anything realistic. The most normal looking creation in looking drawn "real" is, in fact, a naked woman painted red, white and blue.<br /><br />In mocking these stereotypes and conventions and horrible forms of racism (i.e. the "tar-rabbit, baby" joke, yes joke, plus black-face), we're looking at abstraction to a grand degree. And best of all, Bakshi doesn't take himself too seriously, unlike Spike Lee with a film like Bamboozled, in delivering his message. This is why, for the most part, Coonskin is a hilarious piece of work, where some of the images and things done and sudden twists and, of course, scenes of awkward behavior (I loved the scene where the three animated characters are being talked at by the real-life white couple in tux and dress as looking "colorful" and the like), are just too much not to laugh at. It's not just the imagery, which is in and of itself incredibly "over"-stylized, but that the screenplay is sharp and, this is key for Bakshi this time considering, it's got a fairly cohesive narrative to string along the improvisations and madness.<br /><br />Using at first live-action, then animation, and then an extremely clever matching of the two (ironically, what Bakshi later went for in commercial form with Cool World is done here to a T with less money and a rougher edge), Pappy and Randy are waiting outside a prison wall for a buddy to escape, and Pappy tells of the story of Brother Rabbit, who with Brother Bear and Preacher Fox go to Harlem and become big-time hoodlums, with Rabbit in direct opposition to a Jabba-the-Hut-esquire Godfather character. This is obviously a take off on Song of the South with its intentionally happy-go-lucky plot and animation, here taken apart and shown for how rotten and offensive it really is.<br /><br />Yet Bakshi goes for broke in combining forms; animated characters stand behind and move along with live-action backgrounds; when violence and gunshots and fights occurs it's as bloody as it can get for 1975; when a dirty cop is at a bar and is drugged and put in black-face and a dress, he trips in a manner of which not even Disney could reach with Dumbo; a boxing match with Brother Bear and an opponent as the climax is filmed in wild slow-motion; archive footage comes on from time to time of old movies, some and some from the 20s that are just tasteless.<br /><br />Like Mel Brooks or Kubrick or, more recently, South Park, Bakshi's Coonskin functions as entertainment first and then thought-provocation second. It's also audacious film-making on an independent scale; everything from the long takes to the montage and the endlessly warped designs for the characters (however all based on the theme of the piece) all serve the thought in the script, where its B-movie plot opens up much more for interpretation. To call it racist misses the point; it's like calling Dr. Strangelove pro-atomic desolation or Confederate States of America pro slavery. And, for me, it's one of the best satires ever made.

This film is striking only in its banality and use of cliches. Sadly it was obvious throughout up until the ending. But don't be mistaken into thinking that it ended strongly. Only a little unexpectedly, though nothing worth watching the thing through for.<br /><br />From the taciturn and wronged hero, to the Germanic baddy, to the expendable team, the characters were entirely wooden and obvious. The two FBI agents Smith and Wesson (geddit?) gave some hope of humour, but that came to nothing.<br /><br />I am a big science fiction fan but it is hard to find any redeeming quality in this film. A turkey!<br /><br />

Snakes on a Train starts as Mexican couple Brujo (A.J. Castro) & Alma (Julia Ruiz) cross the boarder into the US, they then illegally board a seventeen hour train to Los Angeles. However Alma's family didn't approve of her & Brujo's relationship & placed an ancient black magic curse on her that turns all her insides into snakes, ain't life a b*tch? As the snakes pour out of Alma's mouth & slither away to other parts of the train they begin to infect the other passengers with the same unusual ailment...<br /><br />Edited & directed by the Mallachi Brothers (although the IMDb claims it's just one guy using a pseudonym, Peter Mervis) one has to say that I thought Snakes on a Train was crap, it's as simple as that really. It seems the entire film was set-up & made to cash in on the Samuel L. Jackson cult flick Snakes on a Plane (2006) by every horror fans least favourite production company the Asylum who specialise in ripping-off big budget Hollywood flicks & that style of money & film-making is no more evident than here with Snakes on a Train, making a film just because the title rhymes with a more successful film is not a good starting point. The script by Eric Forsberg is rubbish, for a start Snakes on a Plane was great fun whereas Snakes on a Train is a lot more serious & when you actually break it down & look at it this should have been much more light hearted. In fact it probably would have worked better as an Scary Movie (2000) type spoof. You know something, I am struggling to find one positive thing to say about Snakes on a Train it's that bad. For a start the character's are rubbish & it's impossible to emote with anyone, the story is downright awful & makes no sense (if people spew all those small snakes up where did the huge ones come from? Why did Alma turn into the giant snake at the end? Why did Bujo kill the train driver? How was he going to stop the train once it reached Los Angeles? Where did that typhoon come from at the end?), it takes itself far too seriously, the first seventy odd minutes is so boring & uneventful I am surprised I stayed awake & it's just a very, very poor film on just about every level.<br /><br />Director Mervis only has a few train carriage car sets which all look pretty much alike so the film becomes very repetitive & dull to watch. There's barely any blood or gore, there are some snakes borrowing under a few peoples skin, someone gets shot & that's about it. The special effects are rubbish too, the giant CGI snake at the end is truly awful & the least said about it the better. It's not scary, there's zero atmosphere & it's a bit of a bore from start to finish. The real live snakes are a problem too, they are just so docile & nonthreatening. If you look at any scene featuring a real snake & an actor the snakes never make any move towards them or act aggressively & in fact always appear to want to slither away in the opposite direction.<br /><br />Shot in California technically the film is obviously low budget & it show's, basically it looks cheap because it is. The acting isn't great not that the actor's are given any sort of material to work with.<br /><br />Snakes on a Train is rubbish, I am sorry but that's how I feel & I don't quite know how else to describe it. I really can't see what anyone would get out of watching Snakes on a Train, it really is that bad.

Don't let the rating of 5.9 (as of this writing on 12-8-02) fool you, this is one excellent film.<br /><br />I cannot fathom how this got such a rating considering being so solid at all levels. The direction, acting, cinematography--all good. The story is interesting and original and my only inkling as far as understanding why the rating is such, sits in the fact that it is probably the type of movie that people rating might not normally see.<br /><br />I equate it to playing modern rock for an 80 year old. You might be young, brought up on it and love it, but he or she has not been and as a product of a different time and taste--doesn't care for it.<br /><br />If you like films and can handle movies based more on real people versus those comprised of mindless action, enormous flashy budgets and mediocre talent, give this one a try next time you see it on...<br /><br />

For a movie that was the most seen in its native South Korea for most of 2004, it was a huge disappointment. Shows that Hollywood is not the only place where people can make over-emotional, melodramatic movies. The film was over 130 minutes long but not a lot actually happened and everything that happened was pretty much what one expected, the plot was that transparent. Granted if one himself was Korean, one would perhaps get into it more, but for me it didn't do much anything. Suffice to say that as the case tends to be with Korean cinema, the plot revolves around the relationship between the northern and southern parts of the peninsula. South Korea decides to recruit and train an elite assassination squad from death-sentence prisoners to kill Kim Il-Sung.<br /><br />A tedious plot doesn't bother me much if the characters are good but unfortunately that is not the case this time around either. They are stereotypes and most of the acting is mediocre and too often just over the top as it tends to be in Korean cinema. Too much time is spent on the numerous montages and the characters remain distant, one dimensional cardboard cuts. They should've spent more time establishing the characters and less showing us how tough and cruel the training and the soldiers are.<br /><br />One thing it does remind us of, is that a lesser of two wrongs is still wrong.

This is classic 80's humor. If you were a teen in the 80's this was a summer hit to go see. It was a early look at those now super stars. This and Better off Dead just are fun and silly movies to sit back and enjoy. Everyone can admit they had a crazy summer when they were a teenager. Even crazy family and friends like these characters. To be introduced to some of these characters was so much fun. The uncle who is crazy sitting every waking moment at a radio waiting to win a million dollars, the grandmother who only likes the granddaughter and handed a bill to the kids after dinner, the twin brothers who look nothing alike, and to meet hoopz was so much fun. This may not of won an award but it is just a fun movie to get lost in one afternoon.

Michael Callan plays a smarmy photographer who seems, nonetheless, to be regarded as a perfect "catch" by any woman that runs across him; could this have anything to do with the fact that he also co-produced the film? He's a "hero" whom it's very difficult to empathize with, so the movie is in trouble right from the start. However, it's troubles don't end there. It has the production values of a TV-movie (check out that head made of clay or something, near the end), and the ending cheats in a way that I can't reveal, in case anyone wants to see the movie (highly unlikely). Let's just say that the killer knows more than we were let to know he knows. (*1/2)

Sorry my fellow Nevada City neighbors, but this one is bad.<br /><br />Brian must have had too much botox because he had very little facial expressions through out the entire movie.<br /><br />Alice looked like she had a board strapped to her backside. She was stiff throughout the movie.<br /><br />I looked up both Alice and Brian and was surprised to see the extensive bio of work. I would have guessed that they were first-year students.<br /><br />Ed Asner and Peter Jason carried the movie frankly with their banter and ease with every line. Ed certainly has not lost his charisma. I wish I'd taken the time to meet him while he was here.<br /><br />I love the snow scenes and scenes of stores and the church because I've been there. I make Nevada City my home and was anxiously awaiting the premiere. I was sadly disappointed.<br /><br />Sorry.

This movie is a hard-to-find gem! It is the story of Juliette, a perfectly ordinary cleaning woman who works in the large corporate office of a yogurt company, and Romuald, the president of same. He takes no notice of her, he takes no notice of anyone until several plots to wrest his company away from him all hit at the same time. He is lost, no one to turn to and no one to trust when he discovers Juliette. As the cleaning woman, no one pays any attention to her, so they say and do incriminating things in front of her that she is smart enough to catch on to and use to help her helpless and hapless boss. The complications are wild, she is not so ordinary as she seems with five children from five different ex-husbands who are all still madly in love with her, and he is not so shrewd as he thinks he is. This movie doesn't follow a predictable path and that's what keeps you watching. The acting is superb and there are some very moving moments along the way as well. The working class displays more savvy than those above them, almost in the same way "Gosford Park" showed the upper crust is not all it's cracked up to be mentally. I recommend this movie very much. See it! 9/10

A meteor hit's Crater Lake (hence our title), awakening a Plesiosaur, who proceed's to snack on the hick population (in California, that hick capital of the world.) <br /><br />There's bad movies, and then there's "The Crater Lake Monster", which somehow managed to escape MST3K. Featuring grating acting, a decent stop-motion beast, and more, this is a dreadful piece of 1970's low budget exploitation/monster movie dreck.<br /><br />While the movie is guilty of many crimes, the biggest one is Arnie and Mitch, two obnoxious rednecks who serve as our comic relief. They bumble around, fight to stock "banjo music",ogle women, and act like pathetic excuses of humanity. The characters are so bad, they should count as a crime against humanity.

OK, so I'am chilling in my room when mom knocks on the door. I open the door and what do I see in her hands? "SLEEPY HOLLOW HIGH". I thinking it has to be an older horror movie, because there's noway anyone could be stupid enough to name a movie that after The blockbuster hit "Sleepy Hollow" starring Johnny Depp. But to my surprise the movie is at least two years older then the original. That alone should have stopped me from putting it into the V.C.R. But no I had to take a chance, I had to believe that this movie could have one small ray of hope. Little did I know that the rays where no where to be seen.<br /><br />Number one, the story line is so ridiculous that it's probably true in some country bumpkin town. Two, the actors seem more like people real life people who just happen to wonder on the set when the director yell cut. Three, just about any movie starring the director is always awful. But the funny thing is that this is yet another movie directed by Kevin Summerfield. I've become to rely on his movie to bring me to the floor with side splitting laughter.<br /><br />Where to start on this movie? I know, let's start with the jogger in the woods. The camera lighting was so bad that I lead to believe that the jogger was standing still and the camera man was running. I love how the woman's stop to eat a candy bar. I mean it's just about dark, or just about light, who could tell with the camera lighting. And she stops running to eat a candy bar, I mean a CANDY BAR WHAT THE HELL. So she ends up being the first victim because of stupidity, and already I'am ready to break the tape, find the director, burn his little hands.<br /><br />Then out of nowhere some guys like trying to fix a car that probably been broken for some years now. Then in come the fake Mack 10 and a very real prostitute, who happen to be part of our main charter cast.<br /><br />The some of the movie is about a group of kids who all get into trouble. And are given the choice to pick up trash in the Sleepy Hollow park or face suspension forever. There sent in the woods with one of the teachers(Mr.E or a.k.a Kevin Summfield) who suppose to watch over them and make sure that all goes accordingly. The funniest thing is how undeveloped the charters really are. I mean what is with the fake Mack 10 dude and who's ever heard of Hacker trying to kill themselves. And some how one of the students has had an affair with the teacher Mr. E, before all of this community service crap had even came up. Yet the school still thought it was a cool idea for them to let him go. Also there's one student named J who purpose in the movie is to keep annoyingly popping up out of no where trying to make the audience jump, when all he really does is add to the cheapness of the film. The sound was so horrible in this movie. I mean there was one seen when two guys are fighting, and the guy punches the other guy in the stomach, and out of the T.V. comes this sound effect that sounds like someone punching a stale wooden box. It began horribly and ended dangerously stupid, even my taste. I will say this though, the music in the back ground made the scenes look some what tolerable. But not that much tolerable. My conclusion is this, if you want to left at yet another movie that Kevin Summfield took serious buy "Sleepy Hollow High.<br /><br />P.S I'am still thinking about shooting myself to remove those images of the fake Mack 10. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    Film auteur Stephan Woloszczuk explores the depths of love, passion, and brotherhood and the devastating results of loss in his latest film BLINDSPOT.<br /><br />BLINDSPOT'S diegetic world is exploding with suspense and takes the audience on a twisting  journey to the core of the human soul.  As a director, he manages to draw the human spirit from the performances of his actors.   With superb editing, especially in the flashback scenes and beautiful cinematography, BLINDSPOT is a thought provoking suspense from beginning to end.  A thriller which leaves much to the minds' eye.<br /><br />What an  astounding accomplishment for Stephan Woloszczuk.<br /><br />  Cheers Stephan! Angela Sander

I fail to see how anyone who has actually read the M. Didius Falco mysteries could make such a mockery of them. An Aussie has no business in Ancient Rome. Nothing of the books is in this film except the setting and characters, and they are wasted on a plot thin enough through which to read the silly script. Kevin Connor and Lee Zlotoff have a lot of nerve displaying their names in the credits.

This splendidly-directed fantasy is the second in the popular by flawed Tarzan series put out by MGM. It is a first-class adventure for many reasons, I suggest--fine photography, strong imaginative qualities, a delightful cast, good simulated-jungle locales and a very exciting storyline. Johnny Weissmuller plays Tarzan, a mono-syllabic untutored sort unlike Edgar Rice Burroughs' creation; but he is honest, loyal, brave and very courageous, and he needs to be during this narrative. As Jane Parker, his wife who had been Jane Porter in the novels, Maureen O'Sullivan is very attractive and lively, as well as being athletic where the script calls for that quality. The effect of the lighting, the spacious and clever sets is quite unusual. This is an outdoor adventure filmed on the MGM back-lot which really works. The fabulous Mutir Escarpment is a remote locale which allows Tarzan and Jane to live undisturbed; but into their idyll come people searching from them, emissaries of a civilization Jane has left behind and into which Tarzan could not really be comfortably habituated. One is Harry Holt, still in love with her, who with his friend tempts her to come back to civilization with him; the gown and perfumes interest her, but she refuses to leave Tarzan. Tarzan has to protect her against several wild animals, in scenes that look like a humanized King King. The group claim to want to hunt animals, and Tarzan agrees for Jane's sake to a bit of big game trapping; but at some point, the idea of ivory and of obtaining a fortune turns the expedition's heads' minds. Tarzan is shot, left for dead; and the group force Jane to accompany them on an expedition as they follow a dying elephant to the fabulous "elephant's graveyard". But they find the area guarded by a savage tribe and are attacked by lions. Tarzan rides in on an elephant he has revived in time to call; in a most spectacular elephant-filled scene, he saves Jane and what is left of the expedition, who return home little richer but much wise, as Jane continues her savage idyll with her new husband. The film was directed by set-design wizard Cedric Gibbons, and quite beautifully too. His work and the lighting are the outstanding accomplishments of this entertaining and exciting film,which manages to seem real despite all its Hollywood shortcomings from start to finish. Neil Hamilton is a very good Harry, Paul Cavanagh is even better before and after he reveals himself to be thoroughly bad. Forrester Harvey and Nathan Curry round out a small cast very professionally. An unusual and well-realized fantasy film with interesting situations and some strong dialogue confrontations as well. Recommended.

i loved this movie. you have to respect midgets that dressed up like tiny Martians. Sure the story may have been thin at times, but you can't take away from the way it was done. i used to watch this over and over again when i was 8. its a kids movie, and besides, it has some of the greatest quotes ever. Blanzee's "Home on the Range" rendition is awesome. <br /><br />very well done if you ask me, 8 of 10.

It's hard to believe a movie can be this bad, but you live and learn. What's more amazing is the fact that the people who put this thing together likely had college educations. Meanwhile, the fruit of their labor bares the appearance of something a group of five eighth graders may have come up with. On the bright side, (if there is one) the soundtrack has some nice moments, which is another reason to question how the rest of the film can be so hideously bad.

I chose "The English Patient" for a history extra credit assignment. I thought that this movie would be incredibly boring. Instead, it has become one of my favorites. It portrays life in WWII quite accurately, and the love story is amazing. The love story made the movie so incredible. I felt this interesting feeling, of passion or something. It made me want to watch the movie over and over again. Kristin Scott Thomas and Ralph Fiennes are amazing actors and the way they played their characters is amazing. The look wonderful together and actually seemed to be in love. I recommend this movie to anyone looking for a movie to watch as a leisure activity, or for an assignment.

I knew about this as a similar programme as Jackass, and I saw one or two episodes on Freeview, and it is the same, only more extreme. Basically three Welsh guys, and one mad British bloke were brought together by love of skateboarding, and a complete disregard/masochistic pleasure to harm themselves and their health and safety. They have had puking, eating pubes-covered pizza, jumping in stinging nettles, naked paint balling, jokes on the smaller guy while heavily sleeping/snoring, stunts in a work place, e.g. army, cowboys, and many more insane stunts that cause bruises, bumps, blood and vomit, maybe not just for themselves. Starring Matthew Pritchard who does pretty much anything, Lee Dainton also up for just about anything, Dan Joyce (the British one) who hardly does much physical stuff and has a OTT laugh, and Pancho (Mike Locke) who does a lot, but is more popular for being short, fat and lazy. It was number something on The 100 Greatest Funny Moments. Very good!

First, it takes a full half hour to get Hackman out of jail and to start doing the job. What a waste of time, we all know Hackman is getting out to do some job for his masters, why waste almost a third of the movie on these sequences. Then Hackman stays in a hotel and the story arc again goes nowhere, simply proving to us that Hackman is under close watch and anything he says or does is know by the masters. Again, another 20 minutes. Then more wasted time showing the reunion with his wife. All of this should have taken 10-15 minutes at most simply as a set-up for the real action, intrigue and plot twists. By the time the real action gets going, I was so bored that I just wanted the movie to end. Hackman is great as usual, and the other actors as well, but this is a dud of the first magnitude.

(As a note, I'd like to say that I saw this movie at my annual church camp, where the entire youth group laughed at it. I bought it when I saw it on a shelf one year later, if only for the humor I derived from a bad attempt at making an evangelical movie.)<br /><br />Lay it Down falls short of many movie fans' expectations on several different planes. Most of the problems lie within the impersonal acting. Regardless of the nice cars in the film, or the truth in Christ's sacrifice for you, as a movie AND witnessing tool, Lay it Down hardly delivers. <br /><br />Most good opinions of the movies are supported by Christians agreeing with the message. While it's easy for a Christian to agree with the points delivered, the audience hardly ever witnesses life outside a cliché. The fighting scene between Ben and his brother is horribly dubbed. And there are at least three blatant typos in the subtitles.<br /><br />I encourage anyone to watch the movie a second time with the director's commentary on. It really helps you understand just why the movie was written how it was. The director's views on secular society are practically opposite of what would cater to a movie-goer's needs: he shows a pedantic understanding of Nonchristians, as well as some points of religious conflict; most of the editing, he admits, was rushed, but "satisfactory"; he thought the over-used transitions and themes to be effective; and was completely happy with the acting. <br /><br />He also inserted motifs that he was rather proud of: -All (read: most) of the names are significant. Ben Destin = "Been Destined", Gus Pelman = "Gospel Man", Nicky D = Nicodemus. -The car doing donuts is symbolic of the circling nothingness that is a life without Christ. -When Ben leaves on Pete's motorcycle, he crosses his crutches to form a "cross".<br /><br />I'm not making any of those up. He throws around things like this in between saying while street racers and the like "blow their brains out with guns", and how "God is in control when your born and when your die". Yes, that was not a typo. He really says that.<br /><br />I have (little) forgiveness reserved for this movie. The "cool cars" and "good message" don't do jack to make this movie good. However, the movie was made from a group of unprofessional individuals on a budget less than 1/100th of "The Fast and the Furious's", and the time limit was unforgiving. With that in mind, I give it a score of 2/10, instead of the 1/10 I so dearly think it deserves.

Unfortunately, this movie is so bad. The original Out of Towners was manic and very funny, of course they used the script written by Neil Simon. For some reason Neil Simons script is not used in this film so it falls flat time and time again. Even the audience I was with never laughed. The direction is very slow and tedious and when there is a joke it is given away so the joke dies i.e. The couple having sex in the park. They announce it is a lighting ceremony for New York, well we all know the lights are going to come on and we will be able to see cute and mugging Goldie & Steve do a bit of slap stick. The whole movie winds up being like this...a joke is set up and given away. Why isn't Goldies hair ever even messed up in the movie. You will also notice every close up of Goldie (they use a very intense soft lens). I suggest you rent the original with Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis, that's if you want to laugh.

I rented this movie for two reasons. The first was all of the good things that I read about it. I definately was impressed, and couldn't agree more with all of the reviews I read. The second reason is because I know these guys. I don't know Mark as well as I do Mike. He hasn't changed much from the years we knew each other. I know him as "the reaper" from a local Milwaukee radio station (WMSE). The way he is in this film is genuinely Mike 100%. He once gave me a table that he made. It was a little one, about 15" high, that said Metallica on it. The odd thing about it was it only had two legs. Sometimes it's the thought that counts, and Mike always has thought about others first.

Oh-so-familiar comedy story about low-key nice-guy Paul (Jason Lee), who after the night of his bachelor party, wakes up in bed with Becky (Julia Stiles), an attractive blonde he met just the night before. After lying about it to his fiancée Karen (Selma Blair), he's forced to tell more and more lies to cover his tracks.<br /><br />I'm sure most of us have been witness to a story like this at least once before...on film or on TV. The movie is formulaic and EXTREMELY predictable, with an ending you may see coming a mile away.<br /><br />At least the cast provides some interest and keeps it watchable. Lee is just right in the lead, and Stiles is a lot of fun in a light-hearted comedic role different from the very serious roles she usually plays. Becky is a free spirit who seems to change jobs as often as other people change their clothes.<br /><br />But you know, this isn't exactly well-written. At least one question is left unanswered: for WHAT, exactly, is Ray (Lochlyn Munro), Becky's brutal ex-boyfriend, being investigated by the I.A.?<br /><br />And I didn't like the character of Buck (David Koechner), Paul's stepfather; he's a super-obnoxious moron who got on my nerves so quickly I was begging for somebody to punch him.<br /><br />Add another debit: a gratuitous, uncredited cameo by comic/actor Larry Miller, once again playing a grouch (in this case, it's a little justified - his character is an ultra-conservative minister).<br /><br />Not good at all, but as usual for me, I give it a three out of ten based on the efforts of the cast alone.

This is definitely one of the better documentaries I have seen looking at family relationships and marriage. I saw "capturing the friedmans" a short while ago and have to admit I thought this was better.<br /><br />The story is not an incredibly shocking one, but it is a great examination of trapped personalities and relational cold war. Block deftly guides the viewer through diaries, family footage and after-the-fact interviews; his interview style is sensitive and probing, and his insights are clear and measured.<br /><br />51 Birch Street is a great examination of personalities and relationships over 40-50 years of social change, the social fallout, and potential for redemption.

Can they possibly get any worse than this? Probably. But after all Steven Seagal gets to do what he does. Well kind of; this time instead of mortally wounding the bad guys he just wounds them. By reputation of being a bad ass agent Seagal is hired to deliver a special package from France to America. But it is not an easy task with so many people trying to intercept and foul up the mission. The fights just don't have enough bite and the big bangs are just big and that's all. Anna-Louis Plowman seems to be the only cast member not to appear wooden. Also in the cast are: Jeffery Pierce, Max Ryan and Harry Van Gorkum. Don't put all the blame on Seagal for this clunker.

A brilliant Russian émigré devises the ‘Stanislavsky' system for winning at contract bridge - which makes him and his beautiful wife the GRAND SLAM Sweethearts of America.<br /><br />What could have been just another silly soap opera is elevated by fine production values & excellent acting to the status of a very enjoyable little comedy. A few unexpected touches are thrown in to keep the viewer's attention engaged - the way in which the principle cast is introduced as faces on a deck of cards; the introduction of a zany acrobat into the plot for no other reason than to enjoy a bit of lunacy; and the way in which a wide variety of different kinds of Americans are shown to be transfixed by listening to the broadcast of the concluding game.<br /><br />Paul Lukas & Loretta Young do very well as the Bridge Sweethearts - Lukas suave & sophisticated and Miss Young passionately loving and beautiful (even if the script keeps her puffing on a cigarette a bit too much). They are fun to watch, even when their behavior is not always the most believable or compelling.<br /><br />Frank McHugh gives another good performance as a relentlessly cheerful ghost writer who adores Miss Young. The delightful Glenda Farrell eschews her customary wisecracking persona in a small role as McHugh's ditsy gal pal. Roscoe Karns handles the fast-talking dialogue as a brash radio announcer. Diminutive Ferdinand Gottschalk is wonderful as a snobbish bridge expert.<br /><br />Movie mavens will recognize Dewey Robinson as a belligerent nightclub patron; Emma Dunn as a sob sister reporter; Paul Porcasi as the owner of the Russian nightclub; Charles Lane as a Russian waiter; and Jimmy Conlin as a kibitzer at the final bridge game - all uncredited.<br /><br />The film takes advantage of the fad for contract bridge which had swept across the country since its development in the 1920's. It expects the viewer to have a basic knowledge of the intricacies of the game and makes no attempt to explain anything to the uninformed.

I generally love this type of movie. However, this time I found myself wanting to kick the screen. Since I can't do that, I will just complain about it. This was absolutely idiotic. The things that happen with the dead kids are very cool, but the alive people are absolute idiots. I am a grown man, pretty big, and I can defend myself well. However, I would not do half the stuff the little girl does in this movie. Also, the mother in this movie is reckless with her children, to the point of neglect. I wish I wasn't so angry about her and her actions because I would have otherwise enjoyed the flick. What a number she was, take my advise and fast forward through everything you see her do until the end. Also, is anyone else getting sick of watching movies that are filmed so dark. Anymore, one can hardly see what is being filmed. As an audience, we are impossibly involved with the actions on the screen. So then, why the hell can't we have night vision?

This movie was messed up. A sequel to "John Carpenter's Vampires", this didn't add up right. I'm not sure that I enjoyed this much. It was a little strange. Stick to the first "Vampires", it's a good movie. "Vampires: Los Muetos" wasn't a good attempt of a sequel.<br /><br />4/10

Mickey Rooney (as Mi Taylor) is a young man drifting along the figurative road to ruin, where he meets 12-year-old Elizabeth Taylor (as Velvet Brown) - she adores horses, but he has a sad history with the animals. Ms. Taylor is enamored with Mr. Rooney's horse-sense; she takes him home, and gets him room and board with her family. They are supported very well by Anne Revere and Donald Crisp (as Mr. and Mrs. Brown). Butch Jenkins and Angela Lansbury are Taylor's strained siblings.<br /><br />The plot of "National Velvet" is implausible to a fault; for example, the circumstances leading to Taylor's ride in the "Big Race" are quite a stretch (but were likely more believable on paper). Still, the characters' connection to horses, and to Ms. Revere's character are nicely conceived. Rooney and Taylor are excellent in the starring roles; there is a balance between Rooney's fading "child star" and Taylor's exuberant new "child star", which adds depth to their characterizations.<br /><br />The excellent performances of Rooney and Taylor are further enhanced by fine direction, photography, and editing from Clarence Brown, Leonard Smith, and Robert Kern. A sentimental classic. <br /><br />******** National Velvet (12/14/44) Clarence Brown ~ Mickey Rooney, Elizabeth Taylor, Anne Revere

There is a bit of a spoiler below, which could ruin the surprise of the ONE unexpected and truly funny scene in this film. There is also information about the first film in this series.<br /><br />I caught this film on DVD, which someone gave as a gift to my roommate. It came as a set together with the first film in the "Blind Dead" series.<br /><br />This movie was certainly much worse than the first, "La Noche del Terror Ciego". In addition, many of the features of the first movie were changed significantly. To boot, the movie was dubbed in English (the first was subtitled), which I tend to find distracting.<br /><br />The concept behind the series is that in the distant past a local branch of the Knights Templar was involved in heinous and secret rituals. Upon discovery of these crimes, the local peasantry put the Templars to death in such a manner that their eyes can no longer be used, thus preventing them from returning from Hell to exact their revenge. We then jump to modern times where because of some event, the Templars arise from the dead to exact their revenge upon the villagers whose ancestors messed them up in the first place. Of course, since the undead knights have no eyes, they can only find their victims when they make some sort of noise.<br /><br />The Templars were a secretive order, from about the 12th century, coming out of the Crusades. They were only around for about 150 years, before they were suppressed in the early 1300s by the Pope and others. Because they were secretive, there were always rumors about their ceremonies, particularly for initiation. Also, because of the way the society was organized, you didn't necessarily have church officials overseeing things, which meant they didn't have an inside man when things heated up. And, because of the nature of their trials, they were tortured into confessions. The order was strongest in France, but did exist in Portugal and Spain, where the movies take place.<br /><br />Where the first movie had a virgin sacrifice and knights drinking the blood directly from the body of the virgin (breast shots here, of course, this is a horror film after all), and then, once the knights come back to life, they attack their victims by eating them alive and sucking their blood; in this sequel, this all disappears. You still have the same scene (redone, not the same footage) of them sacrificing the virgin, but they drain the blood into a bowl and drink it from that. Thus, when they come back, they just hack people up with their swords or claw people to death, which I have to say is a much less effective means of disturbing your audience. There's also a time problem: in the first film the dating is much closer to the Templars, where here they are now saying it is the 500 anniversary of the peasants burning these guys at the stake, which would date it around 1473. And the way that the Templars lose their eyes is much less interesting as well. In the first, they have them pecked out by crows. Now they are simply burned out, and in quite a ridiculous manner.<br /><br />Oh yeah, and maybe it was just me, but there seemed to be a lot of people from the first movie reappearing in this film (despite having died). Not really a problem, since the movie is completely different and not a sequel in the sense of a continuation, but odd none-the-less.<br /><br />The highlight of this movie is the rich fellow who uses a child to distract the undead while he makes a break for the jeep. The child's father had already been suckered by this rich man into making an attempt to get the jeep, so he walks out and tells her to find her father. It comes somewhat out of the blue, and is easily the funniest scene in the film. Of course, why the child doesn't die at this point is beyond me, and disappointed for horror fans.<br /><br />I couldn't possibly recommend this film to anyone. It isn't so bad that it becomes funny, so it just ends up being a mediocre horror film. The bulk of the film has several people holed up in a church, each making various attempts to go it alone in order to escape the blind dead who have them surrounded. When the film ends, you are not surprised at the outcome at all; in fact, quite disappointed. If you are into the novelty of seeing a Spanish horror film, see the first movie, which at least has some innovative ideas and not so expected outcomes.

Do yourself a favor and stay away from this film. Minus 50 billion out of 10. If you want hard boiled action don`t rent it! If you want a good independent film look elsewhere!<br /><br />I never thought i`d see Burt Reynolds in such a crappy movie. It has the thinnest plot-line ever. Van Damm flicks should win an Academy compared to this one.<br /><br />Rob Lowe once again prove why he is not the hottest actor in the world. Even Hasselhoff would have made a better drug addict than him. I do not want to bore you with more facts about this crappy movie, except to say that you are better off renting anything by Hulk Hogan or Dolph Lundgreen. This should prove my point, if you get my drift.<br /><br />

I am NOT one to like those Anime Cartoons (eg.Pokemon,Dragonball Z,Naruto), But Zatch Bell is Different in my opinion.Zatch Bell is more Exciting, has better characters, and doesn't focus so much on a sort of weapon or Mamodo as much as the episodes i've seen,Such as it The Episodes "Big Brother Kanchome", "Zatch vs. Kiyo".Zatch Bell Really focuses on the Life of The Strange Zatch,The Smart Kiyo,The Clueless Suzy,and the WeIrD Ponygon.Zatch Bell is probably my Fav Cartoon for now,but I encourage others to watch 1 Episode of it, you'll most likely will like it!<br /><br />-Robbie H. (aka Vectorman)

This film, originally released at Christmas, 1940, was long thought lost. A very poor copy has resurfaced and made into a CD, now for sale. Don't buy it! The film is unspeakably terrible. The casting is poor, the script is awful, and the directing is dreadful.<br /><br />Picture Roland Young singing and dancing. And that was the highlight.<br /><br />Perhaps this movie was lost deliberately.

great mystery, but the film goes down hill from there. The beginning is promising with a car wreck and a woman and her daughter being burned alive in front of a police officer, Edward. He is traumatized over this and is seen popping pills. A mysterious letter turns up from an old girlfriend asking for help in finding her missing daughter. So Ed travels to an island commune of mainly woman. They don't like outsiders. A lot of filler is with Ed shown looking around town for the girl. That made the movie too long. It finally gets a little better toward the end when we learn of the crazy rituals the woman perform and finally of the sinister plan in store for Edward.<br /><br />Overall, not a well written story and too long. <br /><br />FINAL VERDICT: I would skip this.

You might be a bit confused if you watch this silly made-for from the beginning, since the credits list Susan Dey as "Special Guest Star." Um, why would a one-off MOW like this have a guest star? Well, if you stick with it, you'll find yourself paying attention to little else but Ms. Dey's butt, wiggling in a flowered bikini as the "Partridge Family" house babe frolics on the beach to which that imaginative title alludes. Susan's derrière is especially compelling when she shakes it at the camera while teasing and tickling her pseudo-disaffected brother in one mildly incestuous scene. Sadly, Susie and her tush fight a losing battle: the jiggle-TV craze that might have put that bottom over the top was three years off, so that sweet booty just gets a supporting role. In 1976 Fat Freddy Silverman would have put that behind right out front and used this flick as Susan's audition tape for "Charlie's Angels." As is, our Susan was denied cheesecake immortality and had to settle for a very commendable career playing somber, neurotic women.<br /><br />The view beyond Susan's heinie, it must be said, is not very compelling. The scenery is nice, and photographed in a bizarre, hazy way that briefly fools you into thinking there might be some quirky creative intelligence at work behind the camera. Nope. It's just a typically suspense-challenged 70's made-for-TV thriller that allowed weekly series stars to make some extra cash(and collect some cable residuals, though they obviously didn't know that at the time) and show off their "range." Here we're treated to a TV-scale nuclear family, squaring off against TV-scale thugs who can't decide whether they're a motorcycle gang or a hippie cult (thus the filmmakers split the difference by putting them in dune buggies) and have never learned one of the primary lessons of 1970s television: don't mess with Dennis Weaver (see "McCloud" and "Duel"). The only potential for depth in this movie is in the aforementioned teenage-son character of Steve, played by the long-forgotten (if ever-remembered) Kristoffer Tabori, who is supposed to be rebellious and troubled and might feel some sympathy for and attraction to the lawless mob that is (supposedly) menacing his family. But Steve, as played by Tabori (gosh, why didn't we see more from this wunderkind?), is actually just grumpy and moody and isn't one bit conflicted when big D gets serious and draws a line in the proverbial (and literal) sand. For the sleep-deprived and Susan Deyniacs (there must be some of you out there) only.

I started watching this movie expecting some barely tolerable Hammer horror film wannabe... and I wasn't far off. There's a fair amount of glimpsed gore, and they threw in lots of nudity, but the latter half of the movie presents a few ironic twists. Holy cow, they actually put a little thought into the story, and didn't completely fall into the predictable stuff one expected at the outset. And dare I say it, some of the "gratuitous" nudity wasn't so gratuitous after all, because it fit in with the story and setting.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, it's still overall a bad movie, but as bad movies go, it's a shade more intelligent than the REALLY horrible tripe like Mesa of Lost Women and Robot Monster.

I give this movie an A+ for the sheer camp of it! As Dietrich's daughter Maria Riva wrote in the book on her mother, "If one sees The Garden of Allah in the context of high camp, it can be very amusing." And how! I laughed with delight at the overwrought score and the astoundingly, ridiculously, fantastically melodramatic dialogue. Viewers who've read the accounts of Boyer's toupee (it kept coming unstuck in the heat) will snicker every time it makes an appearance.<br /><br />Dietrich and Boyer rarely look at each other when giving their lines -- instead they gaze dreamily off into the distance, presumably so their faces can be photographed at the best angle and with the most advantageous light (if you're starring in a turkey might as well look good!). Dietrich's costumes are out of this world. As Riva notes in her book, Dietrich managed to steal Paramount's Travis Banton and have him design some of the most divine gowns, such as the chiffon beige dress & cape.<br /><br />I heartily agree with the other reviewers who rave about the Technicolor. It really is hard to believe the film was done in 1936 -- the color is fantastic.<br /><br />In short, if you watch The Garden of Allah with a lenient attitude and embrace its silliness, you can't help but enjoy it.

THE CRIMSON RIVERS is one of the most over-directed, over-the-top, over-everything mess I've ever seen come out of France. There's nothing worse than a French production trying to out-do films made in Hollywood and CR is a perfect example of such a wannabe horror/action/buddy flick. I almost stopped it halfway through because I knew it wouldn't amount to anything but French guys trying to show-off.<br /><br />The film starts off promisingly, like some sort of expansive horror film, but it quickly shifts genres, from horror to action to x-files type to buddy flick, that in the end, CR is all of it and also none of it. It's so full of clichés that at one point I thought the whole thing was a comedy. The painful dialogue and those silent pauses, with fades outs and fades ins just at the right expositionary moments, made me groan. I thought only films made in Hollywood used this hackneyed technique.<br /><br />The chase scene, with Vincent Cassel running after the killer, is so over-directed and over-done that it's almost a thing of beauty. The climax on top of the mountain, with the stupid revelation about the killer(s) with Cassel and Reno playing "buddies" like Nolte and Murphy in 48 HRS, completely derailed what little credibility the film had by then.<br /><br />It's difficult to believe that the director of THE CRIMSON RIVERS also directed GOTHIKA, which though had its share of problems, doesn't even come close to the awfulness of this overbaked, confused film.

A good example of the differences between American and foreign cinema can be seen in a film I recently watched on television: Indecent Proposal.<br /><br />Indecent Proposal's two protagonists, David and Diane Murphy are played Woody Harrelson and Demi Moore. I'm not sure if it was their total lack of chemistry or that they were not acting well, but why we should care so much whether these two stay together was beyond me. Love, affection, playfulness, attraction – none of these materialized on screen in their interactions together.<br /><br />Since I knew that eventually Robert Redford would show up, it was clear from the beginning that the good part, the meat of the movie, would be the scenes between him and Demi Moore. Poor Woody Harrelson just could not muster any emotion at all for the film. He seemed to be holding back, preoccupied with his receding hairline.<br /><br />OK, so fast forward. What idiots these two (Diane and David) are for thinking they can win back the $50,000 they owe by gambling. No acting faux pas there, just hideously bad, lazy, unforgivable writing. Of course they lose all their money. Surprised? I know I wasn't. Enter Robert Redford (John Gage in the film) – a romantic, perhaps emotionally frigid man, an updated Gatsby. A very good role and though not a great, great actor, next to those two, Redford looks like Olivier. He immediately falls in love and lust with Diane and we the viewers for once FEEL it. This is how to love a woman! Not David's way, trading gum mouth to mouth with Diane on a slimy pier. (Did I see that right?) As Gage, Redford wears a suit and tie in every scene. Yes it's meant to instruct the seemingly brain dead audience that here is a Rich Man, but he also looks damn good and by this point the brain dead audience appreciates it! Other wardrobe symbolism includes David's now-ironed shirts at the end of the film, signifying resolve, getting it together after a long interlude of forlorn wrinkled shirt wearing.<br /><br />And what is it with California garden parties as depicted in Hollywood movies? Suddenly everyone appears British, complete with lacy dresses, three piece suits for the men, hats (HATS!) and of course the parasol. Yes Diane, her transformation to Rich Man's fiancée now complete, is there at the auction daintily twirling a parasol. Though she insisted that she couldn't be bought, she succumbed at last to the sexual tension. Here is where the film branches off into pure Americana. I mean, of course David and Diane will end up together, my question is: WHY? Diane was bored with David, why not let her ride the Robert Redford wave? And I mean for a good long while? How can she pull herself out of the sexual-romantic thrall of this sexy older man so easily just because Woody Harrelson brings his receding hairline to the garden party, sits himself down and looks Demi Moore in the eyes. That's just not how it goes. He was so WEAK.<br /><br />But we must have our happy ending. We have to swallow the Moral Lesson. We're not sophisticated enough yet to have it otherwise. Director Lyn tried to make a Fatal Attraction for the juvie set, the young'uns.<br /><br />In addition to garden parties in which there's nary an SUV, tee shirt, or baseball cap in sight, such films also feature a reliable public transportation system that connects far-flung California cities and municipalities. How else to symbolize the return to middle class or working class life?

The reality of the mafia environment is absolutely dog-eat-dog where a gangster will be killed for showing any sign of weakness because they become a liability. I've got no problem with the human side of gansters' being portrayed but Bugsy steers too far in the direction of soft, comical, men. The film is enjoyable but is only light entertainment and not a biopic of a man who, though exciting, was extremely dangerous and fearsome.<br /><br />The acting's all good and the direction very solid. The locations and era are very well represented and the themes very interesting. Did Bugsy really want to kill Mussoulini?

I usually spend almost as much time writing my reviews as I do watching the film, but with Today You Die, I feel that doing so would be a criminal waste of my time.<br /><br />So here is a five minute rant about how bad this film is.<br /><br />There was a time in the mid-80s when a single look from Steven Seagal was enough to crack your ribs; a full on scowl could knock you off your feet. If he actually got a hold of you, he would snap you like a twig.<br /><br />These days, although he is still capable of doing considerable damage, he no longer looks the part. He's gone to seed and just doesn't know when to call it quits. He walks like he's dumped in his pants yet somehow still manages to look constipated, and he has put on weight. His trademark long ponytail has gone, but his hair still looks stupid. How this man keeps on working in the movie industry is beyond me.<br /><br />Today you Die is the usual Seagal mix of bone crunching fights, car crashes, gun battles and pyrotechnics. Seagal mumbles his way through the dull script, delivering his lines with zero enthusiasm or believability. In this third-rate action flick, he plays Harlan Banks a thief trying to go straight, who is conned into partaking in a $20,000,000 robbery. He gets caught, goes to jail, escapes, and seeks revenge. Yawn.<br /><br />There are some pretty good car chases and gun fights which intersperse the boring stuff (of which there is a lot), but reading other comments on IMDb has revealed that these were actually borrowed from other better movies. Seagal is also body-doubled an awful lot in this one.<br /><br />Seagal turns in one of the most dreadful performances of his career—and that's saying something, considering the lousy 'acting' in some of his recent efforts. Most hilarious is his totally embarrassing attempt at Ebonics (African American street slang). 'I da man, fo' sho'—no, actually Steven, you sound like an arse! With a ridiculous script and plot lines that go nowhere, this film is a waste of time, money and effort. And the final moment, where Harlan Banks saves a Children's home from closure is enough to make you blow chunks.<br /><br />Damn, I just looked at the clock. I was enjoying trashing this steaming pile of dreck so much, I went way over my five minutes. It's time to post this comment and get to watching something decent.

About the discussion on the South, the rednecks and the hillbillies... Well, I am from the South: Argentina, near the South Pole to be exact. Is this southern enough? Seriously, some stories are universal. We have never been to Greece, nor lived the classic period of Homer, but he speaks to us today. So does Shakespeare and Dante. And stories from far unknown places also reach us, when told with sensibility, intelligence, humor, just like "O Brother". Besides, we all (the rest of the world) have our own hillbillies too! And our own depression era (ever heard of Argentina during year 2001?), our politicians and racism, our gentle souls just like Delmar and Tommy... I simply loved this movie, folks. Despite the subtitles, despite being on the other side of the world. (And please forgive my errors in English, I tried my best)<br /><br />PS: I believe nobody quoted this favorite phrase: when Delmar asks George Nelson what does he do for a living, while handling him the machine gun...

Saw this last night and being a fan of the first Demons, I had hoped that the sequel would have the same fun, spooky spirit of it's predecessor. This is unfortunately not the case. The set-up is similar as the first, in which a horde of flesh-eating demons burst forth into reality by being released from a horror movie being played... (The first had been a movie theater, this one takes place in an apartment building and on TV.) Once the demons are released, madness and mass carnage ensues. That's pretty much it as far as plot development goes. It worked nicely in the first part because of the ghoulish make-up FX, fast pace and unpredictability. The sequel, however, doesn't cut it. The first problem seems to be that there are way too many characters who we don't really care about one way or another. If they were annoying or idiots, then there would at least be some kind of gratification when they are inevitably butchered/demonized/eaten alive...but these people are just kind of there waiting to be slaughtered. Plus, the fact that most of the characters are in different parts of the apartment building (and out of it), they are constantly cutting back and forth between them, which kept pulling me out of the story. There are some amusing bits, courtesy of the splatter FX and campiness. Such as a constant flow of dripping blood eating through one floor's construction after another as if it were alien acid... The first demon possession of a crabby birthday girl leads to the destruction of her entire party, and a creepy demon child clawing his way into the room of a tenant who is pregnant with child. However, that sequence parlays into a ridiculous-looking rubber demon baby puppet thing that bursts from the chest of the human child that constantly flies across the room at its intended victim. I got a couple of chuckles out of that scene, but I don't think that was Bava's intention. The scene probably would've worked better if they just kept the child demon around to attack the woman, but hey... Other little things like the over-zealous acting of most of the characters and the bad dubbing don't help matters. In summation, I managed to see the unrated version on DVD, and can't imagine having to sit all the way through the previously only available R rated version, because the make-up FX and gore were the only thing I got out of it. Also notable is an early role of producer Argento's future hottie daughter, Asia. In fact, she probably gives the best performance of the whole cast and she's barely on screen. Argento/Bava fan's might want to check it out just to see it, but will probably find themselves looking at their watch, like I did. Gore fans might get a kick out of some of the fx, but will be laughing themselves out of their chairs at the most goofy-looking evil baby puppet since Little Selwyn from Dead/Alive. You could do worse, but it certainly doesn't live up to the original.

Now I do understand that this film was not meant as an indictment against all Indians but it is an amazing film because it dares to investigate the hypocrisy that some Indians have concerning their women and sexuality. I have known for some time that sexism is very common in this society (with women being murdered because the husband's family doesn't want them any more after his death or because she had a small dowry as well as the frequent killing of female fetuses because they are seen as a curse instead of a blessing). I also realize that some from this culture will be greatly offended by the film, but the bottom line is that there is some truth to the subject matter--even if the film was so strongly attacked when it debuted in India a decade ago. As a result of the extreme misogyny in the movie, most Western audience members will be shocked or at least be emotionally pulled into the plight of the ladies in this film.<br /><br />Although I am a male, am not rabidly feminist and I am straight, the film had a strong positive impact on me and it is NOT an agenda film that can only be enjoyed by Lesbians and "man haters". In fact, I don't think the film is promoting hatred of men or homosexuality but instead gives a credibly argument how in the case of these two ladies it was the only reasonable alternative due to their wicked husbands. Yes, I use the word "wicked" and mean it, as both husbands living in this large household are intensely selfish and have no regard for their spouses' sexuality. In many traditional societies this is indeed the case and women are doomed to an empty emotional existence.<br /><br />One husband married a vivacious young woman, Sita, out of family obligation. This arranged marriage is uncomfortable for them both but in the beginning Sita makes an attempt to connect with her sullen husband. However, he sees himself as a victim and could have cared less about Sita--and he continues to have an affair with a liberal-minded Chinese lady. To make matters worse, he did nothing to hide the affair and made no apologies. In their dead marriage, sex was purely meant to produce children and there was no way Sita could have any of her sexual or emotional needs met. And unfortunately, he could have cared less.<br /><br />Another husband was married to a lady who was infertile (Radha). Oddly, after initially trying to have children, they have gone the next 13 years without any sexual contact whatsoever! It's because this man has decided to become an ascetic (i.e., in Hinduism, a person who gives up the pleasures of the world to gain inner enlightenment). Now his wanting to do this was all well and good IF he was not already married and had obligations for his wife. However, being married, this was an incredibly selfish act and like his brother, he assumed his wife had no sexual feelings nor did he seem to care. The closest he would allow her to him sexually was to sleep next to him--as having her next to him helped teach himself to "overcome the desires of the flesh". This must have brought nothing but frustration to her.<br /><br />So, you've got two neglected and normal women living in the same household who long for emotional connection as well as an outlet for their sexual needs. Eventually, these needs bring these sister-in-laws together--at first, just emotionally but later sexually as well. The movie was brilliant how it got me to look at and understand how in some cases homosexuality is inevitable and even healthy compared to a life of emotional desolation.<br /><br />Late in the film, when the intensity of their sexual relationship is discovered, it leads to a not totally unexpected reaction from Radha's "enlightened" husband--a man who seeks religious insight and peace yet is so wrapped up in himself that true insight and growth is impossible.<br /><br />This is a very challenging and adult film. While there is very little nudity, the subject matter is very adult and this is not a film to show your kids. Very disturbing indeed is one minor character who masturbates in front of an old paralyzed lady--as I said, this is NOT a film to let your kids watch. However, for a mature audience, this is an excellent and highly erotic film that will get you to think.<br /><br />The film features good acting, complex characters, excellent writing, lovely mood music and a slow pace that might annoy some, but which I found rewarding. The only serious negative I cannot blame on the movie itself but on the idiots who released this on videotape. This is because although the movie is in English, the accents are quite strong at times and it's not always easy to understand what's being said. BUT, and this is the worst part, there are no closed or open captions--including them is a must for Western audiences. If you do watch this film, see if you can find it on DVD or hopefully a newer release on video will have captioning--mine sure didn't.<br /><br />By the way, director Deepa Mehta (a popular female director) has made several other wonderful films such as EARTH and BOLLYWOOD/Hollywood. A consistent theme in her films is the conflict between traditional Indian culture and expectations and Westernism--with a strong emphasis on female characters. Not surprisingly, this West-thinking lady makes her home in Canada and is divorced--a truly unusual woman to say the least. For a similar film that explores traditional culture meets Western culture, try another Canadian gem, EAT DRINK MAN WOMAN.

Read This:<br /><br />BOYZ 'N THE HOOD IS A SCENE-BY-SCENE, COMPLETE RIP-OFF OF THIS MOVIE.<br /><br />Two friends in the hood, one's focused on intellectual pursuits and the other is an athlete. The friend who's an athlete gets involved with the wrong people and gets killed. (The athlete just happens to be Washington from 'Welcome Back, Kotter'.)<br /><br />It makes me mad that people don't know this. It blows my mind everytime I go into a video store and Boyz 'n the Hood is in the 'Drama' section while Cooley High is in 'Comedy'. It's an embarrassing disgrace. This movie is both funnier and more dramatic than John Singleton's rip-off. At least Singleton could have had the dignity to speak out that his film was homage to Cooley High, but no, he never said a word. Boys 2 Men, however, named their hit record after this film.

OhMyGAWD!!! THE MAGIC GARDEN is perhaps one of my most vivid '70s childhood memories. Two hippie chicks with ponytails, Carole and Paula would swing on swings, tell jokes they picked off the chuckle patch, dress up with costumes they found in a giant chest called The Storybox, and argue with a pesky pink squirrel named Sherlock that lived in one of their trees. They also could strum a mean acoustic guitar and sing a pretty melody. This was a great childhood show. Very 70s feeling. But that's the problem: They don't MAKE shows like this anymore. Pity that. You could tell these two girls really had hearts of gold and loved kids, they were really sweet. MAGIC GARDEN is one of those shows that if they came out with a box set people WOULD buy it, because its such a MELLOW walk down Memory Lane.

There were only two redeeming features about this movie; the beauty of Bucharest and its architecture, and the way they depicted the transformation from human form to wolf form. Forget about the plot or storyline from the book - they're completely absent from this movie. In fact, about the only things carried over from the book are the names of the main players. Even then you'll barely recognize the characterizations. If the film makers had made a good movie, even though unrelated to the book, I wouldn't have been so disappointed. Unfortunately, they did not. The plot and storyline are typical of low budget horror flicks, the acting is wooden, and the directorial efforts mundane. Oh yes, the way the loup garou bow to their leader is pure hoke. I suppose a nod of recognition is due for the animal handlers. The wolves were beautiful animals and well managed in their roles.

I never realized what a fabulous dancer Lana Turner was until I saw this movie. She was only 19 years old and gorgeous. What a pleasure to watch her dance with George Murphy. The story line was typical for its day but the dancing was really special. I never tire of watching Fred and Ginger but Lana Turner in this movie was just as terrific. I always thought of Lana as a so-so actress who tended to over act. She should have done more dancing and less of the Maddam X and Peyton Place roles. I had a new appreciation for her after seeing this movie and her wonderful dancing. Too bad the "Academy" doesn't give an "Oscar" for dancing.

Well where do i start? i think it's very insulting to the original Annie with Aileen Quimnn. I love the film Annie, and i was expecting this to be a brilliant film, but i was so disappointed! the acting is awful, the original Annie came out a few years before i was born, I'm now 25 and Annie is still one of my favourite films, So i was really excited to see Annie 2. The acting was awful in the film, were any of the characters original? very badly written, directed and acted. This is not a film i wish to see again, and any Annie lover i recommend that you don't watch this film because it will only leave you very disappointed. The young girls singing isn't bad but still doesn't compare to the original

Forget Jimmy Stewart reliving his life and opt for this smart comedy of errors instead. I suppose only institutionalized sexism explains why this flick and Stanwyck's other great Christmas story, "Meet John Doe" aren't revered with the same level of love as...well, you know it's name.<br /><br />Stanwyck plays a food writer for a McCall's-type rag who has been lying for years to her pompous publisher about the folksy setting for her recipes. She's an ace b.s. artist until the day Morgan's sailor is pulled from the ocean after 18 days afloat & 6 weeks recuperation in a Navy hospital. Released the last year of WWII, the film is dusted with subtle patriotic gestures and holiday nostalgia but never sinks to sentimentality. Stanwyck is sexy and sassy as always and meets her match in the hunky Morgan with whom it's love at first sight. Unfortunately, she has to play married to Gardiner's prissy architect who actually has been seeking her hand for years at his farm in CT, just to fool her boss.<br /><br />S.Z. Sakall adds a great deal of Hungarian malaprop & double-entendre humor in support as Babs' true source of culinary talent & Una O'Connor is hilarious as Gardiner's obnoxious Irish housekeeper.

Oh, those sneaky Italians. It's not the first time they based a movie on source material without the permission or knowledge of the, in this case, author of the novel. Of course this is not something that is typically Italian but got done quite a lot in the early days of cinema, mostly because they often thought they would be able to get away with it. James M. Cain's publishers managed to keep this movie off American screens until 1976 but nevertheless the movie itself has grown a bit into a well known classic.<br /><br />The movie is not as great to watch as the 1946 American version but it's a great movie nevertheless. This of course not in the least is due to the movie it's great strong story, that is an intriguing one and provides the movie with some great characters and realism. It follows the novel quite closely and is therefore mostly the same as other movie versions of its story, with of course as a difference that it got set in an Italian environment.<br /><br />Leave it up to the Italians to make a movie about life and the real people in it. These early drama's always have a very realistic feeling over it and are therefore also quite involving to watch. Unfortunately the movie lost some of its power toward the end, when the movie started to feel a bit overlong and dragging in parts. The movie could had easily ended 15 minutes earlier.<br /><br />Nevertheless, I don't really have much else negative to say about this movie. It's simply a greatly made one, based on some equally great and strong source material. Quite an impressive directorial debut for Luchino Visconti, who continued to direct some many more great and memorable Italian dramatic movies.<br /><br />8/10

Mindless dribble about the second coming of Christ in the form of a hippie and albino looking Sandra Locke. You have no idea what's happening on the screen with the irritating theme song "Suzanne" being played over and over throughout the movie until when "The Second Coming of Suzanne" is over you already know it by hard no matter how hard you try to forget the whole thing.<br /><br />This off-the-wall armature movie maker Logan,Jared Martin, is out to make the movie of the century but is so rude and obnoxious that none in the banking world is willing to finance his project. Planning to go on his own Logan then spots this couple at a seaside café and is fascinated with the young woman Suzanne, Sandra Locke, who reminds him of someone he knew in another life: Jesus Christ.<br /><br />With Logan's assistant and all around gofer Clavius, Richard Dreyfuss,somehow getting a $740,000.00 loan from the bank to finance Logan's masterpiece he starts to work on Suzanne by flattering her about her talent as an actress in order to get her interested to be in his film. This leads to Suzanne not only leaving her boyfriend artist Simon, Paul Sand, but later Simon being so depressed and feeling all alone takes a gun to his mouth and blows his brains out.<br /><br />The movie also has two somewhat unrelated sub-plots in it that has to do with a young autistic girl Dorothy, Kari Avalos, who's cured of her autism by Suzanne after everyone else, at the psychiatric hospital that she was committed to,failed. It's not really known what exactly Suzanne was doing at the hospital but she seemed to be some kind of orderly or volunteer there; was this supposed to show us in the audience that she, like Jesus, could miraculously heal the sick?<br /><br />There's also this newspaper columnist and big time businessman tycoon Jackson Sinclair, Gene Barry, who seems to be either going through a very difficult mid-life crisis or has seen a biblical-like vision that changed his life forever. Sinclair had been searching for the meaning of life as well as what it's all about all through the movie and wanted to know why there's all this suffering in the world, like this movie that he's in, and seemed to have found the answer when he first laid his eyes on Suzanne. Sinclair also got some sense knocked into his head when his private chauffeur David, Mark Rasmusser, who's gotten sick and tired of his weird and crazy hallucinations almost running him off a cliff in a kamikaze like drive along the Pacific Coast.<br /><br />The movie "The Second Coming of Suzanne" goes on with a number of unrelated sequences, probably to fill or pad in some time by it's director and film editor, and then goes to it's final scene in a Christ-like crucification on a hill as Logan has all the cameras rolling. It turns out that the crazed Logan got so carried away with his masterpiece as he tried to replicate, on the helpless and tied up Suzanne, the actual crucification of Jesus Christ some 2,000 years ago.<br /><br />Hard to sit through and almost impossible to follow "The Second Coming of Suzanne" puts you through the same kind torture that Suzanne is put through by Logan and the makers of the film. The movie tries to be arty but that's just an excuse to cover up it's brainless and non-existent storyline and even worse the terrible and amateurish acting by everyone in it.

I would just like it to be known, that I do not often rate movies below a 5. I was originally very excited to see this movie. Its numerous trailer bumps on TV for several months made me REAALLY want to see this movie. So, the other night when I saw that it was available on FearNet on Demand, I got some popcorn and sat down to watch the film.<br /><br />The storyline seemed intriguing enough - some dude is butchering unsuspecting people on the subway. There's a photographer obsessed with the missing people. Where are they going? What's happening to them? One day, the photographer sees a connection between some photos he has taken, and becomes obsessed with the butcher, following him around, yada yada. The film had a way of sucking you in, even though the plot was highly predictable. "Oh no, it's dark, look out behind you" I say, quite bored with the cheap thrills.<br /><br />The plot, even though predictable, was intriguing...that is, until the end. "This was good until the end.... Then it just got silly", says Jack_skellington_freke on the message boards. And I fully agree. And here come the spoilers...<br /><br />See, I was hoping it was some mad killer, some psychotic person obsessed with cannibalism. No. It was some secret society keeping creatures alive for centuries. Woo. How original. How unrealistic. How dull.<br /><br />3/10. Come on Lionsgate. You've had amazing films, but this one sunk.

i do not understand at all why this movie received such good grades from critics - - i've seen tens of documentaries (on TV) about the wine world which were much much better when (if) you watch it, please think of two very annoying aspects of mondovino : first, the filming is just awful and terrible and upsetting : to me, it looked like the guy behind the camera just received the material and was playing with it : plenty of zooms (for no purpose other than pushing the button in/out) for instance - - i almost stopped to watch it because of that ! secondly, the interviewer (the director i think) is not really relevant : he looks like and ask questions like a boy scout, not like a journalist, even if the general idea and themes would have been interesting, too bad conclusion: overrated documentary, maybe only for guys who do not know nothing about wine => not recommended at all (2/10)

This is not the kind of movie that really merits critical attention. It's not going to win any Oscars - it's really not a very good movie at all. Heck, it's not even really a movie - just a string of short disgusting, gross-out skits strung together in an effort to make entertainment. And as much as every critical bone in my body cries out to give this movie a failing score, gosh darn it, I'm going to give it a much better score. The kind of people who are going to enjoy this movie are not the kind of people who really care what critics have to say, so I'm not going to give some snobby critique of Jackass's quality of surreal existentialism that permeates and commentates on how our society....oh forget it.<br /><br />What's to say? There's no plot development, no character development - no real beginning - there's a semi-enjoyable end that's not nearly as funny as the skit that precedes it, and everything in between reeks of improper, bathroom humor that junior high kids laugh at. It's actually pretty funny.<br /><br />Leave at the door all your preconceptions of a good movie. Jackass: Number Two is just gross-out crap. That's really all it is. I do give the filmmakers this, though: they come up with some pretty imaginative stuff. You'll probably cringe several times throughout, want to throw up a couple times, wiggle and shift uncomfortably as the people on screen do death and vomit-defying stunts. Vomit, crap, urine, semen....virtually every bodily fluid can be seen in Jackass: Number Two. There's nudity, sexual humor abounds, and so on and so forth.<br /><br />It's entertaining. If you're the kind of person who finds this stuff enjoyable, then you will probably really like Jackass: Number Two. I laughed several times. Like I said, it's pretty imaginative stuff. I never once wanted to vomit - though I do have a pretty strong stomach. Just accept the movie's premise: a bunch of idiotic guys do weird crap for fun. Once you get past that, accepting it and going with it, you'll enjoy it. The only flaw in the movie is the sheer excess of all the weird and disgusting stuff. There are several very imaginative, very disturbing skits, but it drags in many places as they do ones that are less interesting. Towards the end things pick up, but in the middle of the movie the drag hurts the overall film's quality. In a half hour TV show this isn't a problem, but with film length celluloid, it's inevitable that boredom will ensue at some point. After awhile the gross crap just becomes desensitizing.<br /><br />On the whole, though, Number Two is an entertaining, imaginative, and above all, disgusting comedy that will leave you with a feeling of pain, nausea, and hilarity. Go see it if you must, but hey, if you know you don't like this kind of stuff, don't bother. You'll just be disappointed.

Saying this movie is extremely hard to follow and just as frustrating to sit through is putting it very mildly. Also saying that the current available print is dark, dreary, scratchy, abysmally edited, painfully dubbed, seemingly censored and in almost unwatchable shape is also correct. This film is in dire need of a good remastering from the full, uncut, original negative and seeing how it's reasonably atmospheric (and won the director an award at the Catalonia Film Festival), it might actually be worth the trouble. Then again, maybe not... It's just impossible to tell in its current condition what kind of movie it actually is. It starts fairly interesting, if you can discount the completely senseless pre-credits opening sequence, which involves a deranged cat-killing, snake-loving little girl named Gerda. The girls mom, Carla (Mónica Randall, who should have laid off the eyeliner a little bit), splashes some gasoline around in the garage and torches the brat. Seemingly about as crazy as young Gerda, she goes to visit her estranged photographer (ex?) boyfriend Mario ("John"/Cihangir Caffari). He's on vacation from work, but so desperate to get away from Carla that he begs his employers to set him up on an assignment... any assignment. She scowls "You'll be sorry!" as he heads out the door. Well, Mario is assigned to photograph "Witches Mountain" (somewhere in the Pyrenees, I believe). Before he gets to his destination, he gets sight of a hottie on the beach named Delia (Patty Shepard) and snaps a few pictures of her taking off her bikini top. Only slightly peeved, she claims to be a single writer, the two flirt and then decide it would be a swell idea if they went on the trip up the mountain together. When they stop by her place so she can pack her bags, Mario suddenly hears loud, sinister music. Delia claims he's just hearing things.<br /><br />So the two begin their trip up the mountain, taking a stop at a local inn to spend the night. There they encounter a weird, partially-deaf, crazy-eyed innkeeper (Victor Israel) and Delia claims someone was spying on here through her window. The next day, under some trance, she wanders off up the mountain and is eventually located by Mario, who hops out of his jeep and runs after her. While he's finding out what's up, someone steals their wheels and they're forced to walk a piece, eventually finding the jeep undamaged at the foot of a small, ancient, seeming abandoned village... almost like someone was trying to intentionally lure them there. Well as we will see, that's exactly what has happened. In the village they encounter a friendly old woman named Zanta (Ana Farra) who claims she's the only person still living there and lets them stay in her home. Mario takes some pictures of the "abandoned" city and when he develops them they are eerily full of people. Slightly creeped out, he and Delia begin to leave and get stuck in "treacherous" fog and have to pull over and camp out for the night. The rest of the movie has to do with voodoo dolls, black cats transforming into sexy women, Satanic rituals performed by ladies in their bras and a deadly fall off a cliff. And yeah, coincidentally Carla the estranged wife turns out to be one of the witches, too. It all takes place in semi-darkness and to be quite honest, I didn't know what the hell was going on most of the time. The inconclusive "open" ending is just an additional slap in the face to anyone having to suffer through the rest of this senseless mess.<br /><br />Honestly, there are just a few things that stand out to me as being really good. The first is actress Shepard, who has that great Barbara Steele kind of dark, mysterious beauty. There's also an excellent music score (credited to Fernando Garcia Morcillo) and chanting songs, which aided immensely in making this film as atmospheric as it is. The location work is fairly decent, but as I said, the print is ugly as can be and it doesn't make a lick of sense, so proceed with caution on this one.

This a fascinatingly awful movie. It make so little sense that it starts to make a kind of weird internal logic of its own. Well, it would if it didn't keep darting off up side-alleys until eventually floundering under the weight of its own indecisiveness. The movie can't make up its mind whether it is a straight forward 'Man Turns Into Monster' flick (like all those 1950s 'THE INCREDIBLE insert verb ING MAN' movies), or a ghastly big business conspiracy theory movie, or a mystical afterlife contact story, or... or what? Take your pick. It's just a mess. Grotesquely over the top and firing off in all directions, leaving loose ends flapping all over the place. It was as if Tobe Hooper had been taking David Lynch pills. Unfortunately he didn't take enough.

Crossfire is one of those films from the Forties that is crying for a remake, if for no other reason than maybe it's time it should be done as originally written. The story on which the film is based is about the killing of a gay man. But anti-Semitism was certainly a hot topic in the days of post World War II with the holocaust fresh in everyone's mind.<br /><br />In the Lee Server biography of Robert Mitchum, Edward Dmytryk the director was interviewed and and bluntly said that the film could never have been made about a hate crime against gays at the time with The Code firmly in place. It could have been though because the character of Robert Ryan is such an equal opportunity hater of everything that deviates from his societal norms.<br /><br />Mitchum was told in no uncertain terms that he was in the film strictly for the ride. Robert Young was cast as the Washington, DC Police homicide captain who catches the case and while Mitchum was second billed, he knew from the beginning the film would belong to Ryan. But he was RKO's new star by dint of his performances in The Story Of GI Joe and Till The End Of Time so he was there for box office insurance. Mitchum's part was as a sergeant and friend of the original suspect in the case, George Cooper.<br /><br />Crossfire is not a whodunit, even though we don't see the crime it becomes clear that Montgomery is the one who kills Sam Levene, the quintessential Jewish salesperson. And it becomes clear to Young and Mitchum that Ryan is the guilty party almost as fast as it does to the audience. It becomes just a question of getting the evidence.<br /><br />Ryan earned one of several Academy Award nominations the film garnered, his Best Supporting Actor category. Though he lost to Edmund Gwenn, the film was Ryan's breakthrough role. Similarly Gloria Grahame was nominated for a brief part as a party girl for Best Supporting Actress, but she lost to Celeste Holm for Gentleman's Agreement. In fact Crossfire ran up against Gentleman's Agreement and lost for Best Picture and Best director for Dmytryk to Elia Kazan. It's fifth nomination for Best Screenplay and Crossfire came up short again with the winner being Miracle on 34th Street.<br /><br />Gloria Grahame also had her own problems on the set which spilled over from her personal life. She was having big trouble with her then husband Stanley Clements who was an abusive husband. He was hanging around the set causing Ed Dmytryk a lot of problems. Fortunately Grahame's part was a small one. In fact the whole film was shot in typical RKO economy style in 20 days.<br /><br />Robert Young has a particularly fine scene with William Phipps a young kid from Tennessee in Mitchum and Ryan's outfit who Ryan constantly belittles. Young is most eloquent in speaking about the corrosive nature of hate and how it affected his family as Irish Catholics who came over in the potato famine years. It was one of Robert Young's best moments on screen in his long career.<br /><br />As fine a film as Crossfire is, it's time to be remade as a story about an anti-gay hate crime. Especially with the real killing of Barry Winchell from the last decade and the debate about gays in the military.<br /><br />That's a film who's time has come and almost gone.

I already gave my comment on this movie under the name BruceV3. Now under BruceV13 I want to add something! Now after a long time I have seen a lot of so called heroic bloodshed titles! But not many come close to the action shown in John Woo movies! That's why after all these years I think it is strange that "China White" doesn't get the credit it deserves! No matter what version you have seen! The action is top notch! The scenery,China Town in Amsterdam is very unique. You get the impression it is a large district. But having lived in Amsterdam myself I know it is only a small area part of the red light district which happen to have a lot of Chinese stores and restaurants! But because of the way they shot the movie it actually looks like a big and important territory where people know not to mess with the triads (chinese mafia)! Besides the action "China White" is a compelling gangster drama with some good acting! For this i have to give credit to Russel Wong! Too bad we don't see much of him lately,since he has a lot of potential! Must see movie!

This show is non Stop hilarity. the first joke will make u wet your pants. And thats probably the weakest joke of them all. I started watching it when the second half of season 2 started airing. and straight away. I'm hooked. only 2 weeks after I started watching. I've downloaded episodes and bought the DVD's. Reoccurring Clips Such as "the Ad Road Test" and "current affairs" Are quiet hilarious. Then There's the ad's they take off "Use Emo. Use your Own Tears For More Effective Use" Also Funny in the politics Side of things. Nothing is wrong with them doing this. it's funny. Any Australians Who Don't Find This Funny. Don't Complain And don't Watch it. ALL Australian TUNE IN Wednesday AT 9 ON ABC

This for me was a wonderful introduction to the talents and beauty of Marion Davies. She is not only gorgeous but hilarious in this film. (I believe that Lucille Ball may have modeled her later career on Davies' style, that could be termed "zany beauty".) Vidor's direction is light but sure-handed, the story is a chestnut of course but the acting is marvelously contemporary, and the star-watching element for fans of the silent era, with many cameos, adds to the overall fun. It combines the elements of slapstick with adult drama and good old timeless romance quite well. For all movie fans who have a knee-jerk reaction to watching silent films, sit through this one and it may change your attitude. <br /><br />

For what it is, this is a pretty good movie. I like both Johns -Stamos ("Full House")& Stockwell ("Christine", "Top Gun"). They both give strong performances. The love interest is OK, but this is more of a guy's movie than a good date movie. I love Harleys, and I hated seeing them paint over the "14 coats of hand-rubbed lacquer" with good old Army Olive Drab. There is a small history lesson here in that Harley-Davidson motorcycles played a key role in WWII. I don't know if the training was quite like this bunches! The movie kept my interest all the way through without getting slow anywhere, with good riding action sequences. I love looking at the demographics of the vote history - one 18 year-old man gave the movie a 10 (true bike lover, I guess). I wouldn't give it a 10, but I did give it an 8. I do not weigh every movie with the same scale. There are movies that were big-budget, with great actors, that you expect to be good so when they fail they fail big. (Star Wars - Episode I is my best example) I loved the first three SW movies, but I thought Episode I was weak in comparison. So it gets a lower rating from me than this movie. I expect more from George Lucas.

Although Lang's version is more famous,Borzage's work is not devoid of interest ,far from it:its "celestial" sequences are even better.The metaphor of the train (perhaps borrowed from the ending of Abel Gance's "la roue" ) is eventually more convincing than the "up above" heavenly world.<br /><br />Borzage's tenderness for his characters shows in Marie's character and love beyond the grave is one of his favorite subjects (the ending of "three comrades" ).The amusement park seems to be everywhere: we see it even when we are in Marie's poor house.I do not think that the sets are that much cheesy,they are stylized to a fault.The fair from a distance almost gives a sci-fi feel to the movie.<br /><br />Borzage never forgets his social concerns: in the heavenly train going up,the Rich cannot stand to be mixed up with the riffraff but as "chief magistrate" tells :"here there's no more difference" .<br /><br />Not a major work for Borzage (neither is Lang's version),but to seek out if you are interested in the great director's career.

Loosely based on the James J Corbett biography "The Roar Of The Crowd", Gentleman Jim is a wonderfully breezy picture that perfectly encapsulates not only the rise of the pugilistic prancer that was Corbett, but also the wind of change as regards the sport of boxing circa the 1890s.<br /><br />The story follows Corbett {a perfectly casted Errol Flynn} from his humble beginnings as a bank teller in San Fransico, thru to a chance fight with an ex boxing champion that eventually leads to him fighting the fearsome heavyweight champion of the world, John L Sullivan {beefcake personified delightfully by Ward Bond}. Not all the fights are in the ring tho, and it's all the spin off vignettes in Corbett's life that makes this a grand entertaining picture. There are class issues to overcome here {perfectly played out as fellow club members pay to have him knocked down a peg or two}, and Corbett has to not only fight to get respect from his so called peers, but he must also overcome his ego as it grows as briskly as his reputation does. Along with the quite wonderful Corbett family, and all their stoic humorous support, Corbett's journey is as enthralling as it is joyous, yet as brash and as bold as he is, he is a very likable character, and it's a character that befits the tagged moniker he got of Gentleman Jim.<br /><br />The film never sags for one moment, and it's a testament to director Raoul Walsh that although we are eagerly awaiting the final fight, the outer ring goings on are keeping us firmly entertained, not even the love interest sub plot hurts this picture {thank you Alexis Smith}. The fight sequences stand up really well, and they perfectly show just how Corbett became the champ he was, his brand of dancing rings round slugger fighters is now firmly placed in boxing history. As the final reel rolls we all come down to earth as an after fight meeting between Sullivan and Corbett puts all the brutality into context, and it's here where humility and humbleness becomes the outright winner, and as far as this viewer goes..............it will do for me to be sure to be sure, 9/10 for a truly wonderful picture.

Yep, you read that right, kids. Michael Bay should've studied this film before making either of his over hyped, overlong, overly pointless "Transformers" movies. "Robot Jox" is better than both of them and it probably cost less than the "Transformers" crew spent on Megan Fox's personal trainer.<br /><br />Thankfully, this little robotic gem, initially known mainly for being the film that bankrupted Charles and Albert Band's Empire Pictures studio, seems to have developed a cult following over the years. I fondly remember watching it on VHS during its initial video release in the early 90s and though some of the Cold War-era politics/stereotypes were already out of date by that time (just the Bands' luck that Communism would fall while the film was sitting on a shelf waiting to be released, eh?), it's still a pretty damn cool little B-Movie. They really don't make'em like this anymore, or if they do, they go the Bay route and CGI things to unbearable proportions.<br /><br />For those who are unfamiliar, here's the Robo-scoop: We're somewhere in the future and after a nuclear holocaust, large scale "wars" have been outlawed. Disputes between nations are now settled mano-a-mano (or perhaps that should be machine-o-machine-o) by one representative from each side battling each other in giant sized Shogun Warrior style robots. Whichever 'bot walks away from the fight wins for "his" side. Gary Graham (who would later go on to play Detective Sykes in the "Alien Nation" TV series), plays "Achilles," the greatest Robot Jock in Marketplace (a.k.a. the good guys) history. Achilles has been undefeated in his previous nine Robot bouts (ten being the maximum number of battles before a "Jock" is retired) and at the beginning of the film he faces off against his counterpart from the "Confederation" (i.e. The Russkies!), the psychotic Alexander (who is the most over the top "evil Russian" stereotype bad guy since Dolph Lundgren's infamous turn as Ivan Drago in "Rocky IV"). The match is called a draw when Alexander violates the rules with an illegal Robot Move at the last minute and ends up not only embarrassing Achilles, but killing a whole bunch of spectators in the bargain. A rematch is scheduled to complete the bout, but Achilles simply wants to bow out, hang up his helmet and move on with his life. Rather than violate the Spoiler Rules by revealing much more, I will simply say that there are a great deal of twists and turns, behind the scenes skullduggery, and other difficulties for Achilles and his fellow "Jox" before the two robotic titans clash finally once again in the finale.<br /><br />I hope I'm not making this movie out to be some sort of masterpiece of science fiction, because it isn't. "Robot Jox" is just plain fun. I'll grant that it is a bit higher-concept than your average B-grade sci-fi movie, and though the budgetary constraints do occasionally make themselves known (especially in the scenes involving some painfully obvious green-screen trickery), it is still the best looking movie ever to come out of the Empire/Full Moon Pictures factory. The robot fight scenes are very well done using old school stop motion/model techniques, and the sets and costumes don't look half-assed in the slightest. Empire Pictures and director Stuart ("Re-Animator") Gordon were definitely shooting for the stars with this picture. Unfortunately it didn't quite pan out for them (or the studio) but at least we got one heckuva cool little movie out of the deal. Bottom line: if you want to be aurally and visually assaulted for 2+ hours, feel free to rent a "Transformers" movie. By the end you're likely to feel like you've spent all that time watching someone else play a video game. If you want to have a rock'em, sock'em robot good time, pick up Robot Jox instead.

This is a good family show with a great cast of actors. It's a nice break from the reality show blitz of late. There is nothing else quite like it on television right now either, unless you count Joan of Arcadia as being similar because it has a teen lead character too. Anyway, Clubhouse is worth a look because Jeremy Sumpter gives the main character (Pete Young) a kind of likability and naiveté that is appealing without being overly sweet and cuddly. Dean Cain, Christopher Lloyd, Mare Winningham and Kirsten Storms round out the rest of the main cast members, and each is terrific in their role. I really like Kirsten Storms as Pete's sister Betsy; she is quite a pill, but she still cares about her mom and brother, even though she hates to show it. It may take a few episodes to really find it's legs, but Clubhouse is easily one of the best shows to come along in a good long while, so check it out people--you'll be glad you did!

_Les Acteurs_ is the absurd story of Jean-Pierre Marielle desperately waiting for a cup of hot water, the story of a conspiracy against actors, the story of aging actors whose careers are slowly less active than they used to be, but a stunning tribute to French actors and their cinema.<br /><br />Supported by a solid reflection about cinema and acting (the fourth wall, the hidden cameras, to play or not to play), the story of this film in which most of those famous actors play their own role (not to be mixed up with living their life in front of the camera - the film is not voyeur) is quite vague, and follows the actors in series of episodes which make the film quite amusing. As André Dussolier quits the film and leaves Josiane Balasko to play his part (great actress, she's hilariously serious especially when, in Dussolier's role, she bitches about herself), as actors run in each other on the street, asking for autographs, as fights and gossip happen, we recognize pastiche of other scenes in which each (or others) have played.<br /><br />Actually, for whoever does not know the actors (most of them being at least in their 50s) or does not know French Cinema, this movie has less interest, since most of the references will be missed, but it will still offer a good track of reflection on aging, on acting, on public life...

The Time Machine starts in New York during 1899 where Professor Alexander Hartdegen (Guy Pearce) proposes to his beloved girlfriend Emma (Sienna Guillory) who accepts, unfortunately just after they are attacked by a mugger & Emma is shot dead & dies in Alexander's arms. Jump forward 'Four Years Later' & Alexander has built a time machine which he uses to travel back to the night Emma was killed in order to save her but she is still killed, only a different way this time. Alexander realises whatever he does, however many times he goes back Emma will always end up dead one way or another & he yearns to know the answer why so he travels far into the future to discover the truth. However after having destroyed the moon two new races have evolved on Earth, the human like Eloi & the monstrous Morlock's that eat the Eloi. Alexander decides to stick around & save the Eloi.<br /><br />Directed by Simon Wells who is actually the great grandson of author H.G. Wells who wrote the original The Time Machine book on which the original The Time Machine (1960) film was based & it is in fact the 1960 film that producer John Logan's script is based upon here rather than Wells original literally source. While all three share the same basic story & ideas this remake adds the subplot about Alexander's fiancé Emma being killed & that's the reason he invents a time machine rather than just because he is clever & he can. The script is a mixture of sci-fi, action adventure & drama none of which really grabbed me or engaged me that much, sure there are a few pretty special effects, a few nice action scenes & the moment when Alexander's question is answered regarding why he can't save Emma is actually quite intelligent & makes sense it never really captured my imagination & I was never really moved by it either. The time travel aspects of The Time Machine feel very similar to Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1992) in the sense you can't change the past but at the same time the future is not set only The Time Machine isn't anywhere near as good a film as Terminator 2: Judgment Day. The character's are alright although I thought Guy Pearce just looked too young to be a brainy scientist capable of inventing a time machine & there's never any real explanation behind it's mechanics either as it's like one moment there's no time machine the next he has invented & made one & it works perfectly. I reckon the Back to the Future trilogy offer far more thrills, laughs, excitement & general entertainment value than The Time Machine ever does & while I will stop short of calling it a bad film since it moves along at a decent pace, tells a reasonable story & has it's moments I wouldn't call it brilliant or even particularly good. There is also a cheeky little reference to the book & original film which are both name-checked here.<br /><br />The benefit this modern version has over the original is the development of special effects & in particular CGI which leads to scenes of time rapidly passing around Alexander in his time machine complete with huge buildings being built, new ridges, canyons & mountains being formed & a elaborate pan back which ends up in space as we see passenger rockets orbiting the moon. The effects work is good, there are one or two moments that look a little below par but generally speaking the effects are good. I saw The Time Machine on telly & the station playing it badly pan and scanned it so the left & right edges of the frame were cut off the screen thus cutting off part of the year on Alexander's time machine dial so I actually didn't know what year he went to. Apparently director Gore Verbinski took over the last eighteen days of filming as Wells was suffering from 'extreme exhaustion' while the IMDb says that the time machine itself was the biggest & most expensive prop ever built for a film at that point which I find hard to believe & Guy Pearce broke a rib during a fight scene but like a trooper carried on.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $80,000,000 the production values are high with a lovingly recreated period New York & good effects work although amazingly The Time Machine was nominated for an Oscar for best make-up but lost out to Frida (2002). The acting is mixed, Jermey Irons puts in a good performance in a terrible make-up job that has him looking like a reject from a Lord of the Rings film while singer Samantha Mumba makes her big screen debut here & is simply terrible although Guy Pearce is quite good & fairly likable.<br /><br />The Time Machine isn't a particularly bad film or a particularly good one, just a somewhat unremarkable one that is watchable & passes an hour and a half but not much else. Watch Back to the Future (1985) again instead.

I went into this film expecting/hoping for a sleazy drive-in style slice of seventies exploitation, but what I got was more of a bizarre pseudo western with far too much talking and not enough action. It's clear that this film was made on a budget; the locations are drab and poorly shot, while the acting leaves a lot to be desired also. The plot focuses on a trio of robbers (a father and two sons) that steal a load of gold after killing some miners. They come across a cabin inhabited by a young girl and her stepmother...and all this is told in flashbacks by the young girl, currently residing in an asylum. It's clear that directors Louis Leahman and William Sachs thought they were making something really shocking; but despite its best efforts, South of Hell Mountain is just too boring to shock the viewer. The film drones on for about eighty minutes and most of it consists of boring characters spouting off boring and long-winded dialogue. The only good thing I have to say about the film is with regards to the music; which is good in places. The ending is the only other good thing about the movie; and that's only because it's the last thing that happens. I wouldn't recommend anyone bothers tracking this down...there was much better trash made in the seventies.

I'm an atheist. To me history and truth mean a lot.<br /><br />This film is made after a novel published in 1921, which is still being updated up to this day as if it was a history book. Well it's not. The movie is about the novels 1950s version. Some actors were GREAT but that doesn't cover the plot.<br /><br />In short man invents a super-bomb so God and his friends hold a tribunal to see if they must intervene. The devil analogy persecutes man, and for defense we have the spirit of man. What is the spirit of man anyway? And why was the first defendant Adam? Eventually you just get US Christian propaganda in a 5th grade history book of the time. Though other religions are mentioned, only European Christianity is explored.<br /><br />First we get the caveman story. The women are scrawny stereotypes of damsels in distress. Real cave women were as strong as men and just as resistant. Hard times, hard life, adapt and survive. All this is watered down by mid-century stereotypes.<br /><br />Next we get Egypt's first pyramid construction. Today we see a different story and know that there were a lot less deaths and regular citizens at work as well. Loosing mentioned amount of many lives in the process would have been a national disaster and nobody after would try to beat it. As if there was only ONE pyramid build.<br /><br />The part about Moses and one true god was as if the Spanish inquisition was asking nicely. Inquisition itself was never even mentioned in the movie.<br /><br />Helen of Troy's evil grim was so vile that I didn't see why so many were even interested in her. In reality they were just soldiers, following commanders orders, who were "discussing" a political issue of power. She was just an excuse.<br /><br />The Cleopatra story was were I saw this film was to inaccurate and filled with propaganda. Here brother was a LOT younger. She was not obsessed with poison, was quite educated to restore library content, and was politically competitive to drag beaten down Egypt out of dirt.<br /><br />The part with Nero and praying Christians in a cave were disgusting. Yes, Rome burned down. Yes, there was persecuted Christianity. But the way they portray it was as if the Coliseum build itself and there was no Vespasian to rebuild Rome.<br /><br />Attila the Hun appears in a short seen and than we jump to King Arthur. The crusades are mentioned with minimal bloodshed. And there is no mention of the crusades east to Russia that ended in an ironic battle. The knights just went home and started jousting for fun of it. A LOT of stuff is put down like no indoor pluming, hygiene and plagues.<br /><br />Then they cover Joan of Ark, where she always has to much makeup and looks like a princes. Territorial politics were replaced with an unjust court. The sidesaddle alone on a stool makes me want to ask how someone could follow here. At here burning I wanted to yell "Hura! Now die already! Cheap special effects, where is the fire?".<br /><br />By the time they mentioned Leonardo I already got fed up with the movie. Columbus, Spanish slaughter of America, yelling Queen Elisabeth "kick the Spanish armada" and so on and so on.<br /><br />The ONLY reason I wanted to see this movie was the fact that it was the last one with all 3 Marks brothers. And all they got was the scene with Manhattan and Indians. Amusing, but no more than a smile.<br /><br />The witch-hunts are mentioned briefly, as well as plagues (after renascence). When they start portraying revolutions, things gut power-hungry and anarchistic. The US revolution was pursued by the French revolution. Oppression and incompetence are bad, but you can't just blow the old way up out of anger, you must replace it with something. So they replaced the French monarchy with new French monarchy. So we get Napoleon and his ambitions to go to India by land. But they replace his motives with unity and band him for only the title "Emperor". The conquests in Europe, defeat in Russia are sacked to Waterloo.<br /><br />The US civil war, the English rich inventors (Tesla not included). "Mister Watson, come here, I want you" almost made me laugh for teenage reasons. Technological hard work was watered down to the final discovery and comedic misuse.<br /><br />Eventually after 85 minutes we come to world wars and organized crime, but none of its horrors. Adolph's words "I invade Russia. This is my last territorial demand" were hilarious. It was his LAST territorial demand.<br /><br />To build suspense God puts a countdown clock to doomsday on the "wall" for the final words. All mighty cant pause the universe for a second? There was no need for the persecution speech but the defense made one last throw.<br /><br />Last we see the man of tomorrow as the final defense. Apparently a paradox man, because the bomb was to go of today. His toys are a music box in the shape of a gun and a pencil box sword. Now that is so wrong… Pens and pencils drew so many weapon blueprints that its kill count surpasses the atom bomb. And making music out of a weapon? Deluded egoistic generals make music out of weapon fire. So the man of tomorrow is already a monster.<br /><br />The way I see it, all the defense had to do was blame the devil as the true conspirator for mans demise and case closed. And honestly, compared to all barbaric stuff our ancestors did centuries ago we are pretty humane at painless backstabbing these days.<br /><br />To summarize all I will just quote "Firefly"s episode "Jaynestown": "It's my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of him was one kind of son of bitch or another. Ain't about you, Jayne. It's about what they need".

I am not a fan of Sean Penn, but in contrast to my German colleague whose review appears here, I think he was perfectly cast as the neurotic, druggy character in this film. He has every nuance perfected and reminded me of several acquaintances who had similar tastes in "recreational chemistry." I saw this film but once, 10-15 years ago and this is the only part of the film that was etched indelibly on my mind. I don't say it very often, but in this case I will: Bravo, Sean Penn! As for the story line, well, it's based on fact, and as such, it is a tragedy that people would sell their country's secrets to the then enemy. Again, Penn has shown what you can do if you disagree with the administration. Use the freedoms you have, paid for in blood; don't break the law.

A ridiculous movie, a terrible editing job, worst screenplay, ridiculous acting, a story that is completely ununderstandable...<br /><br />If God was going to decide if movies should continue to be done, judging by this one, the entire world movie industry would now be dead...<br /><br />A wonderful movie to show that cinema should not be done by people who "think" they can make movies.<br /><br />I am still wondering who are those two gipsy girls who show up in the movie for over half an hour, and are never introduced to us...<br /><br />

Robert Siodmak does a fabulous job with this B noir starring Ella Raines, Franchot Tone, and Alan Curtis. And he does it, I might add, without a lot of help from his male actors, i.e., Curtis and Tone. It's Raines all the way, a pretty, leggy actress who for one reason or another never reached the status of some of her "noir" counterparts.<br /><br />Siodmak's use of sex, light, shadows, and music is truly remarkable as he tackles this genre. The shadows, lighting effects, and camera angles are all effective. But the highlight of the film takes place in a nightclub with a very sexual drum riff by Elisha Cook, egged on by an excited Raines. It's this scene that brings "Phantom Lady" into new territory.<br /><br />Siodmak's commitment to the material is matched only by Raines, who gives a sincere performance as a woman in love trying to save her man. Franchot Tone phoned this one in. Alan Curtis didn't seem upset that he might die and didn't seem happy that he lived. And he never, except for a brief moment in prison, seemed to be in love with Raines.<br /><br />The amusing thing about many of these films is that, as World War II progressed, interest in psychiatry deepened. But often the terms were used incorrectly in films such as "Possessed," "Spellbound," and "The Greatest Show on Earth." Tone is called paranoid by Thomas Gomez - Tone probably has some paranoia attached to his disorder, but he appears to be closer to a psychopath. In actuality, as evidenced by his headaches, he may have had a brain tumor pushing against his brain.<br /><br />Phantom Lady doesn't have the greatest plot, but it's well worth watching.

'The Shining' has wit, visual flair and an iconic performance by Jack Nicholson. 'Ausentes,' however, has none of these things; although it does borrow from its classic forebear; to wit, a man hacking through a door and a woman running around shrieking while clutching a huge kitchen knife. Unlike Stanley Kubrick's great psychological horror film, 'Ausentes' is a work which resonates with a singular lack of genius. It is magnificently, comically awful; it makes the Spice Girls movie look like a work of vital art. 'Ausentes' is the tale of a family that moves to a gated community in the suburbs. All is to be well with the world. They will live in peace and tranquillity; they will calmly go about their business away from those mean old city streets. But no. Ariadna Gill's character Julia starts getting spooked by those things that insist on going bump in the night, by empty supermarkets and doors that close themselves; and her husband Samuel, played by Jordi Molla, switches in an instant from laid-back family man to wild-eyed permanently unshaven nutter, injecting Julia with a drug to keep her under his sudden cosh. Molla, much respected as an actor, is absolutely dreadful in this. Comic rather than menacing, he simply cannot pull off a threatening expression. He just come across as a barroom slime ball who's had one drink too many. So is there anything to redeem this film? No. The script is clunky, the plot non-existent and the cast without merit. Completely without tension and full of be scared now moments, 'Ausentes' is an exercise in how not to make a psychological thriller. It is ridiculous and overblown, but as one of the most unintentionally hilarious films of recent years it's well worth a watch.

I first saw this movie in the theater. I was 10. I just watched it a second time and I must say it was amazing. The music, the dancing, the acting. It is a great story and told extremely well. I fell absolutely in love with Treat Williams when I was a kid after seeing him in this movie. One of my favorite parts was when his mom kept yelling at him to give her his pants, and then finally said "how much do you need"? (money). That was classic. ; ). <br /><br />Moms are the best. If you haven't seen this movie since it came out I say see it again. It's timeless. It will do what all great movies do; make you laugh, cry, and think.

This isn't the best romantic comedy ever made, but it is certainly pretty nice and watchable. It's directed in an old-fashioned way and that works fine. Cybill Shepherd as Corinne isn't bad in her role as the woman who can't get over her husband's death. She has a sexy maturity. But I can't say much for Ryan O'Neal as Philip, because he is, at best, nondescript. He may be adequate in the role, but that's not good enough.<br /><br />However, I get the feeling that some of the characters, particularly Alex and Miranda, are not written with enough in-depth thought. We don't know anything else about them because minutes after they appear the story gets thick, and the writers don't tell us much beyond what happens. But that problem was salvaged because Mary Stuart Masterson has a fresh-as-a-daisy sweetness to brighten it up, and Robert Downey Jr. is so charming that he melts the screen. Even his smile is infectious. And it so happens that his big dreamy eyes are perfect for the deja vu and flashback scenes.<br /><br />Anyway, this movie is light and easy and if you like them that way, why not give it a try.<br /><br />

I have always loved the ironic symbolism and brilliant cinematography of Coppola's masterpiece. I was lucky enough to meet Martin Sheen outside the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium one night in 1981, as he waited for Charlie and Emilio to leave a concert. He was very humble about the praise I shared with him for this work of art, especially his portrayal of the young Captain. This is, without a doubt, a must see, a complete 10 and an important part of American Film History. "Charlie Don't Surf". Robert Duvall's famous line (the other one) does not need repeating as it has become an oft repeated anthem and his Pattonesque character will long be remembered as a classic American war hawk in the John Wayne tradition. It is a surprise to see how young Laurence Fishburne looks.

While watching this film recently, I constantly had to remind myself that it was made in 1957..........and in the USSR! That makes it all the more remarkable. Many of the cinematographic effects in the film seem cliched in 2002, but they were quite original in 1957. I first saw this film in 1963, when it was first released in the US, and I was struck by its originality then. Now just having seen it 40 years later, I have no reason to change my mind.

The interesting aspect of "The Apprentice" is it demonstrates that the traditional job interview and resume do not necessarily predict teamwork skills, task dedication, and job performance. And they certainly don't reveal any hidden agendas. In other words, a good indicator of potential may be to see a job applicant in action which is the point of "The Apprentice". People vying for a corporate position may hand over a sugar-coated resume and put on their best personality attire for the interview, but these are not necessarily the best indicator of strengths, weaknesses, and performance.<br /><br />Briefly, "The Apprentice" involves 16 job candidates competing for the ultimate career opportunity: a position in real estate magnate Donald Trump's investment company. "The Apprentice" refers to the winner who will win a salaried position, learn the art of high stakes deal-making from the master himself, and, presumably, gain prime corporate connections. The position is a dream-come-true for those wanting to make more money than the GNP of some foreign countries. To entice the candidates, Trump shows off his private jet, his private luxury apartments replete with statues and artwork, his limos, his connections to celebrities, and other aspects of the life of a billionaire magnate.<br /><br />The road to success is not easy. The group is divided into two teams that compete against each other. Each has a corporate-sounding name, such as Versacorps and Protégé Corporation. The teams are assigned tasks that entail an entrepreneurial venture such as creating advertising, selling merchandise, or negotiating. Teams select a project manager who provides the leadership and organizational skills to complete the task. If they win, the manager receives a lot of credit, particularly in the eyes of the final arbiter. If they lose, the manager may also become the scape-goat. Some of the tasks are monumentally difficult with only a day or two to complete. Tasks may involve creating a TV commercial, or print ad. Others may involve selling at a retail outlet or on the street.<br /><br />The tasks bring out the best and worst in the participants. They often show immediately who is the most reliable, who is the most trustworthy, and who is hard working. And the tasks also expose who is not a good team player, who is inefficient, and who seems only out for themselves. The tasks invariably reveal in unexpected ways the strengths and weaknesses of the participants and in particular the project manager. How well the manager communicates with the team, delegates work, organizes time, and sets specific goals will largely determine the outcome, but it does not necessarily predict the winner.<br /><br />The single-most telling aspect of someone's potential is when he or she is assigned as a project manager. Their real abilities as opposed to their self-propagated abilities immediately show through the veneer that cannot be hidden by a $100 silk tie or a beautiful makeover. Leadership qualities and/or weaknesses often become agonizingly obvious after only a few minutes. Those promoting themselves as top-notch leaders are not always as strong when put into a real-life leadership situation. It is always easier to "toot your own horn" than to actually engage in leadership. Project managers, even those on the winning teams, often do not formulate a cohesive strategy. They often believe that by diving off the deep end to complete the task at the first minute rather than taking a little time to organize and discuss how the task will be completed is more efficient. More often than not, members of an ill-strategized team are running around like headless chickens figuring it out as they go along, and in the long run they end up wasting far more time.<br /><br />The winning team gets a taste of the high life, such as eating dinner at an exclusive restaurant, flying in a private jet, and/or meeting a celebrity. The losing team comes to the dreaded board room where Trump hears the lame excuses of the members and knocks off one or more of the contestants like pieces off a chess board with the now infamous "You're fired". Often, the project manager is held partially responsible for the team's loss, and may be the target of Trump's accusatory rhetoric. Every week, at least one person becomes a casualty from the losing team. <br /><br />My least-favorite aspect of "The Apprentice" is the board room. While the tasks themselves bring out the strengths and weaknesses in the candidates, the board room often brings out the worst. Unfortunately, the rules of the game insist there is one winning team and one losing team, even if the competition was close. Members of the losing team start accusing each other, often ruthlessly, about who was at fault. And sometimes more than one person gets fired. I seldom see an under-performing candidate take responsibility for their actions in the board room. Kristi Frank and Kwame Jackson were possibly the only candidates who took full responsibility for her team's losses and received no recognition for this selfless act. For me, Kristi Frank and Kwame Jackson had the most integrity of all the candidates. However, Trump saw Kristi as weak and fired her, claiming she wasn't standing up for herself, which may mean he values ego more than integrity. No one should sacrifice their integrity for this. Kristi Frank may not have become the apprentice but she can live with herself knowing she did not blame others unjustly. Isn't that worth as much as "winning"?<br /><br />The strength of "The Apprentice" is also its weakness. Because team performance is evaluated strictly by winners and losers, other evaluation opportunities are overlooked. Barring huge gaps between the winning and losing teams, sometimes a losing team exemplifies a high standard of teamwork and efficiency. I have seen losing teams sometimes appearing better organized than the winning team. We Americans are so often obsessed with winning and losing that we often overlook excellence.

As a great fan of the Hammer Studios and enthusiastic watcher of their Gothic Horror films, I wonder what took me so long to start watching their TV-series "Hammer House of Horror", which only ran for one season in 1980. Now that I've seen the first four episodes of the show, I can say that it easily satisfies my expectations so far. While this first episode "Witching Time" is maybe not the most imaginative Horror story ever told, and doesn't quite deliver the marvelous Gothic atmosphere that I love Hammer's films from the 50s to the 70s for, it doubtlessly does accomplish to tell a surprisingly spooky tale and create some genuine creepiness within fifty minutes. Film score composer David Winter (Jon Finch) is tormented by the 17th century witch Lucinda (Patricia Quinn)... While he story may be simple, but for a running time of less than an hour, it is effective and delivers many creepy moments. Northern Irish actress Patricia Quinn, who is probably best known for her role in "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" (1975) as well as the fantastic Monty Python comedy "Monty Python's Meaning of Life" (1983), is wonderfully malicious in her role which fits her like a glove. Jon Finch is also quite good as David, and while Prunella Gee, who plays his adulterous actress wife, may not be the best actress ever, she is definitely nice to look at. The episode is accompanied by a nice score which plays along well with the atmosphere. Overall, "Witching Time" is a very entertaining episode with several truly creepy moments, and decent opener to the series.

My title above says it all. Let me make it clearer. If you have seen the BBC's "Planet Earth" , which I am sure most of you have , then you are not gonna like this movie too much. And I own all the discs of "Planet Earth" I had seen the rating for this movie very high , and read good reviews about it. I was excited to check it out.<br /><br />Alas, I went to the theater and the movie started , I saw it was a Disney movie with production companies listing BBC and Discovery. And when they started the first scenes about the polar bear, I recognized them from my DVDs at home of "Planet Earth".<br /><br />The movie continued and went on and on and on , me and my friends kept on recognizing the scenes were all from "Planet Earth".<br /><br />We were very very disappointed , as I think 90% of the footage is from "Planet Earth" . I am saying 90% , because some of the scenes I didn't recognize. I have a feeling that I simply didn't remember them.<br /><br />So finally what this movie really is , is a compilation of different footages from the different discs of "Planet Earth" , with a narration aimed at kids. Yes, the narration is quite kiddish. Let me give you an example. When they show the polar cubs walking away from the mother cub , the narrator says "The polar cubs are not like human kids. They don't always listen to their mothers" ( I don't remember the exact words , but this is how it is ) So in a nutshell. This is condensed "Planet Earth" for kids !

This is one of the best movies I have seen in a long time! The director did a wonderful job showing the contrasts between social classes, a situation that is very pertinent in France today. All the characters are lovable, especially Juliette and her family. The development of the romance is, while not entirely realistic, at least plausible, and does a wonderful job showing how much people will change for love. I found this to be a heart-warming Cinderella story - but one in which Cinderella is a powerful woman in and of herself. I laughed through this entire film, and absolutely loved it. I recommend Romuald et Juliette to anyone who enjoys unique characters, comedy, and nontraditional romance.

Yes, this film gets a lot of attention and is considered a classic in the adult film genre. Still, I did not like this one at all. About a woman who commits suicide in a scene more fitting a horror movie, she is given the opportunity to return to earth briefly to live the life of lust she never did before in her mundane life. Crappy sex scenes to follow. Why are they crappy, for one they try so hard to be artistic that they take away from the actual sex act. I mean we watch porn for the sex do we not. Little Girls Blue also does things in an artistic way, but it is still very erotic and nice to look at. Of course the girls in that one are very cute. Here we have a rather unattractive lead actress and that does not help things. If you find the lead in your adult film unappealing there is no amount of artistic vision that is going to make me enjoy the film. The sex scenes range from yuck to bizarre...I mean there is a snake in one of them people. So for me this movie just fails as it does not excite me at all, but rather turns me off.

Well someone who enjoys traveling down the highway at 120kmph, eating McDonalds, and running the air conditioner twenty four seven, and watching Fox News non-stop, I found this documentary interesting. One thing I picked up, when they being they talk about North America, I assume this documentary was Fabrique Au Canadie. For the Canadian bashing I will leave that to Bill O'Reilly.<br /><br />The consequence of the depletion of oil will affect everyone, especially those who live in big countries of Australia, Canada and the United States. I am sure that Green Peace are cheering no more gas, means no more SUVs, without realizing people who live in the sub zero temperatures could starve to death. <br /><br />As someone who has studied economics, I know for a fact we are living in a world of finite resources. I will give the documentary props for trying to present a balanced point of view about the depletion of oil. However I am studying a degree in journalism, this documentary is full of loaded messages - Republican as warmongers. What the Democrats didn't send troops to Vietnam? <br /><br />If you are going to present a documentary about economics and resources, it is best to leave the political bashing to one side, because it could cause a potential audience member to totally shut down. Concentrate on the issue of finite resources. At the end of the day, it is best to open the minds of the mainstream, as it is no good preaching to the minuscule choir. <br /><br />I really do enjoy watching documentaries such as Fahrenheit 911, and End of Suburbia not for their political bias, because they do remind us the world isn't so safe. Sure I like to shop, and consumer junk food like there is no tomorrow, but if the world is going to end tomorrow I would rather die rich and consume the living beep out of it. <br /><br />For the potential documentary makers out there, just give the people facts, and let the viewers make up their own minds. If you are trying package your political views as a balanced documentary the people are going to smell a rat a mile away.

Gus Van Sant has made some excellent films. I truly am a fan.<br /><br />However, I can't help but feel that the cerebral edge of Tom Robbins book "Even Cowgirls Get the Blues" is lost in translation to the big screen. Alone, Tom Robbins and Gus Van Sant are incredible visionaries and towers of talent. Ultimately though this one just didn't work. <br /><br />It wasn't that the characters weren't well developed or the plot and content didn't come alive. It's just that our imaginations are much more powerful when reading a book like this. We're taken away to a different time and place and we sometimes think the worst and/or the best and it adds to the overall roller-coaster of the book as it neatly unfolds according to the author's precision. Movies however can leave one with less of the imagination and emotion roller-coaster detracting from the overall experience. This is what I believe happened here.<br /><br />I suggest reading the book!

Story-wise this isn't among the best or most cleverly written Columbo movie but the movie is extremely well made, with excellent directing and truly fine acting.<br /><br />Especially the acting within this movie attracts the attention. Director Nicholas Colasanto did a great job with the actors in the movie. Appereantly he allowed Peter Falk and John Cassavetes lots of space to play with, also since both are being credited on here as uncredited directors of this movie. Must be part of his directing style to allow the actors this much room. It works out extremely well for this movie. Perhaps he did this because Colasanto himself also used to work as an actor. He is perhaps best known for playing the role of Coach in the hit-series "Cheers", from the very start of it in 1982 until his death in 1985.<br /><br />So Peter Falk seems better than ever before in his role as Lt. Columbo. Also veteran actor John Cassavetes does a real great job as the movie its murderer and is a good match for the lieutenant. Beside them, the movie also features Myrna Loy. A big star from the silent movie era and also Pat Morita, in a small early role.<br /><br />But not just the acting-directing within the movie is real good. Visually and technically it's also a really great made movie, with slow long shots, without the use of any cuts. Also obviously the reason why this movie is longer than most Columbo movies. It really takes its time to set up things and tell its story. The movie also features a couple of nice artistic and experimental kind of shots. Of course all really fitting for the '70's.<br /><br />But like I said before, story-wise this just isn't among the best Columbo movies. Also the clues being left out for the lieutenant are a bit too obvious this time. It makes the murderer come across as a bit dumb, like he didn't thought his plan over good enough, while the character obviously is an intelligent man. Columbo this time also tries to irritate the suspect and other characters a bit more than he usually tries to do, in order to solve the crime. This and Peter Falk's different acting approach are a reason why his character might come across as different than he does in other Columbo movies. But different does not mean worse in this case.<br /><br />The movie also features a quite good musical score by Richard DeBenedictis, who after this became sort of the steady composer for the Columbo movies. <br /><br />A great Columbo movie to watch!<br /><br />8/10

Dil was a memorable movie that bring to the celluloid a great director like Indra Kumar. The movie followed with Beta, Ishq, Raja & Masti all of whom were superb.<br /><br />But then every successful director gives a few horrible movies alongwith some hits too. Pyare Mohan is one such movie.<br /><br />Though the comedies are told nicely but then they fail the viewer to laugh. Comparing with the kind of comedy movies being made today this is a dumb.<br /><br />If you really want to watch a movie and laugh, please don't watch this. Because the pathetic comedy will make you cry only.<br /><br />In short, the movie is worth a miss.

This Horror movie is definitely one of the best ones I have seen in my life and there are many reasons why. The storyline is really good it has lots of action and great horror sequences in it The actors are not very good but there are not that bad but Kane is definitely the best actor in this but he was always a good actor also The cast is very good such as Kane as Jacob Goodnight, Christina Vidal as Christine, Michael j. Pagan as Tye, Samantha Noble as Kira etc. Also I just have to warn you that the killing scenes are very disturbing but They are very creative but that just makes it better and you can't have a horror movie without blood and gore Also they look very realistic. So I am sure that you will not be disappointed with see no evil because it is a really good movie. So make sure that you rent or buy see no evil because it is just so great.<br /><br />Overall score: ********** out of ********** <br /><br />***** out of *****

I like this movie cause it has a good approach of Buddhism, for example, the way Buddhist use to care all kind of living things, combining some fancy and real situations; in some parts the photography is very good and a lot of messages about freedom, as the hawk episode, staying always focused in every moment, even in tough situations.. It has also funny situations as Swank's birthday and, talking this two times academy awards, her acting show us how the people who use to live in this kind of culture is trying to have a resistance behavior when Miyagi is taking her to a Buddhist temple, and how she, slowly, is changing her mind. And, of course, Pat Morita has been always great

I loved this movie and i never knew it was this old it came out the day n year i was born in and now i am 19 now i still love this movie especially the songs like "My Mother" and "Boys and Girls of Rock N Roll" and i remember as a kid i believe i was 5 n my sister was 6 and my cousin (boy) was 6 as well we used to pretend to be the characters in the movie i was Eloner and Janette and my sister was Britany and my cousin was Alvin Simon and Theodore those were good times and i miss it and having this movie reminds me of the good times since my cousin is old for this stuff and so am i and my sis we are not going to forget about the chipmunk and the chipmunk movie i still even remember the songs and the words off by heart even though i haven't seen this movie for 12 years but now starting to love it again ALVIN AND THE CHIPMUNKS AND CHIPETTES <3<3<3<3

Where to start? This is probably one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The editing is the worst ever, the sound effects were awful and the sound editing was whacked. Most of the movie all one could here is the crappy kicking effects, with muddled talking in the background. I had to turn my volume on full blast just to her what was going on....and what was I supposed to hear exactly? Probably one of the worst scripts ever made. I can't believe people actually put up some green for this film. It makes me think I could take a crap in a box, send it to producers, and then have them finance a movie for me.<br /><br />Dolph, was a usual, Dolph. Nothing else needs to be said. The villains were bad, the protagonists were bad, and the movie was a stinker. If you really want to know what NOT to do when either writing, directing or editing a movie, watch this!

For the life of me I can't figure out why anyone would make a movie like this. The plot is tired, the acting is strained, the language is consistently foul and at times the over use of the "F" word seemed like a lack of dialog was prevalent so 'let's throw in another couple of "F's" for good measure, that's what the American public wants to hear'. Gossett was particularly foul and seemed to enjoy his part. Forget this c__p, rent 'Shrek" and have a good laugh.

There's hell to pay when you cross Nami Matsushima(Meiko Kaji), Female Scorpion, and a dangerous group of thugs(..including their sadistic head pimp and his equally repellent lady), operating a prostitution ring with an iron fist, does just that. Hell hath no fury like Scorpion, and a determined detective, Gondo(Mikio Narita), seeking revenge for decapitating his arm after handcuffing her, will do whatever it takes(..and that includes intimidating anyone who might know her whereabouts)to catch Nami. Nami finds an ally in hooker Yuki(Yayoi Watanabe), who provides her a temporary shelter. Yuki has a retarded brother who suffered a brain injury during a job, and must take care of him(..in a disturbing revelation, regarding incest, she also provides his sexual needs!)..she, in actuality, keeps him locked up in a room while working the streets! Meanwhile, Nami is targeted by a vile neighbor once she finds a place of her own(..she works as a sewer), and he threatens to turn her into the authorities(..Nami was an escaped convict, who fled a subway from the cops)if she doesn't supply him sexual favors. His wife dumps a tea kettle of boiling water all over his face and body, resulting in death, & the prostitution clan come looking for Nami to pay the debt of losing a very important member of their organization. That's when Katsu(Reisen Lee), the pimp's lover and confidant, realizes that the one responsible for the loss of their loyal member is a former inmate of hers, Scorpion. Subduing her with an injected liquid drug, placing her in a bird cage(!), Katsu embellishes in her imprisonment. What ultimately fuels Nami's rage is watching a prostitute die outside her cell, a victim of a forced late-term abortion, left to bleed to death. Finding a scalpel clutched in her hand(..from the operation room), Nami will break free from the cage and prey upon each member of the clan responsible for the hooker's death. The series of scalpel murders provide Gondo with an opportunity to catch Nami, and he'll trap her in the underground sewers below the city, but can he catch or kill her? Especially if Yuki comes to her aid?<br /><br />Trust me when I say there was no shackles binding director Shunya Ito or his film-making team because FEMALE PRISONER SCORPION:BEAST STABLE is yet another perverse, deranged, and ultra-violent entry in the very entertaining series. Equipped with fine production values and a visually stylistic talent for capturing all of the madness in imaginative ways, Ito pulls you right(..or he did me)into the twisted drama that always exists when Nami Matsushima is on screen. When you have a protracted opening credits sequence where your anti-heroine is fleeing through the crowded city streets with a man's severed arm handcuffed to her, the viewer has to know what they're in for! The incestuous sub-plot is simply bizarre(..and it's shot in a soft-core way with the retarded brother humping his numb, cold sister with dead eyes staring ahead!), and the entire abortion sequence is rather hard to sit through. But, the abortion angle, as disturbing as it is, provides motivation for Nami's revenge..despite Nami's imperfect ways, and her criminal nature, you would rather see her take these cretins out than vice versa. Interesting angle with Detective Gondo, as well. Gondo is willing to break the rules, and he becomes a force-of-nature towards anyone who stands in his way of capturing his mortal enemy. His fate at the end, visiting another enemy of Nami's, in an isolated cell, while she looks on, perfectly encapsulates what makes these films so ridiculous yet so entertaining. The scalpel murders is a montage of slumping scumbags, in various places, the blades protruding from flesh, with Nami leaving the crime scenes very driven to wipe the whole clan out in memory of a fallen victim of unfortunate circumstances. While the film is essentially a comic book adventure, there's a sadness that permeates, and few characters come away without flaws. I imagine many will walk away from this scoffing at how unrealistic FEMALE PRISONER SCORPION:BEAST STABLE is(..specifically how Nami is able to escape capture time and time again, accomplishing her goals of revenge, paying back all those who have wronged her), but I looked at it as a violent action cartoon, much like the later 80's films, and enjoyed it for what it was. As always, this film features some beautiful Asian actresses and some colorful heavies. Meiko Kaji, almost always reserved/quiet, yet chilly staring down her enemies with violent intent, is in fine form(..in more ways than one)and Reisen Lee, as her cross-eyed, repugnant adversary, runs away with the picture as a perfectly realized contemptibly abusive foe worthy of psychological torment(..when both are in prison, Nami's ways of torturing her are sweet). My favorite scene has nothing to do with the plot, but is so wonderfully wrong, features a dog discovering Gondo's rotted severed arm, walking through a street eventually finding a resting place to chew on it!

Although some may call it a "Cuban Cinema Paradiso", the movie is closer to a How Green Was My Valley, a memory film mourning for a lost innocence. The film smartly avoids falling into a political trap of taking sides (pro-Castro? anti-Castro?, focusing instead in the human frailty of the characters and the importance of family. Filled with good acting, in particular from Mexican actress Diana Bracho, who plays Keitel's wife. A masterpiece, filled with references to classic movies, from CASABLANCA to Chaplin's CITY LIGHTS. Gael Garcia Bernal plays a small role which is critical for the dramatic payoff of the story. TV director Georg Stanford Brown, in a rare return to acting (remember THE ROOKIES?), plays a homeless bum who acts as Greek chorus, superbly. It is a pity that this movie, originally titled DREAMING OF JULIA, has been released in the States by THINKfilm with the atrocious title of CUBAN BLOOD, which has nothing to do with the movie.

If you like the excitement of a good submarine drama and the fun of a good comedy, then this film comes highly recommended. Kelsey Grammer gives an excellent performance here.<br /><br />The film also gives you something to think about the next time a serious sub movie asks for 'silent running'....<br /><br />

Oh dear. this was quite possibly the worst film i have seen in years. I mean what more can be done with the old "woman inside mans body" storyline? it was full of cliches, eg the nerd coming into his own sequence, the "lad" getting whats coming to him etc. im not calling these spoilers because any one could guess what happens!! the only thing it had going for it was Laura Fraser, who gave an average performance. and as for the "dream" boy, that was the wettest piece of acting ever. even the bad guys were instantly forgettable.<br /><br />terrible movie.

The songs are fantastic and the story-line is good. Like many other acting schools, mine also produced HAIR. For most hair production it's a golden opportunity to do nude, but my production was fully dressed... I don't think full frontal nudity in a movie or a play guarantees artistic quality... And so did the creators of the movie. The movie version is great with classic hits following each other while letting the plot develop to the chilling climax. A great cast of actors, dancers and singers.

This movie is one of the most Underrated movie of its time. When watching this movie , your filled with action, and when somethings not really happing , the humour is un matched. Brilliant writing for a movie that was made to give us a bloody mix , of a game show where criminals are the contestants, and a near future where the general public all have a thirst for blood.Also Arnold Doesn't let us down with some of his best one liners.I don't want to spoil anything for you ,but i will tell you when Arnold gives his "I'll be back line" He gets the best response of them all in this movie. Hope you enjoy this gem as much as i did.

I noticed at once that this movie really wasn't based on Dodie Smith's novel. In any case, it was a nice idea that Pongo and Perdita's son now had his own puppies. The cutest of the Dalmatians was, of course, little Snowball who was completely spotless till the very end of the film. <br /><br />To be honest, I didn't know what to think when Cruella de Vil seemed to have changed completely kind. In fact I have often thought about the possibility that she could become friendly, but now that she so quickly changed into "herself" again and announced that she was Cruella once more, I almost began to be really worried about Chloe's Dalmatians.<br /><br />Actually, the scene in which the puppies watched Lady and the Tramp while Chloe and Kevin had their dinner, was much better than I had expected. I also was fond of the parrot who played to be a dog, and it was incredible that the dogs had learned so many tricks for this movie. <br /><br />Of course I was content that at the end the Dalmatians were saved again, but I would have liked to know what was going to happen to Cruella after she had lost her whole property. And what on earth could the dogs' home do with such a huge sum of money?<br /><br />Finally, it was quite touching that Snowball also had spots at the very end of the film.

Pretentious storytelling such as this always uses the same technique: 1) Throw opaque, unstructured threads around to perplex the audience. 2) Deal only in `big' topics such as life, death and God. 3) Make it appear profound with scenes of life, death, sky, etc. 4) Depend on an intellectually weak audience to give you the benefit of the doubt. 5) And finally, laugh all the way to critical acclaim.<br /><br />This movie is pretentious faux-intellectualism at its boldest. Not only do these filmmakers not answer any questions, they're afraid to pose the questions to begin with. The film is held together by wisps. Directions are raised and dropped awkwardly. Pop cultural references are jolting and arbitrary. There is so little to point at, that any critical stabs will miss.<br /><br />Critics who found an intellectual base to this movie are afraid to admit the truth: they have no idea what this movie is about. Good news: neither do the filmmakers. Satisfying attempts at answers to profound questions about human existence demand wit, intellect, poetry, and genius. Sadly, this movie demonstrates none of these traits.