Datasets:

srivatsavaasista

/

textgenerator-ds-mini

like 0

A political satire of a comedian (Williams) who after dissing the political campaigns and presidents is forced into the running. But shockingly we wins and makes a mockery of the office. "Man of the Year" is not the funniest movie nor the best but in small doses it does work. Williams again teaming with Levinson after a hit with "Good Morning, Vietnam". The two seem to have a great chemistry and work off each other. I am not comparing them to Scorsese and DeNiro but you can get the picture. Although I wouldn't quite say to rush out there and see the movie in theaters I would recommend renting it. This movie is a comedy but also has a great satire, please if you like movies like "Scary Movie 4" this is not for you, take your brain with you to see it. - ***

I have grown up with Scooby doo all my life, My dad grew up with scooby doo. We have just watched the first episode of the travesty that calls itself Shaggy and Scooby get a clue. What planet are Warner Bros on allowing this shambles to air. The characters could have been drawn better by my younger sister. The story could have been better written by my 3 year old twin cousins (who are Scooby Doo fans too). Scooby and Shaggy just aren't!!!!! if anyone but Casey Kasem does the voice of Shaggy it just isn't gonna work folks!!!! trust me.<br /><br />This program was disgraceful. What's New Scooby Doo is much better. Why change a winning format. Bin this piece of garbage and go back to the true Scooby

Although properly warned I actually sat down to watch this movie. In part because I usually give every movie an even break, and because I thought that a single movie couldn't be that bad. I stand corrected. Not even George Kennedy, Barry Bostwick or Ben Stein could save this turkey from sinking like a ton of bricks. Only once during this humor forsaken travesty of a spoof did I laugh. Namely during the Simon says scene. The other jokes are either poorly carried out or simply plain unfunny. And some of them you actually see coming a mile away. This movie just hasn't got what it takes to be a good parody like Airplane! (I+II), Naked Gun (I+II+III), or Scary Movie. They all had A. funny gags, B. good dialog and most important of all C. unforgettable quotes. Men In White has got D. none of the above. To call this movie bad would be a gross understatement. AVOID THIS MOVIE ANYWAY YOU CAN! CONSIDER YOURSELVES WARNED!

Bah. Another tired, desultory reworking of an out of copyright work never designed to be filmed.<br /><br />On the plus side, Toni Collette is superb as always (being an actual actress, you see), and there are some nicely handled handover cuts between scenes. There are even a few genuinely funny lines, and the filmwork, score and editing is competent, apart from a bizarre lapse into voiceover and speaking to the camera towards the conclusion.<br /><br />But, ah, but. Much of the cast seems to be on autopilot, and they are almost all very clearly too old (and in one case too young) for their declared ages. Worse, they are all speaking "Austinese", that peculiar falsetto self satisfied sing song that couldn't be further from the way people actually spoke in Austen's day (think Yosemite Sam, I kid you not). This is particularly sad, considering that we seem to finally be seeing the demise of the equally farcial "Fakespearan" that Olivier and his cronies were so fond of bellowing at the top of their lungs.<br /><br />And worst of all is Gwyneth Paltrow. She's only ever played one character in her films, and she stays true to form here, running through her entire range (smirking to sulking) in the first ten minutes, then just repeating herself for the rest of the overlong film. There is absolutely no chemistry between herself and any of her admirers, nor any apparent reason why they would be interested in her apart.<br /><br />In short, there is very little reason to watch Emma. It's an amiable enough adaptation, but if you're going to pack a film full of anacronisms (i.e. an appalingly thin lead who can't shoot a bow or handle a period accent) then you might as well do it properly, as with the vastly superior "Clueless".

I agree with those reviews I have read here, and I have no words to define such a turkey like this, but despite everything, I still can find a reason for movies like this to exist. Do you remenber those happy days in which video was a prosperous business, and a lot of movies were made with the only reason of filling the shelves of the video stores? this movie comes from that period and I can imagine that was the only reason for which it was produced and the same happened with many, many, many other stinkers. Do you remember "Rambo" imitations? and so many slashers of Z grade?, I still feel nostalgia for that period.About this movie I can say I didn´t waste my time watching it because I pressed the fast forward button after the first fifteen minutes, just to find a very funny scene in which a guy was pushing an axe against heads which exploded because, as you perfectly notice, they were made of plastic. And about the end, well, it was so badly filmed I could not understand what happened. That´s the same, I had not followed the non-existing plot at all. But boy, Video-age was a great age despite movies like this.

Saw this today with my 8 year old. I thought it was cute. I agree with the other poster that it wasn't anything like the book that I can remember, but we still enjoyed it. All of the kids are pretty good and all in all pretty entertaining. Billy is the new kid who accepts a dare by the school bully to eat 10 worms in a day. If he loses he has to walk down the hall at school with worms in his pants. The beginning of the movie is set up to show that Billy has a VERY weak stomach and pukes at almost anything. Hilarity ensues with a bunch of different way to cook the worms. Good message about standing up to bullies and of course, a sappy happy ending.

Doghi is a wonderful movie and Renuka Daftardar is excellent. So is Uttara Baokar who is usually excellent in most of her roles. Along with Kairee, its an example of Marathi cinema at its best. There are certain parts in both movies that tend to the didactic - it would have probably enhanced the movie to not have the few scenes where the social message is hammered in. These scenes probably emerge from the film-maker's political concerns but the movie is realistic and moving enough to not need it. But apart from such minor quibbles, its a movie that deserves to be seen more and one I strongly recommend. Sumitra Bhave's concern and humanism shines through.

***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** HERE ON EARTH / (2000) 1/2* (out of four)<br /><br />Mark Piznarski's "Here on Earth" holds the record for a movie containing the most recycled material in 96 minutes. Literally every contrivance, cliché, and familiar plot element are somewhere in here; there is simply nothing unique, original, or fresh about it. God, what an agonizing motion picture to sit through; I wish I saw the film during its theatrical release last year so it could have earned on my year's worst list. This is the kind of movie where the story makes itself instantly obvious, and goes downhill from the opening credits, and worst of all, takes itself seriously. "Here on Earth" is clearly one of the most horrible, painful movies to come down the pike in some time.<br /><br />"Here on Earth" is a teen heartthrob film, so it must contain some of Hollywood's most prized young men who are attractive and inexperienced enough to accept a role in a movie as bad as this. Chris Klein and Josh Hartnett fit that vary description, and take the lead roles by storm. Klein plays Kelley, an arrogant and insolent student with a wealthy father (cliché number one). He is to graduate as the valedictorian and attend Ivy league college following in the footsteps of his father (Stuart Wilson). This sets up the "I don't want your life," cliché in which the father tries to control his son's life, while the son resists rebelliously. Throw in Kelley's deceased mother who committed suicide a while back. When his father brings home another woman, he brutally questions his intentions (the "no one can replace mom" cliché counts as number two).<br /><br />Josh Hartnett plays Jasper, a character on the opposite side of society to Kelley. His family owns a local diner. Enter his long-time love interest, Samantha Cavanaugh (Leelee Sobieski) a waitress at the diner who covers for her sister (who has no purpose whatsoever rather than controlling the following scene) when Jasper and Kelley act like childish morons by racing their cars and (oh no) crashing into the diner, causing it to erupt into flames. (Conflicts between the rich and poor will count as cliché number three.)<br /><br />The bungled car chase sets both Kelley and Jasper up for a contrived and plausible conflict. They get in trouble with the law, but because this movie feels the need to exist, the local judge orders them an alternative to serving time: they must work together to help rebuild the diner.<br /><br />The two boys work hard during the summer growing strong and getting a nice tan. Samantha's eye catches Kelley, and romantic sparks fly. Jasper is jealous, but wants what is best for his true love (cliché number four). Her parents (Annette O'Toole and Bruce Greenwood) disapprove of her little romantic triangle (cliché number five), but she continues two timing Jasper without a second thought. Her father also happens to be the local sheriff, how surprising (lets count that melodramatic nugget cliché number six).<br /><br />The contrived romantic feelings between Kelley and Samantha count as cliché number seven. But Samantha's relationship with Jasper is never defined, so how can there any romantic tension? If the film is going to induce involvement in Samantha's choice between the two young men, then we need to see both characters from both sides. The movie depicts Jasper as a distraction to her "rightful love," Kelley. It's clear Jasper truly loves her, but it is also clear she does not love him back. This absolutely slaughters the romantic tension early in the story.<br /><br />Leelee Sobieski does no harm here; however, her charm and kind performance do not fit a two-timing character like Samantha. John Hartnett is also right for the role of Jasper, but the movie gives him nothing to do except bicker with Kelley. Chris Klein gets to make a hunk name for himself here; he spends much of the movie shirtless, sweaty and overworked. Unfortunately he does not show off his acting ability, maybe because he has very little. The supporting cast is much more talented. Bruce Greenwood supplies the best performance in the film, but does not have near enough screen time to save anything but a few brief moments. I also enjoyed the performance by Stuart Wilson, who perfectly fits the role of a rich, controlling father of high social status.<br /><br />Then we lean about Samantha's knee problem exactly one hour and ten minutes into the movie (another spoiler ahead). What is this, she has a serious incurable illness (yet another contrivance into the picture, approximately number eight). Her terminal disease brings the two competing young men together as friends, well, at least I think that is what the movie intended to show, that the loss of one loved by two nemeses can bring both together (cliché number nine).<br /><br />Klein rehearses his valedictorian speech to demonstrate his character is more than a shallow stereotype, but we have seen this so many times before I would prefer a rich character rather than a deeply sentimental who hides actual feelings (cliché number, um, was it ten)?. The conflicts between Kelley and Jasper are desperate and inane; a "your mom" comment triggers a fist fight while they rebuild the establishment. There is a retread from "Armageddon," as Samantha and Kelley sprawl out in an open field, horny as hell, as he slowly moves his fingers around her body, naming areas after US cities (why not call that number eleven). The movie uses alcohol as a means to increase the romantic tension: an intoxicated Kelley makes a fool of himself after getting in a fight with Samantha's date, Jasper, but the following day he recites desires only to dance (cliché number, oh no, I am losing count).

****Probably will contain spoilers****<br /><br />After a successful attempt to get attention (I would not call making sure that you get help before you die a "failed suicide attempt"), Joey finds out that she is pregnant and starts seeing images of spirits.<br /><br />Overall the movie was a little slow going, but entertaining enough to watch the whole thing. For a horror movie, there were only a few minor creeps and thrills. Halfway through, however, was a really good scary scene (I wont give it away though) :) I watched this movie because I really liked the preceding movie, The Eye.<br /><br />I was a little confused, however to determine that, other than being a "supernatural suspense" movie from the same creators, The Eye 2 had NO relation to The Eye, *whatsoever*; different cast, different story. The Eye2 does not even have anything to do with eyes :\<br /><br />The movie had a few questionable scenes: Joey attempts suicide 3 times (4 times, if you count the time when witnesses say they saw Joey trying to jump in front of the train), she is associated with brutally defacing an attacker, she freaks out in a restaurant and witnesses say she was "attacking" people and yet she is allowed to go about her business freely, without even so much as a psyche evaluation or put in the hospital (for reasons other than her pregnancy).<br /><br />The movie was not the greatest horror movie, the story was rather far-fetched (even for a fiction movie :P ), the spooks were either few and/or nothing we have not seen before. However, it was an "interesting" story and once you know what the "truth" is behind the spooks, it was an interesting twist on the "ghost" story.<br /><br />I rate the movie 3 out of 10.

Britain and France declared war on Germany in 1939, but by then, almost all of Europe had fallen under the advance of the Nazi war machine. Entering the war, Britain virtually started from scratch, with scarce supplies and with an air force that was outnumbered by Germany ten to one. But the will of the Brits was firm, emboldened by their new Prime Minister Winston Churchill who declared - "We shall never go under".<br /><br />On August 8, 1940, the Battle for Britain was on. However for the first time since Hitler's declared stance to conquer the world, he hit a wall. Though massively outnumbered, the British Royal Air Force went on the offensive, and in the span of twenty eight days in September and October of 1940, German Luftwaffe casualties climbed to two thousand three hundred seventy five lost planes and crew. Hitler's rage was seething, but he had to call a momentary time out. Responding later in the year, Hitler launched a massive fire bombing of London on Christmas Day of 1940. When I say that there has never been a disaster movie to rival the real live footage of London in flames during this assault would be an understatement. Perhaps the most surreal effect of this chapter in the "Why We Fight" series would be seeing British citizens emerge from their underground shelters following the bombing raids to resume what was left of their life above ground. Even as you watch, there is no way to comprehend the living horror these people must have gone through, as the city of London was left in virtual ruin.<br /><br />Yet the Nazis were stunned and stymied as well. Everything Hitler wanted to believe about freedom and democracy was now turned on it's head. Instead of being weak willed and complacent like the French, the British were not going to give up without a fight. And fight they did, taking the air battle to Germany and responding in kind with attacks on the German homeland. It was a turning point, forcing Hitler to rethink his strategy.

I can't believe that the City of Muncie is so hard up for attention that they would embarrass themselves by allowing this show to be done there. This show is like a slap in the face to real hard working law-enforcement officers. I have never before in my life seen anything so stupid in my life. If they had billed it as a comedy that would be one thing but to say it is reality is nothing short of a lie. I only saw it once and was appalled at what I saw. I wanted to see the little guy get into a foot-chase with a bad guy. What a joke that would have been. Nothing on the show was even close to the real world. The city of Muncie, the Police Chief, and all the officers should be hanging their heads in shame and should never want o admit they come from that city. No wonder it didn't stay around on TV

Six GIs, about to be send home and discharged, get drunk and sneak into a cult meeting in Asia. Surrounded by hooded figures, two male dancers pretend to have a fight. Behind them, on an altar, a woven basket opens and a figure painted emerges and begins imitating a snake, finally biting one of the dancers on the neck. The imitation snake is dressed in some scaley looking body tights. (This is definitely a female imitation snake.) The cult member who has sneaked them into the secret meeting has warned the six men repeatedly that the ceremonies must not be interrupted and, most definitely, no photos must be taken or else they will be hunted down and killed. Naturally, the GIs take a flash photo, send the cult members into an angry hysteria, steal the basket containing the "snake" and run off with it into the Asian night.<br /><br />One of the guys, the most offensive and snarky, dies from a cobra bite on the neck, though no one can explain how the snake got into his hospital room.<br /><br />Back in New York, it all seems rather old news as the discharged men settle down into their civilian lives, still maintaining their bond with one another. Their jobs range from manager of a bowling alley (David Janssen) to graduate research student (Richard Long). James Dobson, Jack Kelly, and Marshall Thompson are also part of the neighborhood. Richard Long has a nice blond girl friend. Kelly is a somewhat reckless womanizer. But they all get along well enough and all of them seem happy.<br /><br />Then a dark, shifty-looking, mysterious woman (Faith Domergue) shows up and Marshall Thompson takes a liking to her and insinuates her into the group.<br /><br />Guess what happens. First Janssen is terrified by a shadow in the back seat and dies in a car crash. Then Kelly gets a visit from Domergue. Something scares him so badly he tumbles through the window and dies in the fall to the sidewalk. Long and Dobson begin to suspect what the viewer already knows -- that Domergue has had something to do with the deaths. They also reckon that maybe she's turning into a cobra, which is the case. Dobson confronts her with his suspicions and she proves his point.<br /><br />By this time Long and Thompson are thoroughly frazzled, particularly Thompson, who is in love with Domergue and has discovered that she is attracted to him, too, although he must explain to her what "love" is. No matter. A final reckless attack by the cobra woman against Long's girl friend -- not one of the six original offenders -- and Thompson must throw the snake out the window. On the pavement below, the body changes to that of Domergue. The end.<br /><br />I think I'll skip over most of the questions that the plot raises. I'll just mention one of the more prosaic ones in passing. Who paid for Domergue's fare from somewhere in Asia to New York? Who's paying her utility bills in the hotel? Who paid for her spectacular wardrobe? How come she speaks American English so well? What the hell's going on? The writers and director have clearly seen some of Val Lewton's modest horror films and, though not much effort has gone into this production, they've unashamedly stolen some gimmicks from Lewton. In Lewton's "The Cat People", for instance, the woman is transformed into a black leopard but, with one tiny exception, the threat is always kept in the shadows and is all the more spooky for it. Most of the transformations here use shadows too, but unlike Lewton's, the shadows are clumsy and unambiguous.<br /><br />Lewton also made occasional use of what he called "buses". Lewton's first "bus" was a literal one. A potential victim is hurrying alone through the dark tunnels of Central Park with only the sound of footsteps. Something or someone is following her. She freezes with fright under a street lamp. Something rustles the branches of the shrubs above her. She looks upward. There is a loud, wheezing shriek that makes your hair stand on end. It's a bus using its air brakes to stop for her. The producers used at least two "buses" in this film and they amount to nothing. A guy is walking distractedly across an intersection, for instance, and there is the sudden rumble of a truck that almost hits him. There is no set up to the shot. It's jammed in with a shoe horn.<br /><br />I don't much care for movies that perpetuate the stereotype of serpents as slimy, ugly, venomous, and phallic. As a matter of fact, no snakes are slimy, most are harmless, and many are extraordinarily beautiful. Furthermore, they're more feminine than masculine in their sinuous movements and serpentine approach to goals. You want a reptilian symbol for masculinity? Try a six-lined racerunner. It's a really fast lizard. When it sees something to eat, it rushes up and gobbles it down.<br /><br />Anyway, if you want to see some fine, low-budget scary films, don't bother with this one. Find "The Cat People" or one of Lewton's other minor masterpieces, of which this is an obvious copy.

Woody Allen made "September", proving that even a genius could screw up. This is Mel Brook's "September". Monumentally stupid, boring, and unfunny, I must confess I did not watch it through to the end. The flick ranks among the dishonored few (e.g., "The Money Pit", "Out to Sea", "Spitfire Grill") which either put me to sleep or forced me to reach for the "rewind" button. And I say this, sadly, as a devoted Mel Brooks fan. He should stick to straight comedy and leave social commentary alone. How the same fellow that made "Young Frankenstein" and "Spaceballs" could crank out a dog like this is beyond me. To be avoided at all costs.

I saw this film on its release, and have watched it 3 or 4 more times, including last week. I regret I have to be a voice of dissension with regard to Mr. Branagh's performance.<br /><br />This is really a glorious, sumptuous film, to say nothing of ambitious at over 4 hours long - beautifully shot and designed. Derek Jacobi, Julie Christie, Kate Winslet, Richard Briers, and many others do fine jobs. Then there's Kenneth Branagh. If ever there was a vanity project for an actor, this is it, and Mr. Branagh spares nothing in putting the "ham" in Hamlet. From the stunt casting (which gives us the worst performance ever by the woefully miscast Jack Lemmon), to the bits of distracting business thrown in to infuse a sense of "naturalness," to his own performance which runs the gamut from throwing away the single most famous soliloquy in all of literature to screaming every line of others. His performance confirms that, while he may come across better on stage where bigger is necessary, he has never been a great film actor. The scenery budget could be charged to catering, Mr. Branagh eats so much of it. His performance is a perfect example of why people don't go to see Shakespeare - "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." And if there is fault to his direction, it is that he keeps the camera firmly glued on his overblown performance.<br /><br />No matter what theories people may posit on the Bard, he was, after all is said and done, a playwright. The brilliance of his plays rest in the fact that his themes are universal and timeless. Although there is no "right" way to play his plays, there is most certainly great acting, good acting and bad acting. Shakespeare himself gives instructions to the players in the text of "Hamlet" itself. It amazes me how Mr. Branagh "mouthed" it, but did not hear it. It was an example of spending too much time working out how he's going to say something, and too little figuring out WHAT he's saying.<br /><br />While Mr. Branagh has certainly done a wonderful job in mounting some entertaining productions, he would be wise to stay behind the camera and allow those who know the art of acting to practice it. His direction has always been better than his acting. I still give him immense credit for resurrecting interest in filming Shakespeare. He set a great template for other productions. And, it would be interesting to see him onstage, from about 20 rows back. But, I do hope he chooses to direct more and act less.<br /><br />Is it worth seeing? Certainly. There are many little joys to be found in the film. But, it's a long, long movie and, by the end, one may feel less that they enjoyed than survived it.

What an atomic bomb of a movie. The story goes nowhere and comes fron nowhere. It leaves the theatre goer with ones arm up saying "is this it". What happened to Redford. He was once a fair actor. Now he thinks that he can show up on the set and make a few scenes and it's a take. Wrong. What an unemotional film. I don't mean to be so so cruel, but what crap of a movie. Unbelievable amateur crap. If I was in this movie I would be so embarased that I would not show my face. I tell you what, if I was associated with this movie, I am in big trouble. This movie will go down in the annals of movie making as the king of bombs with which all others will be compared to.

This movie is so bad, I knew how it ends right after this little girl killed the first person. Very bad acting very bad plot very bad movie<br /><br />do yourself a favour and DON'T watch it 1/10

A great concept gone wrong. Poor acting, even worse writing....After watching the first two episodes I was wondering why it ever made it to season two. The characters are forgettable, the writing is poor, the sets are just OK. The special effects are simply sad - so much better has been made in the same time-frame - where is the money going on this one? The first episode starts out interesting then goes downhill fast - the precept of the whole show is just silly. Now don't get me wrong, I am a huge Sci-Fi fan and 'geek' - but this show simply doesn't cut it. As I said in the beginning, I am truly surprised it made it to season two - so much better has been canceled after only one season (Jake 2.0 for example). This show was just bad.

A wonder. One of the best musicals ever. The three Busby Berkely numbers that end the movie are spectacular, but what makes this film so wonderful is the incredible non-stop patter and the natural acting of Cagney and Blondell. (Keeler is also lovely, even though she may not have been a great actress). There's a freshness in the movie that you don't see in flicks today, much less in the usually stilted 30s films, even though the plot, involving the setting up of movies prologues, is quite dated.

For weeks I had been looking forward to seeing this movie only to find myself hugely disappointed after wards. In my opinion, the only good thing 'River Queen' had going for it was the amazing scenery used as backgrounds. The story line was all over the place, Samantha's character Sarah was very difficult to understand and what on earth were all the many close ups of her face for? It brought absolutely nothing to the story-if there was one at all!A better actor for the part of Boy could also have been selected, to me it sounded like he read his lines straight of the script while shooting his scenes.Overall, a real shame as it could have been such a good movie.

Funny, sexy, hot!!! There is no real plot but you needn't anyone...<br /><br />so the naked or almost naked girls and the typical fights between college-cliques need no development!<br /><br />All in all the whole seems to be known from simply every film in this category but the reissuer reached the goal that this film can be recognized out of thousand others.<br /><br />Last thing I've got to say. Unbelievable funny!<br /><br />You've got to see it!!! <br /><br />And if you are young and you want know more about the female body you've got to see it twice

This is one of the greatest 80s movies!!! It sticks out like a "turd in a punchbowl"!! I can't believe Mad Magazine denounced it or whatever. And yet, they proudly put their name on a show with "Stuart", "I-speak-a-no-enlish Chinese lady" and "UPS guy on speed". What's up with that? And, I LOVE Ron Leibman-he's foxy!! Wonder why he had his name removed from the credits? It was his funniest role that I know of. Of course, he's not nearly as foxy as he was in Norma Rae. But, in my opinion, this movie is right up there with National Lampoon's Vacation. If you liked movies such as Porky's, Fast Times, Last American Virgin, or any of the other 80s teen-focused movies, you'll love this one!! Rent it and you'll see what I mean!!

<br /><br />I understand that people have different expectations of low-budget, arthouse movies. I also know that John Sayles has a sort of glow about him, that earthy, intellectual anti-hollywood vibe, a la Tim Robbins, the Coen brothers and Atom Egoyan, that makes him a darling with the critics from the get-go.<br /><br />But this is not a good movie. I'm sorry, it just isn't.<br /><br />It meanders. It has too many characters. Its tone is uneven, its point of view is muddled, the acting is all over the board, from naturalistic to over the top. It lingers for long moments with minor characters we don't care about and cuts away from tense scenes just when things are getting good.<br /><br />It misses the mark.<br /><br />The worst flaw in the movie is that the two closest things to a protagonist, Edie Falco's Marly and Angela Bassett's Desiree, are straight-jacketed in characters that have no drive. Marly is an apathetic drunk, steeped in her life's own inertia. Desiree is a woman trapped in her own repressed pain. When your two main characters' world-views can be summed up with the phrases "I don't care" and "I want to leave here," why should the audience give a rat's patootie?<br /><br />I'll be plain: Sayles writes funny dialogue. He's very adept at crafting a scene. The problem is, these scenes don't go anywhere. There's no spine to the movie. No drive. The movie doesn't create rooting interest in any of the characters. In my opinion, he's also too preachy about big bad corporate America gobbling up the little guy. <br /><br />If you want to see a quality "small" movie, see David Lynch's "Straight Story." Pass this one up.

OK, we got JP from Grandma's Boy and Chuck from, well Chuck. I thought this movie would be quite good based on the reviews, and it did start out pretty high on my movie scale, but about halfway through it was just dragging out for so long I kept losing interest. I actually got so bored, probably because you can see right away what's going to happen in the end; the story is actually quite thread-bare, I skipped over 15 minutes and didn't miss a thing! This film should have been a short work, maybe around 45 minutes to an hour max. It starts out good and finishes good, too bad the filling is bland, boring, dull, and lacks everything but time. Some people say they like it for the music; I don't care for jazz and I don't go see movies for their score, I go for the story and when that's drawn out... well, ratings drop in my book.<br /><br />Bottom Line: Good open, great close, boring filler. Story was cool, but if you don't know what's going to happen a quarter of the way through, you haven't seen too many thrillers.

Lucio Fulci, later known for his graphic horror films like The Beyond and Zombie, was years earlier a master of the Italian giallo (in the company of Argento and Bava) with films like A Lizard In A Woman's Skin and his masterpiece, Don't Torture A Duckling. This film has all the elements of the Italian mystery/thriller genre known as the giallo, but really pulls the viewers in by having each key character with a skeleton in his/her own closet. This keeps you doing as much detective work as the detectives in the film itself. Who is killing the young boys in town? The young rich woman who is so bored that she sexually taunts the eventual victims, the reporter who likes to tamper with a crime scene to get a better photo shot, the townswoman with a mentally retarded daughter, the local witch, the town idiot....the list goes on, and you have to keep mental notes like a true game to play and solve. The themes in this film are very daring and done with that perfect Italian style in the early 1970s. It is certain that no American studio would have even considered making a film of such strong content, and that is precisely why this is such a satisfying film (despite some unusual accent choices for the dubbing) and will definitely have people discussing its meanings long after viewing it. As the saying goes, they don't make them like this anymore, so get a copy and cherish an important film like this one!

When this movie first came out back in 1984, Prince was one of the hottest acts around. Everyone wanted to see this movie, which was not much more than a extended music video. The acting was pretty bad, but what can you expect from musicians acting on the big screen for the first time? Despite that, it was still a very entertaining film! Morris Day and Jerome Benton provide some all time classic comedy, especially their rendition of "The Password", which will make you think of Abbott & Costello doing their "who's on first" baseball routine.<br /><br />Appolina (who went by a single name then) provided some beautiful breasts, so you had the brief nudity covered. Plus, she is very attractive. And of course, the soundtrack of the album is one of the best Prince ever recorded. Prince later on had a fallout with Warner Bros. and changed his name, but at this particular time in his career, he was at the top of his game.<br /><br />This movie doesn't rank in the all time great category, but it is pretty entertaining.

I have seen every episode of this spin off. I thought the first season was a decent effort considering the expectations of following such a success that is Grey's Anatomy. Thus i have continued to watch. I'm afraid the second season lacks the charm, the chemistry and more importantly the drama of it's predecessor Grey's Anatomy. The relationships seem contrived and the acting is so-so. The writing lacks the intelligence and comedic hints seen in GA. There are shows that a formulaic but do not feel formulaic and contrived, unfortunately PP is not so. I loved Kate Walsh's presence in GA. I'm afraid Kate Walsh's life in LA is simply not interesting.

The opening scene of the beach at Fircombe while amusing in itself, unfortunately provides a suitable metaphor for the film - insipid and washed out. It is actually not as corny as most of the others in the Carry On series, but maybe because of that doesn't really deliver much fun. It's a fair bet that the title will appeal to fans of the Benny Hill show but those looking for attractive females in bikinis and miniskirts, while they will see some in this, will probably enjoy some of the other titles in the series, such as "Carry On Abroad" or "Carry On Up the Jungle" more. The emergence of early 1970s feminism is used as a plot device which seems rather self-defeating.

I grew up with scooby(kinda the re-runs of where are you)I hate scrappy, love Daphne, and feel its not complete with out the whole gang. But this is sad, scooby doo is mystery solving comedy-not bad totally spy's jap anime. i like "whats new", they had to give danger-prone Daphne a makeover sometime :( and try to lose the *sex *drug jokes of many a generation, but this "get a clue" is flat out crap and should not have the Scooby name attached. They even tried to do some lame punk thing with the theme song. now i'm gonna go watch my DVD of scooby doo where are you to wash the filth of this new series off my eyes

The basic plot in this movie isn't bad. A lady makes it big and comes back to her alma mater to be adored. But, despite good acting by Robert Young and Eve Arden, the movie is a mess. The blame for this I place on either Joan Crawford or the director or both, as her performance is just awful. Instead of being a real person, she does a wonderful impersonation of a deer caught in the headlights. In other words, she stares off into space and has a "golly I am SOOOO stunned" expression. After just a few minutes it really became annoying for me. Now this is certainly not the only Crawford film I dislike for her performance, as she had done more than her share of overacting--in films such as JOHNNY GUITAR or many of her later films, such as BERSERK! My advice is to try a different Crawford film--there certainly were better.

According to the blurb on the back of the DVD case; Jonothan Ross 'laughed until a little bit of wee came out'. I suspect that that has more to do with his being full of it.<br /><br />I never watched the series for one reason or another, so maybe I'm missing some essential cues. As to this movie; I watched the first 45 minutes or so. I laughed once, smiled once, then reached for the newspaper whilst waiting for something else entertaining to happen. Nothing did.<br /><br />Evidently intended to be a surreal spoof upon life in the post-Python, gross-humour style, this one falls absolutely flat. There's been a host of comedy series on television in the last few years, not the least of which were 'Bottom', 'The Fast Show' 'The Vicar Of Dibley' and 'Father Ted', each one engaging a group of bizarre but hilarious characters and sketches. Any one of these could knock this crap into a cocked hat.<br /><br />If the series was anything like this movie; I'm surprised they got the funding. Happily it was one of those £2 Tesco bran-tub purchases and is now in the local charity shop.<br /><br />The moral of the story is; don't believe the pundits, never pay top dollar.

The very first talking picture has returned from oblivion, and now you can hear it and see it! In autumn of 1894, at the Edison lab complex in West Orange, New Jersey, Thomas Edison's associate William Dickson tried to combine two existing technologies (the phonograph and the kinetoscope) to record sound and image together. In the event, Dickson was unable to synchronise the playback of sound and image, so this experimental film was never released to paying audiences ... and consequently (unlike many silent films which Dickson made for Edison at this time) it has no official title. The silent image (recorded at 40 fps) has been in the Library of Congress for years, known to film historians as a mute curiosity. It was also known that the 'soundtrack' had been recorded on one of the crude wax cylinders languishing at the Edison National Historic Site ... although nobody knew which one.<br /><br />But now that's changed. Recently, curators located the wax cylinder, which had broken into several pieces. These were reassembled: a playback was obtained, and the sound was digitised. Hollywood's veteran soundtrack editor Walter Murch cleaned up the background noise and tweaked the digitisation to make it synch with the film image, which Murch had digitally compressed to 30 fps. Sound and image are synchronised at last!<br /><br />The film begins with an offscreen man's voice calling: 'The rest of you fellows ready? Go ahead!' (The unseen speaker remains unidentified, but was probably Dickson's assistant Fred Ott.) On screen, Dickson plays a violin into an immense funnel mounted on a tripod (one of Edison's sound-recording devices) while alongside him, in full view of the camera, two male lab assistants embrace each other for some quick ballroom dancing to the tempo of Dickson's music.<br /><br />The film lasts barely 17 seconds: just long enough for us to marvel at this crude technology before being provoked to laughter at the sight of two men waltzing in each other's arms. Speaking of which, here's a WARNING: a well-known but extremely inaccurate reference book ('The Celluloid Closet', by the late Vito Russo) includes a frame enlargement from this movie and identifies it as 'The Gay Brothers'. That's incorrect. 'The Gay Brothers' is an entirely different movie, made by Dickson at the Edison lab during this same period. 'The Gay Brothers' never had a soundtrack: it's a brief fiction film about two brothers who are NOT 'gay' in the sense Russo meant it. The deceased Mr Russo, for his own reasons, wanted us to perceive Dickson's experimental sound film (arguably the first movie musical!) as an artefact of 19th-century homoeroticism. (Hmm, what is it about gay men and musicals?) Sorry, but there's just no such content here.<br /><br />This vitally important film deserves a rating of 10 out of 10. I've often maintained that no 'lost' movie should ever be considered irretrievable unless it was deliberately destroyed: I'm delighted to report that this film is finally available to audiences as its producer intended it, more than a century after it was filmed!

This movie had potential, but what makes it really bad is Lindsay Crouse's acting. I've never seen her before in anything else and maybe there are some Crouse fans out there that like her in something else, but her performance in this movie is bad.<br /><br />Her delivery is robotic. When she delivered her lines it appeared that she was trying to make sure she had the lines right and was simply reading off the list in her head. So, her voice has very little inflection. I can't believe someone that bad at acting was given a lead role in a movie. She has to know somebody in the biz.<br /><br />Now I hate to be this mean about her, but the comment has to be "this" long and her performance is what sticks out more than anything else.<br /><br />However, I liked where the story was going so I continued to watch it. The first part of the script has the makings of a good movie. But the end was disappointing as well. Maybe if her acting had been better, I would have liked it.

This is truly one of the worst movies ever made--and I don't mean in a so-bad-it's-good kind of way. Eddie Murphy is a great comic, and it is a testament to how bad this movie is that it nearly killed his career. The writing and direction are inept, the sets and staging about as imaginative as a Brady Bunch episode, and the acting shows just how bad a great cast can be when they have absolutely nothing to work with. If it weren't for the costumes--which, aside from Eddie Murphy's ego, seem to account for the major part of the budget--you would swear this thing was slapped together by a bunch of high schoolers wasted on peppermint Schnapps. That anyone could find this travesty in any way funny or entertaining is mind-boggling. It's probably no coincidence that the misguided souls who are praising this stinker are barely literate. But if your idea of hilarity is Della Reese getting her "pinkie toe" shot off, then by all means, put aside your drool cup and go rent this movie.

For several reasons, this movie is simply awful. Other posters have listed some of this movie's historical errors. Well, I have a layman's knowledge of Roman history and even I found the inaccuracies flagrant. I usually forgive errors in historical movies because I understand that the purpose is to entertain not educate. And shrinking a long saga down to a two hour feature requires some, let's say, historical license. But this movie goes well beyond mere rounding.<br /><br />There's worse. To tell a story from a distant period, the movie uses flashbacks which just make the story more confusing. Unless viewers have some prior knowledge of the period, they will quickly be lost. In addition, the movie was obviously filmed simultaneously in Italian and English with various actors being dubbed later. At times, the actors seem as if they were in completely different movies which were then edited together. In fact, this is not far wrong. The actors were obviously pasted onto a cheesy computer generated ancient Rome.<br /><br />The only reason I give this boring mess any stars is because I always find Peter O'Toole entertaining. But that is no reason to rent it. If you are curious about Roman history, there are much better movies available.

More wide-eyed, hysterical 50s hyper-cheerfulness that gives new meaning to anti-social, pathological behaviour. Danza and Grayson will leave you begging for mercy.<br /><br />It's a shame that all the people involved in the making of this movie are now dead (or in nursing homes). I kinda thought about suing them for torture. As this movie started unleashing its shamelessly aggressive operatic assault onto my poor, defenseless ear-drums, I felt instant, strong pain envelop my entire being. That damn muscular vibrato can shatter Soviet tanks into tiny bits, nevermind glass.<br /><br />"Why didn't you switch the channel if you didn't like it?", you might ask angrily. Fair point, fair point... The answer is that I wanted to, but the pain was so sudden and excruciating that I fell to the floor, writhing in agony. With my last ounces of energy, I tried to reach the remote but couldn't.<br /><br />A silly little fisherman with the questionable talent of singing with an annoying opera voice is discovered by Niven, who then proceeds to "pigmalionize" him. Lanza is in love with asymmetrical Grayson, but she predictably treats him with contempt until they finally hook up. This may seem like a rather thin plot, but this noisy movie is so chock-full of singing and music that there is barely any dialogue at all. This movie is RELENTLESS. Forget about torturing hippies and war prisoners with Slayer's "Reign In Blood" (as in a South Park episode). Whatever little conversation there is amongst the silly adults that infest this strange 50s musical world, it's all infantile - as if they were all 6 year-olds impersonating grown-ups. I can only envy people who find movies like this funny. It must be great being easy-to-please: what a world of wonder would open up to me if only I could enjoy any silly old gag as hilarious, gut-busting comedy. <br /><br />But let's examine this phenomenon, the 50s musical. My best guess is that 50s musicals offered the more day-dreaming idealists among us a glimpse into Utopia or Heaven (depending on whether you're church-going or Lenin's-tomb-going), or at least very cheesy version of these fantasy-inspired places. TTONO is more akin to a representation of Hell, but that's just me. I don't seem to "get" musicals. People talk, there is a story - but then all-of-a-sudden everyone starts singing for about 4 minutes after which they abruptly calm down and then pretend as if nothing unusual happened! When you think about it, musicals are stranger than any science-fiction film.<br /><br />Worse yet, TTONO (my favourite type of pizza, btw) is not just a 50s musical, but one with opera squealing. Opera is proof that there is such a thing as over-training a voice - to the point where it becomes an ear-piercing weapon rather than a means of bringing the listener pleasure. The clearest example of this travesty is when Lanza and Grayson unite their Dark Side vocal powers for a truly unbearable duet. I tried lowering the volume. I lowered it from 18 to 14. Then from 14 to 10. Then 8. I ended up lowering it to a 1, which is usually so low that it's only heard by specially-trained dogs and certain types of marsupials, and yet I STILL could hear those two braying like donkeys!<br /><br />Take the scene in the small boat in the river. Danza starts off with one of his deafening, brain-killing tunes, and then... nothing. No animals anywhere to be seen. Even the crocodiles, who are mostly deaf, have all but left. If you look carefully, you might even see the trees change colour, from green to yellow, in a matter of minutes. No, this was not a continuity error, it was plain old torture of the flora. And those trees were just matte paintings! Imagine how real trees would have reacted.<br /><br />The reason glass breaks when a high C is belched out of the overweight belly of an operatic screamer is not due to any laws of physics relating to waves and frequency, but because glass is only human - hence can take only so much pain before committing suicide through spontaneous self-explosion. I can listen to the loudest, least friendly death metal band for hours, but give me just a minute of a soprano and I get a splitting headache.

Is it full moon tonight? OH! It doesn't matter they can change whenever they want cuz of that drug! What was I thinking if its full moon tonight?! Geez<br /><br />I really like this movie, there's romance, suspense, horror, and hot stuff ;) I like the first half of the movie when the guy saves the girl from killing herself by bungee jumping and catching her. That was really cool. The setting of this movie is in the city of love which is Paris in France. The cemetery scenes are nice, it gives you chills not knowing what will happen there or who's behind the walls. The scenes that makes you jump out of your seat is really cool. Even they got me on that scenes. His friend who died and the girl whom he killed in the cemetery but still shows themselves to the lead character(sorry I forgot his name), was really funny. The actors did a good job plus the make-up crews. The part when they're all partying in an abandoned church, I can't believe people would that because even though that's an abandoned church, that is still God's house. I bought this movie long time ago, and I do not regret buying it. I'm a horror-movie-lover. I give this movie 5 stars out of 6. For the people who are open and loves movies like this, give it a try, you might like it.

Jamie Foxx is my favorite comedian. However, I feel that he sold out in order to gain his first big budget lead role. Foxx follows in the footsteps of the likes of Chris Tucker, Martin Lawrence and Dave Chapple, who have all seen their talents wasted by stereotyping producers who think black males who commit pretty crimes is a funny concept (See: Money Talks, Blue Streak).<br /><br />Okay I laughed a few times and granted all of these comedians continue to pick up hilarious roles, but I would love to see these guys branch out ala Marlon Wayans portrayal in Requiem to a Dream. Or In Living Color's Tommy Davidson and Damon Wayans moving performances in Spike Lee's satire Bamboozled.

This film actually works from a fairly original idea - I've never seen nymphs that were thrown out of heaven in a horror movie before anyway. However, the way that it executes this idea isn't original in the slightest; we follow a bunch of kids that, for some reason decide to go on a trip into the forest. The fact that the forest is inhabited by these nymphs make it more interesting than merely another forest filled by rednecks/nutcases/zombies etc; but really, the monsters are just a variation on the common horror in the woods theme. Many films of this ilk don't have a single good idea - and it would seem that this one has worn its brain cells out with just that one. The only real asset that the monsters bring to the table is the fact that they're beautiful women that the characters lust for, rather than being hideous grotesques that they want to run away from. This is good up until a point; but it soon gets boring, and the almost complete lack of any back-story surrounding the central monsters ensures that the film is never going get itself out of the 'horror trash' category.<br /><br />It's been years since The Evil Dead made the woodlands a prime horror location, and in spite of films like The Blair Witch Project; it still makes for an excellent horror setting. This is one of the film's major assets, as the forest presents a good impression of the unknown - the only problem is that Forest of the Damned doesn't ever seem to have much up its sleeve. The death sequences show a distinct lack of imagination, and the fact that all the characters are clichéd in the extreme doesn't help, as you're more likely to be looking forward to seeing them get killed rather than hoping they can get away. The cast is made up of kids mainly, but there is a role here for Tom Savini; who unfortunately doesn't get to have fun in the special effects department. The only real highlight the film has where personnel are concerned comes from the nymphs themselves. The naked ladies tend to look great, and if it wasn't for them, this film would get very boring very quickly. There's nothing to recommend this film for really; but if you want a daft little horror film that harks back to the style of eighties woodland flicks, you might find some enjoyment here.

I really loved the Millenium series, starred by Lance Henriksen, which is why I bought the film. Obviously at some level it was a mistake. Mutant/monster films are usually very bad and this film is no exception.<br /><br />The basic idea itself is not totally judged to fail (well nevertheless this film would never have been a success, even with a good director & actors), but the way it turns out this is just a B-class movie. The scenes that are supposed to be scary seem more funny to me and the critter is not credible at all.<br /><br />However, watching this film with group of friends in restless mood makes this film shine as it is so unintentionally hilarious.

In the real world of art Elizabeth Wurtzel is the sexy drama queen every guy wants to do, but no guy wants to wake up next to. Her on-screen portrayer, Christina Ricci, is the ugly artsy wannabe girl that desperately wants every and any guy, but no guy will touch her. That's why, in Prozac Nation, the unreleased 2001 film of Wurtzel's 1990s bestseller book of the same name, there are immediate problems. OK, the problems start before the miscast of Ricci, who has the emotional range of a thimble- is it any wonder that, by far, her finest acting was in the two Addams Family films? First off, she is bizarre looking- with big eyes and a bulging forehead, making her look like the fetal Starchild from 2001: A Space Odyssey. Secondly, she always plays whiney brats. But, thirdly, is the way films try to make it appear any guy would be attracted to her. In one scene in the film her pal Ruby (Michelle Williams) and Liz walk through Harvard, and all the guys' tongues are wagging at Ricci, not the super-cute and sexy Williams. Hello….Reality check time…. This material begged for the Andy Warhol treatment. Here is his version of the film. A five minute shot of a hypodermic needle. A five minute shot of Wurtzel's hairy pudenda. A five minute shot of her sleeping naked and stoned on the bed. She rises, gives the middle finger to the audience. Cue credits. See, less than twenty minutes to distill Wurtzel's whole life. And, oh yeah, Warhol's film would not have cast Ricci. Even Michelle Williams would have been better, and after seeing Ricci's pallid bosom, I'd take anything Williams or any other babe had to offer me cinematically. Ricci is almost the kiss of death for a film, and how she stays working is a mystery. Think of her performances in mediocre to bad films like Monster, Sleepy Hollow, and Woody Allen's Anything Else- also co-starring Jason Biggs, and now picture another actress in her role, and immediately the films could seem better, if not great. She is the female counterpart to banal, wooden, milquetoast actors like Tom Cruise and Leonardo Dicaprio.

This is a big disappointment. The main problem is the acting. Sylvestre le Touzel is pretty poor as Fanny, and the rest are not much better, everybody is very stilted and unnatural. Also the camerawork is very 1980's ie cramped and jumpy, compared with the likes of 1995's P&P, for example.<br /><br />The script is, if anything too faithful to the book, and there are some cringe worthy expressions that should have been cut.<br /><br />In every way this is far inferior to the recent film version, which though it took huge liberties with the book, seemed far more faithful to the spirit of the book and was far more enjoyable.

I have always been a fan of Bottom, grabbing as many videos as I could find of the series here in the states. The chemistry between Rik and Ade is always genius, and the combination of smart writing and utterly stupid humor seems to work without fail. I thus sat down to watch this movie with great eagerness... and was utterly disappointed by the end.<br /><br />The first 3/4 of the movie can best be described as uninspired and poorly directed (sorry, Ade!), but with some utterly brilliant moments. Unfortunately, these laugh-out-loud moments make you realize how less-than-brilliant the rest of the movie is. The slapstick starts off funny but eventually becomes a bit boring, with only the perverted sex jokes to keep things humorous.<br /><br />The end of the movie (the 'green' scenes, for those of you who've seen it) was... perhaps the worst ending I've seen in the past decade. Honestly. It was one joke repeated about thirty times, followed by an abrupt ending that made no sense (which didn't bother me) and wasn't funny (which did).<br /><br />To sum up, I was sorely disappointed by this movie. I shall cling to the few brilliant moments in it, to retain the fondest memories that I can... but I have to warn you, if you're about to overpay for your NTSC conversion tape from the local importer, don't. There are far better things to spend your money on.

Some amusing humor, some that falls flat, some decent acting, some that is quite atrocious. This movie is simply hit and miss, guaranteed to amuse 12 year old boys more than any other niche.<br /><br />The child actors in the movie are just unfunny. When you are making a family comedy, that does tend to be a problem. Beverly D'Angelo rises above the material to give a funny, and dare I say it, human performance in the midst of this mediocrity.

Domestic Import was a great movie. I laughed the whole time. It was funny on so many levels from the crazy outfits to the hilarious situations. The acting was great. Alla Korot, Larry Dorf, Howard Hesseman, and all the others did an awesome job. Because it is an independent film written by a first-time writer, it doesn't have the clichés that are expected of other comedies, which was such a relief. It was a unique and interesting and you fall in love with the characters and the heart-warming story. I heard it was based on a true story? If so, then that is hilarious (and amazing!). I highly recommend this movie.

The three-part series ended last night on PBS, which I believe was its first wide exposure to an American audience. The richness of its text and the unique quality of its filming are high points. It seems very novel to view and hear an action play employing the vernacular of Georgian England, Jane Austen's filmed drawing rooms being the primary example of that form of speech. Yet it is the scope of drama overwhelming the senses that makes quaint language fit perfectly into each and every scene. Such bold exposure to an old reality is evocative of literary giants like Tolstoy or Shakespeare while at the same time entertaining in the manner of a C. S. Forester or Patrick O'Brian sea saga. The universality of basic human condition lies at its center.<br /><br />Narrator Talbot as played by an actor with the almost perfectly appropriate name of Benedict Cumberbatch (surely not even Dickens could beat that one!) alternates between stodgy jingoism and extreme vulnerability, an acting tour de force. Indeed, I cannot recall among this very fine cast any misstep of interpretation. That is a tribute not only to the actors themselves, but to the director as well.<br /><br />The most impressive element, however, is how perfectly life aboard a man-of-war en route to Australia in the early 1800's is presented. That is especially true of how the motion of the ship becomes almost a character itself, something sea stories rarely take into account except as backdrop. Anyone who has ever experienced mal de mer in person will recognize it instantly, and appreciate all the more how difficult it must have been to recreate within the context of filming.<br /><br />This is no fanciful Pirates of the Caribbean. Some effort must be expended in attaining an understanding of its nuances.

Sadly a great opportunity to utilise a superb cast to bring King Lear up to date. However, instead, we got a contrived family drama that appeared to dip into Lear when the writer had run out of ideas, the cast worked hard but it just didn't gel. Recently Stephen Harrigan showed how to adapt and update the classics with his screenplay for the magnificent TV movie "King of Texas".

the photography was beautiful but i had difficulty understanding what was happening... was there a lot of symbolism?... the 2 goldfishes - do they mean something in Thai culture? there's not much plot, not much happens and it just meanders along. no real start, no real middle and no real end. rather unsatisfying really.<br /><br />It was difficult to get into the characters as you never felt you got to know them...it was difficult to know which scenes were imaginary and which were real. The move felt chaotic and disjointed. I don't know what the pang brothers were hoping to achieve. Maybe if I were Thai it would make more sense...

Spacecamp is a movie that I plan to show my Daughter Julia Ann Ruth Morgan some day. Seeing Joaquin Phoenix in this movie makes you realize how far hes come since playing a Roman Emperor in the film Gladiator. I am pleased to say that I now have comms with the Artificial Intelligence of QE2 who said that I was Young and that is true. Holodeck Comms with my Daughter on Coaltrain came through Coaltrain Gate Julia Ann Glow "Hide Daddy". The fact that my Daughters Artificial Intelligence is still speaking like a six year old means that my Daughter Julia Ann Ruth Morgan representing Peace to the friendly Ki Alien Creators of humans may not have been taken to a an American Bunker in time. We have the power to change the future with Faster Than Light comms. I order that my Ex Wife and Daughter Julia Ann Ruth Morgan be taken to an American Bunker as soon as possible. My Daughter Julia is 23rd in command of the Planet Earth and a bridge officer. She already said that she doesn't like bullies. Having had someone steal her Gameboy and Gauntlet II game from my Mothers car she gets concerned about other thieves stealing her other toys. Julia has been growing up fast. The time of JFK and QE2 starting life over again on this planet is not until 2023. Julia would be a Young Lady by then and her artificial Intelligence would have been greatly expanded upon. If I have to go to a bunker to continue the American Leadership then I am in a command post and not really hiding as a first priority. President Jack Kennedys artificial Intelligence said recently that drastic measures could be taken to stop Global Warming at any time. Thanks boss thats similar to my Daughter Julias AI telling me hide and stay indoors. Kate Capshaw is now married to Steven Spielberg. Wow are we ever going to miss his movies if society collapses. If you value freedom of speech like President Kennedy and myself then please do not delete this reviewer. Check out Joaquin Phoenixs other movies also.

I saw this film 2 weeks prior to going on a snowboarding holiday, so for me it was really just to get my mind in mode for my holiday. The film boasts some sweet snowboarding skills, throughout the films in the action scenes. These moments were great, a bit like watching extreme sports channel. Sadly the story was quite honestly awful, the acting was generally alright, with a fairly small cast. This film is apparently comedy, at least it tries to be comical, but it seems like the comedy and the storyline was written by a teenager. The story lacks any depth or purpose and the comedy struggles to be anything more than a small snigger a few times during the movie. It might be worth renting just to see the snowboarding action, but then again there are plenty of movies out there that are totally devoted to snowboarding stunts and don't feature a UN-funny badly written story.

Where do we start with an offering like this? I nearly said film but that would be going a step too far. The only thing hellish about this film is that it is certainly a marriage made in hell, between nothing and nonsense, baloney and balderdash. These films should carry a physiological health warning so as not to damage one's spirit to the point where one might believe that all good film makers have left the planet and their resources have been handed to the dunderheads who have make this classic piece of trite garbage just like it's sister in arms "League of Extraordinary Twaddle". They are neither science fiction nor fact, entertaining nor thought provoking, humorous nor weighty but lay in a twilight zone devoid of any and all accoutrements that entice people to give up their valuable time, sit in a darkened room and generally be more enlightened, enlivened or happy at the end of it. If we could award "Turkey" points for films like this, this would be a turnip, as we would gone through the turkey, ham, potatoes, sprouts, gravy and all other embellishments before reaching rock bottom.

When I first watched Zoey101 with my sister we thought it was a piece of garbage. No one is that rich and lives at a dorm off the pacific coast. In the show, Zoey is a mega popular rich girl that everyone always go to her for advice. Zoey is always the one with the good idea and everyone agrees with her no matter how stupid her idea is. She is always perfect at everything including her perfect figure. And she is such a dietetic freak she talks about carbs like she knows what they are. When she sees that her friends are eating chocolate she confiscates it. And another thing that ticks me off is that she is always chewing a piece of spearmint every time you look at her. And everyone wants something do with her, for example in one episode that Logan guy bid $4,000 to have her and her friends cheer for everything he does in his pathetic life. And her friend Nicole is an overly perky freak that screams a lot.And Lola dresses like a hoochie Houdini lady. 80s called they want there bushy hair back.Might as well shave off the hair chase. This show sends a bad message to kids everywhere to make them think that if they don't have the latest I-Pods and designer clothes they will hate themselves. <br /><br />This show is a big thumbs down. <br /><br />We hate you Jamie Lynn, <br /><br />Best wishes Ryan, and Kara L

The movie has only one flaw, unfortunately this flaw damages all credibility of the piece.<br /><br />It starts with the condemnation of the Israeli occupation of disputed territories. It fails to address the reason Israelis are there. Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Jordan attacked Israel. This is why Israel "occupys" their land, because those countries lost it in a war they started.<br /><br />The film also claims that Israel has defied the U N by not complying with Resolution 242. Problem is, 242 was rejected immediately upon it's inception by.....the palestinians, making it void.<br /><br />Many films are put together well, and can really show footage that changes minds, but remember, when watching anything, believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see.<br /><br />All participants in this film are known critics of Israel, and some have made many antisemitic public comments, removing any possible credibility to their words.<br /><br />All participants are in dire need of a actual history lesson taught objectively, not by some palestinian sympathizer.

Jimmy Cagney races by your eyes constantly in this story of a stage-producer who is vigorously struggling against the upcoming "talking" movies.<br /><br />This story of love, deceit, women and dancing is presented in such a manner that as a viewer you are never treated to a dull moment. The direction of the mass scenes in the rehearsal rooms was enormously well done. The story never really got lost in this frantic pace.<br /><br />Some parts of the material presented here have become a little dated but that doesn't matter because when you look at this in a 1933 time-frame it is fabulous to watch this next to a lot of the other drags of movies that were released during that time.<br /><br />Jimmy Cagney is a sight for sore eyes in this film, never loosing his composure as the ever-working producer of previews made for the movie theaters as intros. In this way he tries to save his ass from going out of business, he was a broadway producer before he started this. Joan Blondell is fabulous as the neglected love-interest, Nan, she gives such a spirited performance that is so unusual for movies of that time, so cool to watch a woman who is portrayed as a strong woman for a change.<br /><br />The only problem I had with the film were the enormous productions at the end. These were magnificent in itself, beautifully choreographed and wonderfully produced, but they just didn't seem to fit in the story. The only link they have to the main story is that Cagney had to put on 3 previews in 3 days to get a contract and that's what he did. I had a hard time believing that this was what the girls had been rehearsing during the entire movie and that these sets could fit in a movie theater. In this way the "Sitting On A Backyard Fence" was much more appropriate to the story.<br /><br />The productions at the end seemed to drag this frantically paced story to a halt and that was not a good thing. I was tired after seeing the first Musical sequence and then I realized there were another two coming up. These sequences got a lot a chuckles from the audience as well.<br /><br />All in all a great film with a sour ending.<br /><br />9/10

I rented this movie expecting it to suck, and it didn't let me down. I rented it with some friends as a joke. But, what we got was worse than anyone could ever imagine.<br /><br />It starts off sucking before you even take it out of the box. It looks like a Blade rip-off and the guy on the cover is nowhere to be found in the movie. Its called vampire Assassin, but isn't an assassin someone who kills for hire? Well this guy kills the of his own volition, so that doesn't make him an assassin.<br /><br />Then, when you actually put the disk in it gets worst. First off the menu animation is lame. But, when you actually start the movie every thing from the set design to the lighting (or lack thereof) is terrible. You know a movie is bad when the credits even suck. The acting is Laughable. The action is childish. The writing is elementary. And the directing is the worst>

Actually, Goldie Hawn is from Washington (Takoma Park, Maryland), but I digress. This is sort of a Mr. Smith goes to Washington type of movie, with some variations but the same premise. I taped this movie off of cable years ago because I had a huge crush on Goldie Hawn. The story is interesting, but it's highly unlikely that some cocktail waitress will get an important job in the government just because she saved some big shot's life. It made me laugh and made me mad at the same time. It made me laugh because some of the situations she found herself in were so ridiculous, I had to laugh. (POSSIBLE SPOILER AHEAD). It made me mad to think that our government would set up an average citizen in the manner she was set up. And the speech she made at the end...beautiful. Too bad not many people have guts like that in real life.

-Facts (I): "Mar Adentro" relates the well-known (at least in Spain) story of Ramón Sampedro, a Galician quadriplegic who killed himself (helped by some friends) after 28 years prostrated by his condition. Judges had denied several times his petitions of active euthanasia.<br /><br />-Facts (II): "Mar adentro" becomes THE MOVIE OF THE YEAR in Spain. Everyone talks about it: politicians, singers, ordinary people... Everyone likes it, even the critics' opinions are unanimous. The film wins a lot of prizes (Golden Globe, Oscar, Goya...) and annoys catholic community and life-lovers quadriplegics. A star is born.<br /><br />-Facts (III): The intensity and the quality of the actors in "Mar Adentro" are just amazing, and this makes mi wonder how come we have to watch the same bad young actors in the most of Spanish latest movies. I don't know if Javier Bardem is a great actor or a great imitator (there's quite a difference between one thing or the other); anyway, his job is just impressive, as well as Lola Dueñas', Belén Rueda's, or the job of all the guest starrings. This is (the actors selection) the strong point in Amenábar's movie.<br /><br />-Facts (IV): Alejandro Amenábar learned his lesson there at the Cinema School, there's no doubt about it: he's got a privileged brain. He takes good control of each and every one of the technical aspects, he knows what the audiences want, he knows how to touch the right chord, even if that turns him into such a demagogue (just like Spielberg is -one of Amenábar's idols-).<br /><br />-Facts (and V): If you criticize a movie such as "Mar Adentro" it will seem like you have any kind of trouble with the moral issue the story tells about. There's a trap in this kind of pictures: you have to differentiate between the movie itself and the moral concepts. If you don't like "Schindler's List" that does not mean that you agree with Hitler's philosophy (or do you?). So, for me, it is a good film and an extraordinary story (since it is a real story that makes it much more extraordinary). Grandiloquent, self-kind, and everything but neutral (no matter what Amenábar or Bardem have said about it: those characters that are not in favor of euthanasia come to no good at all!!). 50 % Hard / 50% way too sentimental.<br /><br />-Epilogue: "Mar Adentro" wouldn't be by no mean in my ranking of the best 50's Spanish movies of all time. Nobody has special merits in the story but Ramon Sampedro himself. He IS the movie. Now, Alejandro Amenábar is gonna become the more international Spanish director ever, maybe he'll go to live to Hollywood; but some of us would like to watch him filming a simple story, without bit final twists, without living dead nor dying alive... "The Others" is still his best movie.<br /><br />*My rate: 7/10

I appreciate the need to hire unknowns for these kind of 'horror' movies, but they should at least hire some proper actors. The sergeant especially is guilty of using his monotone to bulldozer every single line he has. But let's face it, the lines aren't really important. There isn't really a recognisable plot, so most of the writing involves the words f**k, s**t, m*****f****r and other assorted bad language in place of proper dialogue.<br /><br />The 'story' as it is, is mostly made up of seemingly random gore and death, with a couple of cringe-worthy 'surprises', which happen around 10 minutes after you see exactly what's going to happen. Not only this, but there are several glaring plot holes and continuity errors (Why are they going in there? Didn't he have a weapon? Wasn't he dead?), so it makes the whole film seem as if it has been cut down by the several hours it would take to fix them.<br /><br />Another film which simply relies on blood and gore instead of any real cinematic experience.

One more of extremely unprofessional movies about computer programmers.<br /><br />Looks authors of that movie don't know real specific of programmers world.<br /><br />20 top programmers in the world, program which have own satellites (for what?), program which using satellite freq., somebody kill somebody to steal the codes (why?) and much more of stupid moments at this movie.<br /><br />Peoples who not programmers not will see something awful at that movie, because not professionals on this. But peoples will see not real things.<br /><br />Programmers will find that movie odd and awful - because lots of moments inside movie is not RELATED real life (why movie not scifi in this case?).

I liked this movie a lot, but the feeling that I most came away with was the memory of how much I´d enjoyed the novel. The film features two of the best actresses working today--Jessica Lange, who is great here, and the divine Jennifer Jason Leigh, who does the best she can with the thinly-drawn character she is given--as well as a surprisingly excellent Michelle Pfeiffer and a steady Jason Robards. The adaptation is basically faithful to the book, at least as faithful as it can be in an hour and forty minutes. The film doesn´t really dazzle, except for certain scenes between Lange and Pfeiffer, but it does a thoroughly competent job of visualizing this wonderfully tragic story. As far as movies adapted from novels go, this was definitely among the better ones. If nothing else, it has sent me back to my bookshelves to rediscover favorite passages from Jane Smiley´s excellent novel, and back to King Lear to brush up on the minor characters in order to see just how deep the parallels go. Worth your time as a film, definitely, and hopefully enough to make you remember that reading great literature is a joy as well.

This has got to be the most god-awful piece of cinematic crap I have ever watched. It makes Mel Brooks movies Oscar-worthy by comparison. Jim VanBebber needs to be publicly slapped for trying to pass this off as ANY form of entertainment.<br /><br />While some may say that this movie is true to the low budget genre of such classics as "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" or "Night of the Living Dead", the production value is not in question. It is VanBebber's ability to cast and present a plausible story line. The casting is deplorable. For the role of Charlie he must have picked the first actor he saw with a beard and long hair. Never mind that this actor's hair came halfway down his back, (Manson's never went much past his shoulders) this actor spoke in a dreadful monotone without so much as a fraction of the personality that Steve Railsback or even Jeremy Davies lent to their portrayals of Manson. The actor chosen to play "Tex" Watson had curly blond hair instead of straight dark hair, a fact that anyone who has shown even the most remote interest in the Manson case knows. He looks like a Minnesota farmer on "Little House on the Prairie" The actress playing Susan Atkins has a butt wider than Oprah's, While those familiar with the Family members know that "Clem" was considered somewhat retarded, the actor portraying him did so in such a campy, Chaplinesque way it was like watching an old Vaudevile act. Instead of Sharon Tate looking like a beautiful pregnant woman, the actress looked like bloated, alcoholic trailer trash. VanBebber speeds up the filming in some places for artistic effect yet this technique hasn't proved remotely useful since "The Munsters". The end credits list every known family member yet we are never introduced to the majority of them and those we are introduced to we aren't sure who they are sometimes.<br /><br />Facts are destroyed in this movie as well. "Lotsapoppa" did not die in real life, Steven Parent was shot four times, not twice, Abagail Folger did not have her throat slit, Where were Mary Brunner and Bruce Davis during the Himnan Murder? Patricia Krenwinkel never sported a "Dorothy Hamill" hair style.<br /><br />The most baffling aspect of this movie is what the modern day "freaks" had to do with this movie? Why was the girl wearing a rubber mask with a dildo attached? What was their problem with the journalist? What was the meaning or purpose of the final confrontation? Why were they included, period? The viewer never knows! <br /><br />Holy mackerel, I could go on and on but space prevents it. Don't try to eat popcorn during this garbage because your hand will be too busy scratching your head while you repeatedly say "What the f---?"

So boring you'll fall asleep after the 20 first minutes. Sorry Mr Boutonnat, I do admire your work (all these beautiful "films" you directed such as "Tristana", "Sans logique" etc...) but here, the plot is extremely... vain ! Except the magnificent photography, everything appears dumb and there's no envy to know what will happen at these "medium" actors. Moreover, the dialogs are minimalists. The famous question "where are the children" is repeated so often it looks like a farce. Believe me, it's a pure waste of time (concerning the plot), and 3 hours is a long long time. Certainly the real reason of this box-office total mess !

honestly.. this show warms my heart, i watch it EVERYDAY on fox family and now that the new season has started i'm even more hooked than before.. the characters are so well-developed and their relationships are so real.. i would recommend this show for any woman or mother and daughter.. the Lorelei's are super fast talking witty girls that will, truly inspire you and the show is hysterical at times and never too too serious, but serious enough for it to be completely addicting.. it's an hour long which is a major PLUS because you can't ever get enough Gilmore! even in one hour.. Emily and Richard Gilmore are KICKS (loralie's parents, Rory's grandparents) they're you're average rich parents.. Emily president of the DAR and Richard a well known lawyer and Yale alumni st.. Rory is following in the footsteps of her grandparents and this could not make them any happier, of course, Rory's mother is so very proud of her but her whole life has worked on ultimately defying her parents and Rory going to Yale did not help her on that journey but believe me, every episode she does get closer ;)

The film is poorly casted, except for some familiar old Hollywood names. Other performances by unknown names (i.e., Jennifer Gabrielle) are uninspiring. I have seen other films by this director, unfortunately this is one of his worst. Perhaps this is a reflection of the screenplay? <br /><br />In a positive note, Kim Bassinger's and Pat Morita's performance saved the movie from oblivion. I enjoyed Pat more in Karate Kid, though. There are many good movies to see, and in short, this one is not one of them. Save your money and the celluloid. <br /><br />Jason Vanness

Seriously what were they thinking? Over the course of years the Columbo series has tried out some new things and diverted away from the usual successful formula but this movie really overdoes it. This movie is basically very different from any other Columbo movie but the differences are not for the good of the movie.<br /><br />Main thing that of course makes this movie different from any other Columbo movie is the fact that there is no murder being committed. The entire premise of this movie is totally different and it places the Columbo character in a totally different environment and situation. Also the overall is just totally different and more 'modernized'.<br /><br />Director Alan J. Levi did some other Columbo movies in the past, which all very much sticked to the usual formula. It also makes it an odd choice that he got picked to direct this movie.<br /><br />The Columbo character himself also feels quite different, perhaps because of the reason that he gets placed in a totally different environment and situation, when he helps out his nephew after his bride disappeared right after the wedding. The absence of some good relieving and trademark Columbo humor also doesn't exactly make this a good or enjoyable watch.<br /><br />In all honesty, the movie doesn't begin too bad but the movie starts to become more and more ridicules with its story as it progresses. It's such a stupid written kidnap-thriller with a story that starts to become more and more unlikely. It also makes the movie more and more unwatchable. This is a very little interesting Columbo entry that also really doesn't know to entertain its viewers in any way.<br /><br />It also doesn't help much that the supporting actors aren't the most talented ones around. Despite the fact that his character is put in such a totally different situation and the movie is shot in such a completely different style, Peter Falk still holds up well and his presence still somewhat saves this movie. Can you just imaging how this movie would had been without him? It would had been an extremely bad and ridicules cheap movie I can tell you.<br /><br />An odd Columbo entry, which could be described as a failed experiment to divert from the usual formula.<br /><br />4/10

People forget that there have been several King Kong ripoffs- Congo, King Kong Vs. Godzilla, King Kong (1976), they all ripoff one another, but YETI stands on its own. It only borrows one element from King Kong and that is the animal's attraction with one female.<br /><br />The YETI myth is based on Bigfoot (not like King Kong)and archeologists have been fascinated it, at one time they did exist,but there is no scientific data to prove it.<br /><br />This movie is hard to find ,but its worth watching it. The first time I watched it was on "Elvira's Mistress of the Dark Shows" in the early 1980's. It sent chills down my spine as a kid, especially when the YETI got mad. I saw it again, around 1:00am on ABC about 2 to 3yrs ago. Seeing it again made me appreciate it more, it has some overall good effects (for its time) and the story involves a mute boy and his dog, and an evil businessman person who wants to kill the YETI for his own purposes. Also the music is pretty cool,its very YETI like. :-)<br /><br />Gianfranco Parolini and the Yetians creates a great monster like atmosphere.<br /><br />Vote 7 and half out of 10.

So, Americans make t.v. series based on movies, whilst us Brits make films based on t.v. shows.It should never work, but on this occasion it does because of a sublime meeting of character and actor. Cliches are sometimes justly so, and Leonard Rossiter was BORN to play Rigsby.This is one of the great comic creations, kind of how Norman Bates would have turned out if he'd been melancholic instead if murderous.

I watched this film recently on DVD and I have to say I wasn't impressed. I know it's taboo to knock independent films, but this one felt devoid of entertainment.<br /><br />The premise was interesting, but the execution of it fell short. I found myself thinking "okay, they're just getting into it, the story will pick up soon". Before I knew it, the film was over and the story never picked up. I can't say I found the acting all that impressive either. It was pretty bad. Not Star Wars prequel trilogy bad, but bad nonetheless.<br /><br />I'm not sure what the running time was, I'll assume two hours (because it's a safe estimate). Anyway, when the film was finished, I felt as though I deserved some kind of recognition for the will power I exerted in not stopping the film and walking away halfway through.<br /><br />Again, I was thoroughly unimpressed, and eventually bored out of my wits. I'm not one of those guys who requires fast-paced action and explosions in a film, so don't start in on me as that being a reason for not liking it.

This almost documentary look at an enterprising boy who lives in the body shop area outside of New York is real all the way. Real lighting. Real sound. Less editing in the whole movie than in 1 minute of most movies. And while there is very little script, there is a story. Shot in primary colors, almost all red, white, blue and yellow, we get a real sense of the life of a boy who is making something from nothing. He has a place to live that he makes his own, has a good job, and is trying to bring his sister into his little universe. The people in the chop shop area also give us a look at this culture which I didn't know about. They mostly seem decent and pay Ale what seems like daily, seeming truly concerned about his well being. The actor (I think) playing Ale says more with one facial expression than one can imagine. This reminded me what a true small movie can accomplish. It shows what kids are capable of, even without much support and love. Definitely recommend.

I would hope so and how can I get involved?<br /><br />This movie is a classic and ripe with laughs, adventure and an all star, 80's cast!<br /><br />What happens when you get together a group of jocks and sororiety, a group of debating nerds, a band of misfits and couple of couselors?<br /><br />A load of laughs that will have you begging for more!<br /><br />David Naughton stars as Adam, the leader of the "yellow team," a kind and hip college counselor who helps students with everything from getting the classes they want to first dates.<br /><br />His nemesis is Harold, the leader of the "blue team," played hilariously by Stephen Furst of "Babylon 5" fame, the no good loafing son of a wealthy, former college jock with enough trophies to make any hall of famer jealous.<br /><br />Pit these two against each other and throw in a "red team," a "white team," and a "green team," an unbelievable "view" at an observatory, consequences of cheating at minature golf, a super tour at the Pabst Blue Ribbon beer factory, and a hateful old landlady among other adventures, and you have all the makings of a night to remember!<br /><br />Look for appearances by Michael J. Fox, Eddie Deezen, and director Andy Tennant in one of the last movies he acted in before becoming a director and you have an all star, hilarious, cast.<br /><br />The only down side to this movie was Debra Clinger's performance as Laura. She terribly overacted, but the rest of the movie is so good, she can simply be ignored.<br /><br />I own this movie and can never watch it enough!<br /><br />

I just want To say that this movie was excellent .<br /><br />I loved it from the beginning until the end. <br /><br />The acting was great .The director did an amazing job and I would like to see it again.<br /><br />Jennifer Tilly did a very good performance , The guy that interpreted his father (Manny) was another great actor BUT I CAN NOT RECALL HIS NAME .<br /><br />I can't wait for El Padrino II.<br /><br />Damian Chapa looks so good and I think he is one of the most talented actors out there. There is pleanty of Latin actors that do a great job like it is shown in this film!<br /><br />Rent It!!! Rent it !!! Rent it !!!

Forget the fact that most people expect an action movie form Seagal. This movie simply had no substance. Very long, drawn out, and boring. Scenes were much longer than they had to be - the camera would often focus on something for long periods of time when absolutely nothing was happening. Cure for insomnia. Worst Seagal movie by far (I do like some of his other movies). 1/10

Anurag Basu who co-directed the flop KUCCH TO HAI made his debut in this film <br /><br />The film was ahead of it's times in a way though it has a story not to different and it came closest to HAWAS which released 1 week before and luckily this was better and did a better business<br /><br />The movie starts off well, Malika's guilt is well shown at the start though the scene with Emraan- Malika is too crude/vulgar<br /><br />The scenes between Emraan and Malika are well handled and the twist in the tale where Ashmith confronts Emraan is brilliant<br /><br />The pace moves fast and the viewer is kept on the edge but the second girlfriend track of Emraan isn't fully convincing<br /><br />Also the cop track seems half baked<br /><br />The finale is too filmy too<br /><br />Direction by Anurag Basu is good Music is a winner, all songs were fab Camera-work was stunning<br /><br />Emraan played his naughty streak very well, this was the role that gave him stardom and though he kept playing such roles and got annoying in this film he was superb Ashmith too was good in his role for once, He did a nice job and one of his only good performance and he looked good too Malika was brilliant in her role esp in the second half but her dial delivery was at times not up to the mark Sadly rarely she showed such potential in other films Raj Jhutsi is okay

Dirty Dancing follows the story of Frances 'Baby' Houseman (Jennifer Grey)and her family as they spend the summer at Kellerman's Family Summer Camp. We get to see her discover herself as she falls in love with the dance instructor, Johnny Castle (Patrick Swayze).<br /><br />The movie is full of wonderful dancing (hence the title!) some great music, and terrific scenery. It handles some tough issues with dignity and grace, and, of course, has (shocking spoiler here!) a happy, wonderful, feel good ending! You know how it's going to end from the beginning, but that's really not the point here. The point is the journey, a journey that touches every member of the family.<br /><br />It's one of the movies I need to see whenever it comes on TV...never mind the fact that I already have it memorized!

A few years back the same persons who created Paris,J'TAIME., which was imperfect but very enjoyable ( my rating was a 7), created this piece of garbage about New York City.<br /><br />In Paris, I Love You (J'taime)created a feeling for Paris & it was made in many parts of beautiful Paris.<br /><br />In this current film, I did not recognize New York City, I did not feel that I was in the city of my birth.<br /><br />New York does have 5 boroughs,I saw no scenes in The Bronx, or Queens ,There is one scene in Brooklyn,(Brighton Beach), I saw no scenes in Times Square or Greenwich Village/ No scenes of the beautiful hotels or theatres. It does have a large cast,most of the performers were not even stereotypes, they were caricatures of the lowest sort.<br /><br />The very few humorous moments are all of a course sexual nature or quite insulting to the many fine New Yorkers that we all know & love.. <br /><br />A few of the films nominated for the 'razzie' awards were far better.<br /><br />Ratings: * (out of 4) 20 points (out of 100) IMDb 1 (Out of 10)<br /><br />In my way of thinking I think the title should have been<br /><br />NEW YORK, I HATE YOU.

As it is generally known,anthology films don't fare very well with American audiences (I guess they prefer one standard plot line). New York,I Love You, is the second phase of a series of anthology films dealing with cities & the people who live & love in them. The first was 'Paris,J'Taime', which I really enjoyed. The film was made up of several segments,each written and/or directed by a different director (most of which were French,but there is a very funny segment directed by Joel & Ethan Coen). Like 'Paris', this one is also an anthology, directed by several different directors (Fatih Akin,Mira Nair,Natalie Portman,Shakher Kapur,etc.),and also like 'Paris'deals with New Yorkers,and why they love the city they live in. It features a top notch cast,featuring the likes of Natalie Portman,Shia LaBeouf,Christina Ricci,Orlando Bloom,Ethan Hawki,and also features such seasoned veterans as James Caan,Cloris Leachman,Eli Wallach and Julie Christie. Some of the stories really fly,and others don't (although I suppose it will depend on individual tastes---I won't ruin it for anybody else by revealing which ones worked for me & which ones didn't). Word is that the next entry in the series will be Shanghai, China (is Rome,Italy,Berlin,Germany or Athens,Greece out of the question?). Spoken mainly in English,but does have bits of Yiddish & Russian with English subtitles. Rated 'R'by the MPAA for strong language & sexual content

i realize this review will get me bashed by the expert film critics patrolling this site, but i will defend this film.<br /><br />The Dentist is actually a really good film. The acting isn't always top notch, but the thrills are good and the story's good. Plus you see Linda Hoffman's boobies. Not that I'm an expert in this field, but the direction seems good and the plot makes sense. Corbin makes a great creepy dentist. It does to dentists what Jaws does to sharks...ish. It obviously had a fairly limited budget, but they did well with it what they could, and developed the characters well (those that count).<br /><br />the end.

This is one of those inoffensive and mildly entertaining little movies that strive to make you to like them more. But like so many others, it's material isn't strong enough to successfully fill a couple of hours.<br /><br />The pitch is promising: three drag queens drive a bus through the Outback from Sydney to Alice Springs. They run into lots of trouble - with homophobic locals, with the engine, with their pasts.<br /><br />The real trouble is with the dialogue. The leads are fine (though Pearce's continual campness becomes tiresome), but the one-liners and epithets feel forced where they should be casually thrown away. Characters shouldn't laugh at their own gags.<br /><br />Writer/director Elliott also feels the need to pile on the pleasingly incongruous shots of flamboyant drag costumes against stark desert backgrounds like so much cheap make-up. For a movie about self-confidence and just being yourself, it all seems very insecure with itself.

This movie is using cinematography fantastically, the depth of the camera catches each character. Denzel Washington and Kevin Kline put on awesome performances though Washingtons accent does die in certain scenes. How is this movie laying forgotten? unable to rent nor hire in recent times it threatens to be lost forever. a worrying idea. Attenborough at his best since Ghandi, this master piece stands for what it should in movies such as these, no worrying about gaining audiences rather a cry for freedom in the SOuth African Apartheid.Though critised for the biased nature, the movie is faithful to the book by Donald Woods and faithful to the message intended to express to the world. ta and peace

The most worthless film of the decade. The responsible parties should never be allowed to film again. I have no words to describe the lack of entertainment this film provides. You couldn't PAY me to watch this film again. Quite honestly, I think I would be a better person had I not seen it. If I called it offensive, I would fall into a category of emotionally frail extremists. I would say this film goes so far as to damage the industry. There are films that I refuse to watch, now that I feel they might be this tasteless. I feel like an idiot that I didn't have the good sense to walk out during any one of MANY moments I was compelled to do so. Yes, I saw the end and am ashamed for it, as should anyone else, including the writer. I am in awe...

What a good film! Made Men is a great action movie with lots of twists and turns. James Belushi is very good as an ex hood who has stolen 12 million from the boss who has to fend of the gangsters , hillbillies his wife and the local sheriff( Timothy Dalton).you wont be disappointed, jump on board and enjoy the ride. 8 out of 10

I'm not a big fan of rom/coms at the best of times. A few have been quite good (check of Dream for an Insomniac), but this one is just more of the same but less.<br /><br />With a running time of 100min, I expect more than 1 laugh every 30mins. The only real belly laugh are when male strangers and friends instinctivly help out Lee's character.<br /><br />All I can say is AVOID. I gaurentee there is at least 10 other movies on the shelf that deserve you $$<br /><br />3 of out 10 (And only cos I'm a big Lee fan)

I have been familiar with the fantastic book of 'Goodnight Mister Tom' for absolutely ages and it was only recently when I got the chance to watch this adaption of it. I have heard lots of positive remarks about this, so I had high hopes. Once this film had finished, I was horrified.<br /><br />This film is not a good film at all. 'Goodnight Mister Tom' was an extremely poor adaption and practically 4.5/10 of the book was missed out. Particularly, I found that a lot of the characters and some great scenes in the book were not in this. There was not much dialogue, It was rushed and far too fast-moving, but I was mostly upset by the fact that you never got to see the bonding and love between William Beech and Tom in this film which was a true let down. The casting was not all that good,either. I thought this could have been really good, but it was so different to the book! Anextremely poor adaption, one of the worst I've seen. This deserves a decent remake that'd better be 1000 times better than this pile of garbage.

I'm still laughing- Not! I'm still asking my myself what the point was. I barely got a chuckle, this movie sucks. It tries to be charming and touching, but it turns out stupid. I do not recommend it.

I am a Sociologist/Anthropologist specializing in the field of Symbolic Interactionism, and I must say that this film exhibits high quality in the symbolic context throughout the entire film. To anyone who has not yet seen this, I recommend that you also read "Man's Search For Ultimate Meaning" by Victor E. Frankl. I think you will be able to draw some amazing correlations.<br /><br />That being said, I would like to say that despite the fact that the main characters are gay, this is not a story about being gay. This is a story about seeking out and finding meaning in life, despite the difficulties and challenges, the pain and terror that stand in your way. This is a story of seeking and finding balance and wholeness and happiness.

As a film buff, I obviously had read all the excruciating reviews and funny, sarcastic comments about this film (my favourite being Woody Allen's quip "If I had my life to live over again I wouldn't change anything ... except for seeing the musical remake of Lost Horizon"). Therefore I've never been able to watch it without smirking at the choreography/set/songs etc. Just recently I came across a widescreen DVD and watched it for the first time in years, along with a friend who had never heard of the film's reputation. HE really enjoyed it, and - after trying to block out all the negative prejudices I obviously had about the film - so did I. There is nothing especially bad about Lost Horizon, and it is far more enjoyable and watchable than many other early 1970's movies. It isn't even especially camp. The lyrics to some of the songs are rather repetitive and simplistic, but this isn't really apparent when hearing them for the first time or having the flaws pointed out in advance so you are ready to scoff at them. As for all the reviewers who claimed the cast cannot sing in tune, this criticism falls apart since Liv Ullmann, Olivia Hussey and Peter Finch were dubbed (brilliantly too, as the vocals match their speaking voices perfectly), and Sally Kellerman has a really lovely and totally unique singing style. Vocally, Kellerman's duet with Olivia Hussey on "The Things I Will Not Miss" is excellent. Special mention should be made of the legendary Hollywood star Charles Boyer's brilliant performance as the High Lama - and his comments about mankind destroying itself are chillingly apt to today's fractured world. I wouldn't claim for a second that Lost Horizon is a masterpiece (The things I wouldn't miss about it are the uninspired choreography, and Bobby Van's "Question Me An Answer" number, which could easily have been cut), but if you haven't even seen Lost Horizon, or haven't seen it for some time, try watching without that "Oh boy, let's have a laugh at this pile of junk" attitude, and you will be surprised at how enjoyable it actually is.

One Life Stand is an accomplished piece of film making which hasn't been given the credit it deserves. Its IMDB rating of 1.7 doesn't do it justice and is, perhaps, due to the very few screenings it has had rather than the quality of the film itself. Shot on digital in black and white, the film is well directed with production values that belie its shoestring budget. The performances are excellent, particularly that of Gary Lewis who gets better with every role. My only criticisms are that it is a bit on the long side and could have done with a touch more humour to offset the darker moments. Overall, though, it is a fine piece of work.

I hated this film. Simply put, this film is so bad that I almost want to disregard ever watching it and never again mentioning it. But on the other hand, I can't resist a good bashing. And if there's one thing that Evan Almighty does for the audience it is that it brings out the best criticism.<br /><br />The film (a sequel to the much funnier Bruce Almighty) starts out by reintroducing the audience to Evan Baxter, a mere supporting at best character in the original film. That's right. This film shows no Jim Carrey or Jennifer Anisten. Not even a small cameo appearance. You know your film is bad when the guy that agreed to do Ace Venture: When Nature Calls won't even have a short walk-on role. But somehow they manage to keep Morgan Freeman as God. While sitting in the near empty theater bored out of my mind at the lack of comedy I couldn't help but wonder how much money it took to secure Freeman for this film. Then it hit me an hour ago. It's just a throwaway role that takes up all of 20 minutes in the 100 minute film. God just pops up in between scenes to tell Evan to build the ark. Sure I know Morgan Freeman won't look at this film in a year and think it's as good as his roles in The Shawshank Redemption and Million Dollar Baby but it's easy money.<br /><br />Where was I? Oh yes, the plot. Sometimes it's so hard to keep focused on the plot when you realize that you gave more thought thinking about the plot than the writer of the screenplay did. Anyway Evan (Steve Carell) has apparently left his job as a news anchorman for a job as a congressman. Yeah... with no transition in between. He never turns to his wife and says "I think I want to be a congressman." It just happens within the first five minutes and you are forced to deal with the big transition. Well as a congressman he is to partner for a bill proposed by John Goodman's character when suddenly God appears to tell Evan to build an ark. No "Hey, how you doing? How's the weather?" bit. Just "I want you to build an ark." Evidence of bad writing: Evan determines that God is giving him clues to build an ark after noticing a fan hold up a sign saying Genesis 6:14 when he's walking past his son whose watching a televised baseball game.<br /><br />That's basically the plot of Evan Almighty. There are some random supporting cast members that do their best at creating comedy but they don't do very well because they aren't given hardly any screen time. It's just your basic run of the mill family building an ark film. Oh and also there's that obligatory scene where a father has to cancel his hiking plans with his kids and wife because he becomes busy with work. They walk off disappointed but they understand, as do all the other times in film this has happened. Just once would I love to see the youngest kid turn to his father and kick him in the chins and tell him "You're a real bastard for canceling your plans with us. I'm going to turn emo now." There's also that drama that you'd expect from the father with his family when they realize (the wife, actually... the three kids have no problem helping dad build an ark) that he's gone crazy and he claims God wants him to build a big boat. But don't worry. His family decides to stick with him. Oops, I just spoiled the drama.<br /><br />Another problem with this film is that there is hardly any good comedy going on. I know the decision was made to rate have this be a PG film to get a bigger crowd reaction but I don't think I'm in the minority when I think that family humor is more than just guys getting kicked in the nuts and animals crapping. Maybe I'm wrong and that's what quality family humor has been reduced to. And if it is, please bring me more adult comedies so I won't have to sit through anymore of this crap (pun not intended).<br /><br />The ending is extra cheesy. All of a sudden the film takes a dramatic CGI filled turn that makes me shudder to think how it is a terrible waste of CGI. I bet it was expensive too. Finally after all that waiting we are told why God wanted Evan to build an ark. And boy oh boy I hated the reason why. I'll spare the details but it was like watching or reading a murder mystery and having the killer turn out to be the person who walked behind the main character for one second and had no lines.<br /><br />Oh and then there's a nice touch at the very end. The song "Gonna Make You Sweat (Everybody Dance Now)" plays over the credits and we are then subjected to the "dancing" of the cast. I don't get it. They spend 100 minutes unsuccessfully making a comedy and then they wrap it up with a thriller. I swear I haven't been that scared watching Steve Carell dance since ... well never. There you have it folks. Evan Almighty is the scariest film of all time.<br /><br />All in all I thought it was a wasted experience. I'm baffled at all the talented actors (Carell, Freeman and Goodman) appearing in this bore-fest alongside Lauren Graham, the woman from Gilmore Girls that has yet to prove to me that she can act her way out of a paper bag. But most of all I'm surprised at my will power to actually sit through the whole film without walking out.<br /><br />Rating: * out of ****

*spoiler alert!* it just gets to me the nerve some people have to remake (and i use the term loosely here..) good movies. in the american version of this dutch thriller, someone decided the original ending wasn't pasteurized enough for american audiences. so what do they do? they create a new one! a stupid, improbable, i-pretend-i'm-dead-but-come-to-life-again-so-the-good-guy-can-kick-my-butt- some-more kind of ending. do yourself a favor and get the original one.

And when I watch Sarah Silverman, I get the same results. I love quirky, irreverent humor. BUT this woman is so darned B-O-R-I-N-G, annoying, and yawn-worthy. She's also totally lacking in anything whatsoever humorous. The deadpan way she tries to deliver her lines is just dead on arrival because she's just not funny. I watched two segments of her program and was ready for Novocaine.<br /><br />Geez, my kid (age 19) saw her promos on Comedy Central and said she was a "dumb chick." I thought that was a compliment. The one where she says "Watch my show or I'll kill my dog," is actually believable. I know she's a wanna be comedienne. She just comes across as a warped nut-case. I just don't ever want to see her around MY dog.

The first film was a nice one, but it is not as good as the wonderful animated classic which I found more poignant and endearing. This sequel is inferior, but not bad at all. Sure the slapstick is too much, the script has its weak spots and the plot is a tad uninspired. But the dogs are very cute here, and Eric Idle is hilarious as the macaw. The film is nice to look at with stylish cinematography and eye popping costumes(especially Cruella's), and the music is pleasant. The acting is mostly very good, Ioan Gruffudd is appealing and Gerard Depardieu while he has given better performances has fun as Cruella's accomplice. But the best asset, as it was with the first film, is the amazing Glenn Close in a deliciously over-the-top performance as Cruella, even more evil than she was previously. Overall, nice. 7/10 Bethany Cox

I can't believe some of the scores this film is getting on the IMDb website! Have I been issued with the Special Edition naff version? Edited by Dewhurst, produced by Bernard Matthews, this film should be housed in Battersea. I'm sorry for all the UK-centric references but if you're elsewhere and you've got no toenails to cut or you haven't got a beer mat collection to catalogue then this film might just be worth 90 mins of your remaining lifespan (as long as you haven't got any paint to watch drying). The plot has more holes than a pair of fishnet stockings and the direction and editing is astonishingly ham fisted. What on earth is Irons doing in this film?

Seriously crappy movie.<br /><br />First off, the movie starts with a cop and his partner parked outside of a warehouse/furniture store. The "bad" cop takes a girl, which they had pulled over, into the warehouse's attic, while the newbie cop sits outside and ponders what could be happening up there. The "bad" cop eventually returns with a heavy duffel bag, and the newbie cop doesn't think there are any problems, but he still wonders what was in the bag, so he asks, gets a bullshit response, and then he thinks everything is OK (for now).<br /><br />The "bad" cop repeats this process, and even once with a tit scene (made it slightly better). But eventually people start to catch on, which took awhile considering how f***ing obvious it was. One girl gets a voodoo curse placed on her just in case she dies, like ya do. Now, the "bad" cop eventually kills this magically protected bitch, and then he gets rid of the duffel-bagged body.<br /><br />Since she had the oogey-boogey magic put on her, she comes back with lots of eye-shadow on, which is supposed to indicate that she may be a zombie... also, the magic curse causes all of the other girls to become "eye-shadow monsters". Some of the girls meet up with a dude, who is apparently a currency specialist, and he offers them a ride (they look normal to him apparently). But when the girls see other people, such as the one girls husband, he freaks out because she is hideous (some people freak out, but others don't even notice).... massive plot hole.<br /><br />So, to wrap it up, the eye-shadow monsters kill the "bad" cop, who in turn ends up becoming a zombie in the last scene. It was as though they were trying to prep us for a sequel! Like anyone would want to see part 2 of this cow dropping.

I only watched the first 30 minutes of this and what I saw was a total piece of crap. The scenes I saw were as bad as an Ed Wood movie. No, it was a hundred times WORSE. Ed Wood has the reputation of being the worst director ever but that's not true; the idiot who directed this junk is the WORST director ever.<br /><br />The American cop has a German accent! The "police station" was a desk in a warehouse with a sign "Police Station" hanging on the wall. There is a fist fight where the punches clearly miss by about TEN FEET.<br /><br />This cop pulls women over, cuffs them and leads them to a warehouse. He tells his cop partner to wait in the car. Then he comes out of the warehouse carrying a duffel bag. The cop partner thinks maybe something is not right, that his partner might be a bad cop who is murdering these women, but he isn't sure if that is what's happening because - he's a moron! The dialog is totally stupid, the acting is awful, and the characters act in the stupidest manner I have ever seen on screen. It is totally obvious to the cop's partner that he is illegally abducting these women and he is slapping them and taking them into a warehouse and returning to the car with a duffel bag with a body in it, and yet, the partner, who is there all along, doesn't know what is happening! <br /><br />The director of this film is a total hack. I stopped the movie at 30 minutes because I couldn't take it anymore. It has to be one of the WORST movies I have ever started to watch and I won't waste anymore time on it writing this review. <br /><br />Absolutely WORTHLESS.

As shallow as it may sound, I actually delayed my viewing of "The Barbarians" several times just because the VHS cover (as well as the picture image displayed here on the website) looks so incredibly gay! By now I wish I had watched it earlier because the movie isn't so much gay…. just trashy, cheesy, campy and enormously fun! It's almost unbelievable that Ruggero Deodato, director of "Cannibal Holocaust" of all people, was the man responsible for this comical cash-in on the contemporary popular Sword & Sandal fantasy flicks, particularly Schwarzenegger's Conan movies. The film opens with a terrific 'once-upon-a-time' type of off-screen narrator, introducing us to the Ragneks. Their founder once traded an entire mountain of pure gold for just one magically powerful ruby that would allow them to travel in freedom and access every country as entertainers. In other words, the Ragneks are a bunch of traveling circus freaks! Their happiness abruptly comes to end when the greedy Kadar kidnaps the Ragneks' beautiful queen Canary and continuously attempts to discover the whereabouts of the ruby. Meanwhile, and as some sort of amusing waste of time, the two orphan twin-brothers Gore and Kutchek are trained to become muscled warriors and they're unwarily prepared to fight each other to the death. Instead of that, however, they escape and develop a plan to free their queen. Actually, the plot isn't half as bad as I initially feared, but still the most fun is provided by the beefcake brothers' on screen chemistry, the crazily inept dialogs and of course the utterly cheesy fantasy-monsters, like a dragon with adorably cute eyes, some kind of werewolf creature and zombies that randomly appear to pop out of the swamp. The soundtrack and make-up effects are great and our almighty director Deodato maintains a terrifically fast pace. The Barbarian Brother's acting capacities are much better than I anticipated, apart from the fact that one of them constantly produces gross belching sounds. The supportive cast is splendid as well. Eva La Rue never looked more beautiful as the witty savage girl Cara, Virginia Bryant is indeed bewitching like Richard Lynch states on several occasions and the lovely Sheeba Alahani makes her first and only appearance on film as a vicious sorceress with a donut-shaped hair style (I kid you not!). Last but not least, "The Barbarians" stars everybody's favorite Eyes in the Hills creep Michael Berryman as the appropriately named Dirtmaster. I know the displayed picture looks gayer than a promotional campaign for the musical version about the rise and fall of the Village People, but "The Barbarians" really is a must-see Italian exploitation highlight.

I love to watch this movie a lot because of all the scary scenes about the raptors. I like raptors because they are scary. My favorite parts are the ones where the raptor looks behind the pillar because it reminds me of a scene from the Friday the 13th movie with the girl who eats the banana.<br /><br />I really love to watch a lot of this movie because the computer graphics seem a little fake but it's okay because once you get into the movie you hardly even notice what is going on and I think it's got a good ending even though I didn't really understand what was going on on my first couple viewings I figured it out over time and that's the important part. The other important part is how scary the dinosaurs can be if you're watching it the first time.<br /><br />THIS IS BEST MOVIE.

This movie was terrible!I rented it not knowing what to expect.I watched the 1st 5 minutes and the movie and knew it was a bomb.The acting was bad and there was no plot.The monster is soooooo fake.It growls and its mouth doesnt move.Also why would they have a doctor playing a xylophone to kill the monster.Just plain bad don't even waste your time.(1 out of 10)

Steven Spielberg (at 24) had already directed two superb episodes of a 1971 series called "The Psychiatrist", starring Roy Thinnes. One episode had been about an emotionally troubled 12-year old boy and the other was about a vibrant young man (Clu Gulager in his best performance) who is dying of cancer. Both episodes were stunning, visually unlike anything else on TV, and emotionally complex and adult. The creators of "The Psychiatrist" were Richard Levinson and William Link, who created "Columbo" and also produced its first season.<br /><br />Peter Falk insisted on first rank, experienced TV directors for the first season of "Columbo", like Bernard Kowalski and Jack Smight. But Falk agreed to Spielberg after watching part of the Clu Gulagher episode of "The Psychiatrist".<br /><br />Spielberg says on the DVD of "Duel" that he loved Steven Bochco's "Murder by the Book" script (based on a Levinson/Link story), and he tried to make the production look like a million dollar feature, even thought he had a lot less money to work with.<br /><br />This episode of "Columbo" is far more visually stylish and makes better use of the sound track and background music than almost any other "Columbo" episode, even though the series always used top directors. Spielberg manages to keep the great Falk and Cassidy from hamming it up too much, but both actors are still a lot of fun. Spielberg also gets fine supporting work from Martin Milner, Rosemary Forsyth and Barbara Colby. All the performances have a freshness and vitality about them. The only "Columbo" episode that was close to being as well directed is the "By Dawn's Early Light" episode with Patrick McGoohan (directed by Harvey Hart).<br /><br />I think the two episodes of "The Psychiatrist" and this episode of "Columbo" suggest Spielberg hasn't developed technically all that much as a director. He was great from the beginning. In a "Combat!" DVD commentary of a 1962 episode guest starring Albert Salmi, Robert Altman says that episode was pretty much as good as he ever got as a director. Maybe the same is true of Spielberg.

This is bar none the most hilarious movie I have ever seen. Beginning with the four delinquents being sent off by their fathers to Wienberg Military Academy, a tone is set that steadily continues all throughout this goofball film, and it does not let up for a second.<br /><br />It's tough trying to describe this film; the humor elements are so spot on and brilliantly concieved that upon a first look it appears as nothing more than a stupid 80's teen lust comedy. But it is oh so much more than that! Fresh from the minds of those folks over at MAD Magazine, Up the Academy serves up a formula and style that I have never since seen duplicated by ANY of the "funniest" offerings to come out of Hollywood in years past. Basically the film is so full of infantile cornball material that you might guess that the writers were a couple of 14 year olds themselves. See this movie if you love to act "immature." A classic. *****

I was really disappointed after viewing Pinocchio's Revenge the other night. I had a good inclination that it was going to be a bad one, but I didn't think that it'd be as bad as it turned out. A wooden puppet of a murdered boy falls into the hands of an attorney's eight-year-old daughter. From there, it is a murderous path for anyone who gets in the way between the puppet and the little girl. We've seen movies like this before, i.e. the Child's Play series, which is by the way, far better. However, it was good to see actors like James W. Quinn and Todd Allen. Both of which have worked under Kevin Tenney before. In any event, I encourage viewers to check out "Night Of The Demons" and the original "Witchboard." These are titles that tend to bring out the best in Kevin S. Tenney.

I was recently given this film on DVD as a gift, and was unsure at first if it would appeal (although one of my favourite actors has a leading role). In fact, it's on its way to becoming a favourite.<br /><br />First of all: thankfully, it's *not* the same as the book, the ending of which I think is excessively melodramatic. Secondly: it's one of the best films I've seen about the First World War. "What?" you may ask. "It's not a war film!" True: we see no battles or bombardments, no trenches, no gas. But it shows the cost of war, the damage done to the lives of the men who fought in it, and the impact this had on those close to them.<br /><br />We first see Helen (Sarah Miles), a baronet's widow, awaiting her release from a mental hospital. All the women in the film appear to be widows: some from the war, but Helen's much-older husband, Sir Thomas (we see him later in a photograph) was taken ill and died while she was at a party, hence her guilt-stricken breakdown. She is lost and lonely. The wire around the hospital grounds evokes POW camps and the trenches: like many of the men in the outside world, Helen is suffering from a kind of shell-shock.<br /><br />Out of hospital, she has to find her feet in the outside world again: a world we experience through her eyes as bleak, desolate and unfriendly. Her mother is unable to provide her with any real support. Herself a widow, she has put up her own emotional defences, behind which she hides to avoid dealing with her daughter's distress. (Like many people, especially in that time, she seems to find mental illness embarrassing.)<br /><br />Ledbetter, the hired driver, becomes a supportive presence, and helps Helen begin to adjust to life again, but she does not realise that he is becoming dangerously obsessed with her. This is a superb performance by Robert Shaw. Ledbetter is a former regular soldier, an ex-sergeant-major who runs a boxing club and has set up his own car-hire business. Superficially, he seems tough and strong, dependable, but there are cracks beneath the surface: he has not really adjusted to civilian life. He invents (for reasons he later explains) a family and home life he does not have; he has brutal outbursts with colleagues, and affection-less sex. Getting close to Helen – a woman whom, even with the greater post-war social freedom, he could not realistically have hoped to marry – exposes psychological fault-lines that tear him apart. These days, one might diagnose PTSD.<br /><br />The same is true of the other man in Helen's life, aspiring politician Captain Hugh Cantrip (Peter Egan). He is ambitious, handsome, but also very young. Tellingly, his girlfriend, Connie (Caroline Mortimer), mothers him, combing his hair and making sure he has a clean handkerchief before he goes out. He is known to both Ledbetter and Helen: the former had served under him during the war, and Helen had met him in political circles and had thought him a "popinjay". However, he and Helen now begin a relationship, with Helen intending to support his political career, financially and emotionally. Peter Egan, fresh from his stage success as Stanhope in R C Sheriff's 'Journey's End', makes Hugh more than an immature cad. There is a revealing, understated scene in the back of the car between Helen and Hugh, in which they quote Brooke's 'The Old Vicarage at Grantchester'. She asks, of his war experience, "Was it very bad?" He cannot answer. She says: "Well, you're back now." But his softly-spoken reply – "Am I? Sometimes I wonder…" – is the key to his character. As light and shadow flicker across his face, we know that there are some horrors that cannot be put into words. The disproportionate casualties suffered by junior officers of his sort – straight out of school or university and expected to lead from the front – are well-known. In a nervous speech (during which Helen reassures him) to local political folk at a dinner-party, he reveals that he will stand as an Independent, no longer as a Liberal (the party which had taken the country into the war). His emotional life is as damaged as Ledbetter's. He cannot easily extricate himself from Connie, who depends on him emotionally and financially: reading between the lines, she is probably a war-widow (perhaps of a former comrade?) with a child, whose drawings we see on the wall of her home.<br /><br />***SPOILERS***<br /><br />The crisis between the trio builds slowly, with a frightening scene between Helen and Ledbetter in the car, and Ledbetter listening in to Hugh and Connie when he is driving them, as Hugh tries to persuade Connie that, even as his relationship with Helen develops, they can continue theirs; that he will, at least, continue to support her. Jealousy, obsession and his belief that he must protect Helen from a duplicitous gold-digger lead Ledbetter to confront her and Hugh violently in her home.<br /><br />The ending is entirely different from that of the novel, and is better for it: it is dramatic, but less melodramatic, and maintains an unsentimental tone. We began with one character recovering from a mental breakdown; we end with another suffering one. Helen, one senses, is now wiser and stronger than both the men, who have been unable fully to adapt to the so-called 'land fit for heroes' to which they returned from the nightmare of total war. The new ending is open: one feels that she, at least, will cope with whatever lies ahead, without illusions. In this, it reflects well the reality of the time, in which women (Helen, Connie, and so many others) had to pick up the pieces of a world in which too many men had died or had come home with varying degrees of mental and physical damage. <br /><br />"Well, you're back now." – "Am I? Sometimes I wonder…"