Datasets:

srivatsavaasista

/

textgenerator-ds-mini

like 0

Can there be a worst film? Even Ed Wood at his horrific worst couldn't come up with something this bad. Cheesy, stupid, long-winded, preposterous...and those are the good points. I saw this trash back in the early 80's when I was incredibly bored to begin with, and actually sat through the entire thing without blowing my brains out, although that probably would have been a more pleasant experience. I actually remembered it because it was so bad. It makes me sad in a way because some of the best directors got their start by making TV movies (ie Spielberg) and it was a wonderful way for them to get their initial material before the public, but crap like this just totally killed the entire process.

With an opening segment that imitates the music and cinematography of Todd Haynes's Safe (1995), David Lynch uses dream, myth and warped notions of reality to tell the fractured story of a failed bit-part Hollywood actress/waitress, Diane Selwyn, let down by fame and her own demons and obsessed with Camilla Rhodes, who is engaged to hotshot director Adam Kesher.<br /><br />The film effectively takes place in Diane's drug-fueled head; we are witness to her crazy distortions, her wish-fulfillments, regrets, obsessions and fears. Using the dream narrative as a way of presenting two notions of reality in conflict, Lynch does not simplify the opposition between reality and fantasy but actively entangles them. The last 45 minutes are as dream-like as what came before; and the troublesome air of detached, otherworldly ambiguity still pervades, fracturing the seemingly secure distinction between reality and dream we expect to see in films about nightmares and dreams.<br /><br />Lynch's film borrows from many films, old and new, but ultimately is a film unlike any other with the exception of the director's own Lost Highway and Blue Velvet. It constantly challenges the viewer to interpret what is seen, not only intuitively but intellectually. Yet it is not as pretentious as one would have imagined because Lynch makes us sympathize with the protagonist despite her murderous deeds - an element that was missing in all of his other films except the Straight Story. He does this by presenting Diane's dream alter-ego, Betty, as a wholesome Canadian farm girl destined for fame. Lynch also presents us with an intriguing story that affirms and negates in equal measure. Are Camilla and Diane really lovers or just friends? Who is the blue-lady? What does she signify? Who is the bum behind Winkies? What is the significance of the rotting corpse at Sierra Bonita? Does Aunt Ruth really exist? Is silencio an abstraction of hell or perhaps a self-referential take on the film's status as fiction? Lynch isn't prepared to answer any question he poses, choosing instead to present his "love story in the city of dreams" as a set of interconnected abstractions and motifs.<br /><br />The acting is top rate, especially Naomi Watts as Diane Selwyn/Betty, who is yet to eclipse this performance. Laura Harring has the requisite Hayworthesque allure as Camilla/Rita, while Adam Theroux as Adam brings an freewheeling arrogance and sublimated paranoid aggression to his role. It was staggering and a grave injustice that not one of them was even nominated for an Academy Award.<br /><br />This is a film that demands to be seen and analyzed closely. The mystery at the heart of the film remains in Lynch's hands but half the fun is finding consistent ideas from the maze of seeming incongruities that he presents. Upon closer inspection there is a definite sense of a puzzle, perhaps an incomplete jigsaw that teases us with closure but denies the imaginary plenitude of narrative coherence. Ultimately, this is Lynch's key film.

I'm a fan of Matthew Modine, but this film--which I stumbled upon on cable--is absolutely witless. I see that the screenwriter and director were one and the same, so there was no one around to check her worst instincts. There are no surprises, no original lines, and no original characters. The goldfish was basically the most sympathetic character. What a waste of all this acting talent. Given how expensive it is to film in New York these days, I have to wonder how this got made in the first place. And if you're wondering why I watched it at all, it came on after a film that I like on cable and I left it on while I worked at the computer. It's not a very demanding picture!

Comment? Like my comment is necessary? We are talking about all time masterpiece, for all seasons and all generations. This is only type of movies that i still have patience to watch. In this, like in other Disney's movies is some kind of magic. All characters are in some way, "alive" and "real" so it's easy to understand message, even if you don't understand language, (like i didn't understood when i first watched movie, because i was about six years old). Maybe my English is not so good, but i learned what i know mostly from this kind of movies, and this is one more great dimension of this kind of movies, which in present time are rare. But there is a one big shame. In my country is now impossible to watch this, or any other Disney's movie! We don't have copyrights, so our children are disabled to enjoy and learn from this kind of movies. So, we will watch this movie again "Once upon a dream" or...?

I should have known better..the clues were all over IMDB.com. This flick was written and directed by the same guy who has no track record. The cast is a bunch of unknowns with the possible exception of Joe Estevez who seems to specialize in bad movies. Etc. Suffice it to say, I can't see any reason why anyone would want to see this awful, amateurish attempt at film making. Turn on any broadcast channel at 3am and you'll see better movies. Nuff said.

It's only 2 episodes into a 5 part drama, but I can already state that this is one of the best things I've ever seen. That's on TV, silver screen or even in real life.<br /><br />As a writer, it's so good it's almost demoralising! As a viewer it's so entertaining that I'm annoyed the episodes are over a fortnight instead of Monday to Friday. It's clear that all these negatives are actually positives.<br /><br />I'm a modern guy who previously turned over from TV dramas. In comparison to movies, TV dramas always seemed to be dated, quite tame, and well, generally boring! "Five Days" has really brought TV drama into the 21st Century, so for me at least, it's mind changing. Go watch it.

I just saw it at the Toronto International Film Festival. Director Neal Slavin's impressive starring cast includes William Macy (seen in The Contender at last year's TIFF), Meat Loaf (AKA Meat Loaf Aday, AKA Michael Lee Aday), David Paymer, and Laura Dern (also starring in Novocaine, also at this year's Festival).<br /><br />Based on the Arthur Miller novel by the same name, Focus follows Christian but "Jewish-looking" Lawrence Newman (Macy) as he struggles among the hatred and anti-Semitism in his neighbourhood. Pitted between the Jewish store-owner down the street (Paymer) and his card-carrying anti-Semite next door neighbour (Meat Loaf) Newman faces difficulty in dealing with inner conflict and conflict around him. Guilt over knowing what's right but not doing anything battles with wanting to blend in and keep peace with the neighbours. Things gets more complex when he meets and marries Gertrude (Dern) who everyone thinks is Jewish. Gertrude teaches her husband a few things about judging books by covers.<br /><br />Will Newman stick up for the Jewish man in the end or will he flee? Go see it to find out.<br /><br />The acting was fabulous. The writing was incredible. The cinematography was excellent. The sound was well done. Technically amazing, the movie was disturbing. Chilling. Emotionally intense. I found myself bringing my knees up into the fetal position a couple of times. I have great admiration for everyone who worked on it. I have not seen a film this good in a long time. It touched me.<br /><br />Wow.

Peter Hunt started out as a very gifted film editor and got his first stab at directing when he helmed the James Bond film "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" (considered by many Bond fans to be the best of the series). Other titles in his filmography include epic scale adventure movies like "Gold" and "Shout At The Devil", both adapted from Wilbur Smith novels. "Gulliver's Travels" is an odd one on his list of films; it seems strange that a director of Hunt's style and expertise would choose to direct a film of this kind. A half-live action/half-animated retelling of Jonathan Swift's classic satire, the film looked twenty years out of date even when it was made, and in all honesty it simply doesn't work. And there's not a damn thing that Hunt (with his usual eye for fast-paced action), or star Richard Harris (who can usually enliven the most stilted of roles) can do to rescue this one.<br /><br />Lemuel Gulliver (Richard Harris) is a brilliant medical student living in 17th Century Bristol. His father (Norman Shelley) wants him to go to London to make his fortune; but Gulliver prefers the idea of receiving rather less pay but a heck of a lot more adventure as a ship's surgeon aboard a ship called the 'Antelope'. During a voyage, the 'Antelope' is blown off course during a storm and hits a reef. The ship sinks and everyone is lost, apart from Gulliver…. who finds himself washed ashore in the kingdom of Lilliput. When he comes round, Gulliver finds that the strange land where he has washed ashore is populated by incredibly small humans, no taller than his toe. To them, he looks like a giant. They persuade Gulliver to help them in a war against another race of tiny people who live on an adjacent island. But Gulliver doesn't like being manipulated for purposes of war and devastation, so he makes plans to escape….<br /><br />Harris is left to carry the entire film here. His first couple of scenes involve other actors, but once he is shipwrecked in Lilliput he spends the rest of the film striding over knee-high sets and acting alongside his animated counterparts. The idea of mixing live action and animation was not new at the time, but it certainly hadn't been done a lot. A few Disney movies like Song Of The South, So Dear To My Heart and Pete's Dragon had tampered with the idea, but it was still pretty much in its infancy. "Gulliver's Travels" is not an especially well-animated film, but the scenes showing interaction between Harris and his cartoon co-stars are at least competently done. Occasionally the film tries to be true to its satirical origins (there's one scene where we learn that Lilliput has gone to war with its neighbour because of eggs !?! - and the point seems to be that wars can begin over the most ridiculous of things). But at its heart, this is very much a kids' film and the satirical overtones are barely dwelled upon. Everyone involved has done better things during their career – "Gulliver's Travels" might fill an otherwise empty afternoon, but apart from that it is a forgettable and underwhelming experience.

Who can ask for more? Taking my 2 and 4 year old children was a risk, I admit. But well worth it. They were enthralled from credit to credit, with their parents beside them.<br /><br />I have taken the kids to films before with mixed results: too scary, too boring, too sophisticated, whatever. With this film, however, I was glad to see a smart film with wit, style and a sense of passion emanating from the screen. Any film that takes 5(!) years of production to make, good or bad, deserves some respect for the bravery and the patience it takes to film a film like this.<br /><br />O.K. I'm gushing a little. Then again, why wouldn't I get excited? Looking through the movie listing today only reminded me of the poor quality of films that are distributed. At least for the moment Regardless, W & G is a film well made. Perhaps the originality wasn't the most inspired, nevertheless, well told and well paced.<br /><br />Too much adult humour? Too many sex references? Maybe. Though my kids didn't quite catch them. Too young. So, in my case, I didn't really notice.<br /><br />Well, needless to say, I liked it.

This is a truly terrible film.<br /><br />I'm only writing this so that some people somewhere are put off watching it. If I have stopped one person from wasting some of their precious life watching this film I shall die happy.<br /><br />Unutterably dull, although since it stars Al Pacino I was fooled into thinking that at any moment something interesting was going to happen. Then the credits rolled, and I realised I had been completely fooled into watching this unbelievable drivel.<br /><br />I cannot believe that this film has achieved as high a score as it has at IMDb (over 5 stars when I last saw the voting). Are you people voting ironically?<br /><br />Please, please, please do not watch this film!

Well, at least we have to acknowledge the big Hollywood horror-producers are finally getting smarter and more perceptive. Instead of patiently waiting to buy the rights of Asian horror hits and subsequently remake them in America, they now discovered they could simply hire the Asian directors and assign them to make their brand new ghost story directly in the states. That's like killing two birds with one stone; way to go guys! "The Messengers" is pretty much identical to every other supernatural chiller that came out of the Oriental countries ever since "Ringu". Roughly translated, this means it's a boring, overlong and entirely gore-free film, but it does feature copious amounts of false scares and embarrassingly weak "did we scare you yet?" moments. The Pang Brothers (Danny & Oxide) previously made the extremely overrated "The Eye" and it sort of is a tradition for them to build up a story with clues and hints towards a point where it becomes nearly impossible to meet the expectations of their curious audiences, yet they don't seem eager to alter their formula any time soon. And they're also unscrupulous enough to recycle the same old & repetitive ghost topics over and over again. Restless spirits of the previous inhabitants trapped in the walls of a remote countryside farm? The protagonist family torn apart by unprocessed traumas from the past, so they first have to restore faith and trust in each other? Give me a break! Throw in a videotape and a seven-days-curse, why don't you? Even the attempts to make you jump in your seat are too déjà-vu and won't scare anyone over the age of 7. Slamming doors, filthy & gradually larger growing stains on the walls, ghostly appearances, noises coming from the cellar... The endless overuse of cheap tricks like this is almost becoming insulting to horror fans. "The Messengers" revolves on a family on their way to a new life in the country as the growers of sunflowers. The family situation is kind of dysfunctional since a personal tragedy (which doesn't get revealed until late in the film) caused their youngest son to stop talking and the parents to distrust their revolting teenage daughter. Soon after, the children experience strange presences in remote farmhouse, but they don't manage to convince their parents to leave. That's pretty much concludes the entire film. Little Ben sees things but he can't talk and Jessica repeatedly gets attacked by supernatural forces but nobody listens to her. The basic premise of "The Messagers" is very derivative of Stanley Kubrick's immortal classic "The Shining", only it lacks the constantly ominous atmosphere and disturbing tone. The script takes itself far too seriously even though it's fairly easy to predict the final denouement and the total absence of violence and bloodshed is unforgivable. At least "The Eye" delivered some genuine shocks in the end, whereas the happy happy joy joy ending of "The Messengers" is just pathetic. The only positive elements I can think of are the beautiful rural filming locations, the adequate editing job and the promising young acting talents (and beauty) Kristen Stewart. And there's an uncanny, but sadly underdeveloped supportive role for William B. Davis.

I have never seen a movie that annoyed me that much. It is a movie about stupid people that are doing stupid and terrible things. This is not a funny movie. I must say that the plot line is awful. I did not had patience to watch it so that i only saw half of it, but it was enough for me. The characters are not very inspired. Just terribly annoying. This movie is all about a goofy guy trying to hook up with his tyrannous boss's daughter. When he finally manages to talk to her, she asks him to go at that night at her home to watch her father's owl, and he thinks she had invited him to go with her at a party and to be at her home at 6 pm. He gets to be very disappointed finding out that he only has to take care of the owl and that she has a boyfriend. After her father leaves home leaving precise orders, about taking care of the house and his beloved bird, appears a secretary, a renegaded son and all sort of NOT funny stuff happens in the house. But he finally hooks up with his boss's daughter. TRUST ME THIS MOVIE IS TERRIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!

In this film I prefer Deacon Frost. He's so sexy! I love his glacial eyes! I like Stephen Dorff and the vampires, so I went to see it. I hope to see a gothic film with him. "Blade" it was very "about the future". If vampires had been real, I would be turned by Frost!

I found this to be a tremendously disappointing version of a charming story. I thought the acting was on the whole quite good. Reginald Owen did chew the scenery, as mentioned by others, but I found him moderately amusing in his brief scenes. TCM has made an Ann Harding fan of me, and I thought she was fine as usual here. Jessie Ralph had a field day as the old battleaxe, ordering everybody around, and Frank Morgan, as always, played Frank Morgan with a twinkle.<br /><br />For me, the problem was the script and/or the editing--transitions were awkward, motivations were murky. The movie was just too darned short to convey the story properly! I felt completely let down, particularly since I had such fond memories of the later version.

This short was the first short released by Paramount Famous Studios and was one of several done by the studio showing Popeye engaged directly against the enemy, most often the Japanese. While Warner Brothers, Disney and, to a lesser extent, other studios, did shorts often depicting Germans as foils, the majority of Famous Studios efforts focused on the Japanese. Given Pearl Harbor and Popeye's naval ties, this is quite understandable. This is an average short. Seein' Red, White an' Blue and Spinach For Britain have aged better. But it's still worth watching. Recommended.

Actually I'm still in doubt if there's anything about this movie I like. As for the story: unrealistic and very exaggerated. The acting was too bad in my opinion. Not very likely that Antonie Kamerling will get a Rutger Hauer status. Some folks will expect it anyway. First let him work on his English pronunciation. If you watch the 'trip' to Paris of these actors (DVD-extra) you will most likely want to trow up. Advice to Beau Dorens: stop your acting career, you'll never get there... To the 2 main 'actors': grow up, please. Being generous, I'd give it 4 out of 10.<br /><br />

The real Best Picture of 1947 also deals with Anti-Semitism and is superior to Elia Kazan's GENTLEMEN'S AGREEMENT (the eventual winner at that year's Academy Awards) in practically every department. Edmard Dmytryk's near-perfect direction, John Paxton's terse script and J. Roy Hunt's expert Expressionist lighting are wonderfully abetted by a superb ensemble cast. Although Robert Young (playing an easy-going, methodical and very likable cop) and Robert Mitchum (who actually does have the occasional throwaway witty remark) are the nominal stars of the film, it's Oscar nominees Robert Ryan and Gloria Grahame - as well as Paul Kelly, in the small but pivotal role of Grahame's pathetic husband - who give the film's most memorable characterizations; Ryan proved so convincing as a homicidal racist that he was eventually typecast for a while, excelling in equally villainous roles in such films as ACT OF VIOLENCE (1948), CAUGHT (1948), THE RACKET (1951), CLASH BY NIGHT (1952), THE NAKED SPUR (1953) and BAD DAY AT BLACK ROCK (1955). The film is also notable for its atypical structure in that Ryan's "flashback" sequence, a complete fabrication, is shot in a straightforward manner while the actual truth emerges from the hazy, distorted recollections of the real protagonist of the film who, furthermore, isn't even played by any of the film's stars! Also, CROSSFIRE was originally to have treated homosexuality (as per Richard Brooks' original source novel, "The Brick Foxhole") but this taboo subject was unacceptable to the Hays Office at the time - a far cry from the situation we have today when (at least) 3 gay-themed films are in the running for this years' major Oscars!<br /><br />The print utilized for Warners' DVD transfer shows some regrettable signs of wear-and-tear at times but the Audio Commentary by noir experts, James Ursini and Alain Silver, is a good one, even though I don't happen to share their opinion that Dmytryk's career declined steadily after his HUAC troubles, as such excellent pictures as THE SNIPER (1952), THE CAINE MUTINY (1954), BROKEN LANCE (1954), THE YOUNG LIONS (1958), WARLOCK (1959) and MIRAGE (1965) amply prove; having said that his collaborations at RKO with producer Adrian Scott and screenwriter John Paxton - MURDER, MY SWEET (1944), CORNERED (1945; hopefully this will be part of the next Film Noir Box Set from Warners) and CROSSFIRE - do constitute his best work. In any case, in my opinion, the latter is not only one of the key films of the 1940s but also one of the finest noirs ever made, period.

First off, I must say that I made the mistake of watching the Election films out of sequence. I say unfortunately, because after seeing Election 2 first, Election seems a bit of a disappointment. Both films are gangster epics that are similar in form. And while Election is an enjoyable piece of cinema... it's just not nearly as good as it's sequel.<br /><br />In the first Election installment, we are shown the two competitors for Chairman; Big D and Lok. After a few scenes of discussion amongst the "Uncle's" as to who should have the Chairman title, they (almost unanimously) decide That Lok (Simon Yam) will helm the Triads. Suffice to say this doesn't go over very well with competitor Big D (Tony Leung Ka Fai) and in a bid to influence the takeover, Big D kidnaps two of the uncles in order to sway the election board to his side. This has disastrous results and heads the triads into an all out war. Lok is determined to become Chairman but won't become official until he can recover the "Dragon Head Baton", a material representation of the Chairman's power. The current Chairman, Whistle (Chung Wang) has hidden the baton somewhere in mainland China and the race is on to see who can recover it first.<br /><br />Much of the film is devoted to the recovery of the Baton. As both aspiring leaders search for it they must dodge cops and opposite sides, which leads into one of the stand out scenes in Election, which involves an underling named Jet (Nick Cheung), a machete, and lots of bad guys. Nick Cheung's presence is attention grabbing to say the least... I wonder if this influenced director Johhnie To in any way while making the second Election, as he does deliver more of Jet's character in the sequel.<br /><br />While Nick Cheung gives a scene stealing performance, I must not fail to give due to the rest of the film's actors. Election has a great ensemble cast with well thought out performances that are both subtle and impacting. Simon Yam is his usually glorious self and the film also benefits from heavyweight HK actors like Louis Koo, Tony Leung Ka Fai, and the under-appreciated Suet Lam. There really aren't any weak links in the acting and one could easily believe that they're watching real gangsters.<br /><br />Although the performances are great, one of the most impressive things about Election is Johnnie To's eye for the camera. There are some truly striking shots in the film and it goes without saying that To definitely knows how to frame his shots, as the viewer is treated to a series of innovative and quite brilliant camera placings and angles. All of which makes Election, above all, a great looking film.<br /><br />My issues with the film arises mostly out of the shear amount of characters involved in Election. It gets a bit hard to follow because the film is so full of characters that aren't integral to the plot. While the sequel opts to focus more on the two candidates, the first Election offers the election process as a whole with tons of Uncles, underlings, and police officers crowding the storyline. Maybe the film would have worked better if it would have been a bit longer with more time dedicated to the inner workings of the Triad, or if Director Johnnie To would have funneled down the necessary elements and expounded on them more. <br /><br />Bottom Line- All in all, this is a wonderfully brutal film with a great cast, excellent direction, and leisurely pacing that packs a punch. It's just a little more complicated than it needed to be.

This is one of my favorite Mr. Motos, and I have seen them all. As usual Lorre is his charming self as the debonair Mr. Moto. Lionel Atwill plays a delightfully zany museum curator, the usual comic relief is quite funny here, and there are lots of suspects on whom to cast an eye. It's fast paced and fun.<br /><br />The archaeologist doesn't have quite the same flair as Thomas Beck, the usual second lead in these programmers, but he's adequate. Stepin Fetchit is on board, and while he speaks in a stereotypical manner his lines are funny, not demeaning to his intelligence, and he actually saves the day in his brief time on screen.

This film really used its locations well with some amazing shots, dark and disturbing the film moves very slowly, but constantly keeps you watching. Modern Love worked well in the Gold Coast Film Fantastic program this year offering audiences a glimpse at an Australian Cinema that is usually neglected. Most importantly it is refreshing to see Australian cinema not taking on the cliché Aussie characters and story lines we have seen done to death over the years. This film would compliment any festival and will open debate after its screenings. The performances and characters are well developed, and the cinematography is fantastic. An interesting exploration into family relationships, and environments.

Sorry I couldn't be more expressive in my summary, but those two words seemed to describe the movie perfectly. This is not only a bad film, but a bad film with bad acting and a plot that will be inconsequential to most watchers.<br /><br />See it only for a naked Rebecca De Mornay tied to a chain-link fence and moaning with 'ecstasy; supposedly 'erotic', but actually hilarious.<br /><br />

Given its time of release, the story that unravels in 1950 thriller 'Panic in the Streets' was hardly a surprise. The corpse of a mysterious illegal immigrant is found and passed off as a nobody until further examination from a public health inspector who claims the corpse carries a strain of bubonic plague. Yet with the current drama in the world today, this strangely helps this film in appearing credible for today's viewers. The cast and crew are flawless. Richard Widmark in his first role following his breakthrough performance in 'Night and the City,' Jack Palance in his chilling film debut, also starring in this film are Paul Douglas and a young (and rather cute) Barbara Bel Geddes. A whole slew of uncredited, non-professional actors (typical of director Kazan) fill in the remaining slots. Elia Kazan directs, Joe MacDonald films (he would later work with Richard Widmark again in 1953's much superior 'Pickup on South Street') and the great Alfred Newman scores it. Nearly everyone involved here has done better work, 'Panic in the Streets' is quite the rewarding watch, nonetheless. Especially for the film-noir enthusiast.

"This might mean the end of the white race!" gasps a general as a dozen Native Zombies wander around the battlefields of Europe during the "Great War". An expedition sets out tor the long-lost, back-projected city of Kennif-Angor to stop this sort of thing and keep the battlefields clear for decent honest white people to slaughter each other by the tens of thousands.<br /><br />It is a bit hard to tell when people are zombies or not in this film as the acting is so wooden. Even by 1936 standards the acting in this film is bad. From a previous decade. It looks like it came out of a correspondence school text book on 'How to Act' <br /><br />------------- Chapter Three: Emotions -------------<br /><br />"How to express fear and loathing (Female) Clench both fists. Place fist of one hand on heart. Open mouth as it to scream. Place other fist, palm out, against mouth. Hold pose for 10 seconds longer than is comfortable then quickly turn head 90 degrees away from direction of loathed object and sob".<br /><br />"How to have difficult, heavily emotionally charged scene with ex-fiancé explaining your love for someone else. Do NOT make eye contact. Do not move. Do not show any emotion. Do not move your eyes too much as you read your lines off the studio wall." <br /><br />To give us a respite from the leaden acting the director cunningly cuts in long pauses where nothing much happens except that film keeps running through the projectors. Thus 35 minute's worth of story is padded out to 60ish minutes.<br /><br />The revolt of the zombies when it comes is so slow! Released from mental bondage the armies of ex-zombiefied minions turn on their former master by ambling slowly up hill and then sort of stabbing a door a bit and smashing a window. "Yea... let's... oh, I dunnno yeah. Let's get him grrr. Frankenstein must be destroyed - manana." (though I have just found a bit of hidden symbolism. Jagger is shot by a Native as some sort of ironic counterpoint to all the Natives being shot by the Germans at the start of the flick. see, even downtrodden Natives don't want the end of the White Race!) The chase (it you can call it that) through the back-projected swamp is hilarious and worth the admission price alone. Roy D'Arcy has a hell of a time camping it up, but is totally wasted, as Col. Mazovia.<br /><br />There is one interesting moment in this film. A nice little montage of the zombied natives and white cast members falling under the evil eyes spell. face after face, cross-fade into one another. It works, though there is a strange little blip in the middle of each close up like a frame has been cut. I guess these must be Neg Cutters' frames between the fades.<br /><br />Best watched with friends and in a silly mood.

The first installment of this notorious horror series presents a woman being kidnapped by a gang of black-clad men who torture her for several days before finally killing her.She is beaten savagely,spun around in the chair endlessly,has her finger nails pulled,animal guts are thrown at her,hot boiling water is poured on her and finally her eyeball is punctured with a needle(really sick and nasty scene).The makers of this unforgettable torture show tried to make it as real as possible and for me this one is the closest thing to a snuff film you can get without committing murder on tape.Of course some of the special effects are rather poor but the idea of making a snuff is pretty gruesome.I have seen also "Flowers of Flesh and Blood" which is more gory and sadistic,but less disturbing.Anyway,this one is a must-see for horror fans!

This is possibly the worst of the cockney gangster genre that has blighted the British film industry since Mockney Guy Ritchie unleashed Lock stock and two badly acted barrels. This "True Life" story of Carlton Leach (who?) has everything that is wrong with this genre, a truly awful script that consists of people screeching "Cant", "Fahcking Cant" and "I'll kill ya, ya fahcking cant" ad nauseum. The acting is uniformly dreadful with the two most recognisable cast members being two former soap stars quite visably out of their depth. For some reason the film assumes we have heard of these people and i can assure you anybody north of Essex hasn't, and that we should be interested in some low lifes story. Why? This isn't Goodfellas despite the blurb on the DVD cover. The story centres around a football hooligan turned bouncer turned gangster who's friends end up getting shot. Boo hoo. The fact that these people are totally unsympathetic is the only minor plus for this film. In all of the action scenes it seems that the camera was tied to a piece of string and whirled around while people pretended to fight and the story of somebody most people have never heard of and nothing really interesting happens too is a complete waste of time. People talk about how violent the film is as though it's the sign of a great film and, although many great films have violence in them, this is just an excuse for the FX man to show what he can do. Overall this film is a reminder of why the British film industry is defunct and the sooner we stop funding these pathetic abortions the better.

In the opening scene of "Malta Story" Mr A.Guinness bore such a startling resemblance to Noel Coward that I fully expected his first words to be "Certain women need striking regularly - like gongs" or some such world - weary bon mot.Unfortunately his dialogue is hardly deathless prose and even the Master would have had trouble bringing it to life.Indeed Mr Guinness wanders through the picture as if looking for a focal point and failing to find one.And therein lies the fatal weakness of the whole movie.Mr J.Hawkins likewise gives up early on and ends up giving a "Jack Hawkins" performance without an ounce of individuality.It could have been spliced from any of a dozen British war movies.Many of the early fifties usual suspects turn up and do their schtick to very little purpose. The Luftwaffe failed to bomb Malta into submission in much the same way as it failed to bring London to its knees.The courage of the Maltese people in the face of incessant danger was recognised by the King and the island was awarded the George Cross.A worthy subject you might think for a movie,but "Malta Story" does not even qualify for the term "worthy" in its most patronising sense.It gives the appearance of being hastily cobbled together to meet a deadline,perhaps before the actors lost the will to live.

This movie certainly deserves to be placed within the genre of horror, but not for obvious reasons. The horror of "A Tale Of Two Sisters" lies not with sudden shocks or large helpings of CGI guts and gore; it is a psychological horror movie which piques the viewer's curiosity from the start and builds a suspenseful aura of mystery and questions throughout. Best of all, the ending does not provide a clear answer, pushing the viewer to analyse what they have seen and make up their own mind about what really took place.<br /><br />Do not be put off by the seemingly slow pace at which the movie begins, and don't expect to be jumping out of your seat immediately. This is not the conventional hack-and-slash movie with orchestral stings designed to make you scared of nothing in particular. "A Tale Of Two Sisters" slowly builds an atmosphere of terror, a terror of the unknown and a fear of things which evade explanation until the very end. Even when the final conclusion is revealed, it is not so heavy-handed and obvious as to make the entire film fall neatly into place. The movie requires its viewer to reflect back on what they have seen and to try and square this with the frightening revelation of the final scene. Some things will still be open to interpretation, and this is one of the joys of watching a film such as this.<br /><br />The true fear of "A Tale Of Two Sisters" lies not in shocks or conspicuous scares; it is a psychological, gut-wrenching horror that defies convention and expands a genre to proportions hitherto unexplored by the traditional horror film. It is no exaggeration to say that this film stands apart even from the so-called 'Asian Horror' genre. Indeed, it would be a mistake to align "A Tale Of Two Sisters" with films like "Ringu" and "The Grudge". This movie can be understood from a variety of standpoints, some requiring no suspension of credulity, others embracing the supernatural wholeheartedly.<br /><br />Whichever way you choose to interpret this film, it is one that demands an open-minded approach, rewarding viewers regardless of their preconceived notions on Asian cinema or horror in general.

I've read all the rave reviews here and am impressed with the imagination of those who loved this film. I can't say that I found much to recommend it. The Leonard Cohen sound track is not only excessively heavy-handed but dreary beyond measure. The film looks authentic enough, but something's got to happen for it to work, and nothing much does: a cursory plot (not a real problem for me), not much character development, nothing thematically. It just slogs along. Flawed as it is, Cimino's "Heaven's Gate" has some moments of genuine wonder and is a film I'd sooner watch again. For a brilliant reconception of the West, HBO's "Deadwood" is much superior to "McCabe."

Alien Hunter: 5 out of 10: Is it me or does every movie that starts in Roswell, New Mexico suck. Take Alien mixed with The Thing, mixed with Contact, mixed with of all things On the Beach, The Andromeda Strain, the classroom scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark and a throw in a little Stargate to boot. <br /><br />Derivative doesn't even begin to describe this movie. Of course with nothing original plot wise they amp up the gore and sex right? Nope gore is a blink and you miss it affair and sex is all tease. (James Spader causally mentions he needs a shower and the delectable Leslie Stefanson asks to join him…. he turns her down. AGGH!) <br /><br />In fact if a movie ever needed a shower scene to liven things up this is it. I mean if your going to have impossibly good-looking women in white bathing suits wandering around an Antarctica research base why not go for broke.<br /><br />With about 30 seconds of actual thrill in the entire movie Alien Hunter is remarkable serious and slow going for a sci-fi adventure. Needed a much better plot twist to liven it up and by the way the Alien itself is a horribly clichéd artifice and has virtually no screen time for someone who shares half the title. <br /><br />I also inquired during viewing what is with the Children of the Corn in space motif. (Note that since Jason of Friday the 13th fame, Pinhead from Hellraiser and that Leprechaun have all traveled to space to slay nubile teenagers why not the cornfield?) The characters in the cornfield dress like Logan's Run extras and I was just waiting for the stalks to come alive and attack them.<br /><br />That however would have been exciting and apparently against this movies covenant. The acting is mostly fine as Spader reprises his Stargate role while Stefanson and Janine Eser model the latest in Antarctic beachwear. John Lynch however read the whole script and acts the like the insane bad guy well before the story would indicate it.<br /><br />Alien Hunter is a disappointing derivative slog that makes me pine for a proper Children of The Corn in Space movie.

***SPOILER ALERT*** Disjointed and confusing arson drama that has to do with a sinister plan to burn down a major vacation resort before New Years Day. Being insured for ten million dollars the man behind Valley View Estates in the Blue Mountains in Australia Julian Fane, Guy Doleman,is determined to bring his own project down in flames in order to collect. This has to happen by January 1, two weeks hence, before the insurance policy on the project runs out.<br /><br />With his mind totally on his work builder and architect Howard Anderson, Tom Skerritt, has no idea that his boss, Julian Fane, is planning to burn down the resort he's building and possibly set him up as the fall guy. Anderson gets a bit suspicious when insurance investigator Sophie McCann,Wendy Hughes, informs him on some very fishy goings on between Fane and the insurance company Proud Alliance. It turns out that Proud Allience is actually owned, or 60% of it, by Fane himself! This explains whey Fane is having all these arson fires happen in order to collect the ten million dollars of insurance which is at least twice as much as the entire Valley View Estates is worth!<br /><br />We later have Sophie McCann murdered, in a faked swimming accident, to keep her from finding out whats happening with the suspicious fries around and in Valley View Estates. It's when Lloyd's of London, who's underwriting Proud Alliance, insurance investigator George Engles, James Mason, shows up that Fane takes a powder leaving his ace arsonist on his own and out of control to blow Fane's entire plan.<br /><br />Meanwhile Anderson has gotten wise to both Fane and Engles who unlike Fane wants the Valley View Estates to go under for reasons which are never made quite clear, just watch the last few seconds of the film to realize that, by it's writer and director. The arsonist is exposed as he's about to do in his girlfriend with Anderson coming to her rescue. We then have this wild chase scene with the arsonist getting lost in the Valley View construction site only to have it set on fire, with the help of Howard Anderson, where he ends up burning to a crisps by the time the fire department came to hose him down.<br /><br />The sudden and unexplained ending never made clear to just what happened to the Big Cheese in this whole scheme of things the sinister and evil minded Julian Fane. It's as if Fane got away Scot-free and only his unstable and deranged henchman, the arsonist, who was only the instrument of Fane's crimes ended up as the only person who payed from them.

This film is pure Elvira and shows her at her breast... I mean best! The story (co-written by Cassandra Peterson, Elvira's alter ego) is inspiring and captivating and is brought to life by Elvira's wit and charm. The viewer gets an opportunity to see Elvira in a whole new light as she struggles with the prejudices of the people of Fallwell, Massachusetts (where she has travelled from Los Angeles in order to attend the reading of her Great Aunt Morganna's will) and at the same time tries to help the long-suffering teenagers who have been deprived of fun by the matriarchal Chastity Pariah and the rest of the town council. She also has to deal with her attraction to Bob Redding, the owner of the local cinema, and another woman (Patty) who has her eye on Bob as well but is not nearly as deserving of his love as Elvira. And, later in the movie, she also faces the complications of being descended from ''a major metaphysical celebrity'' and the charges of witchcraft brought against her which mean that she will be burnt at the stake. Elvira manages to be both sexy and vulnerable, streetwise and naive in this film, while cracking risque jokes and delivering off-beat lines with double meanings.<br /><br />This movie is inspiring because it gives out the message of never giving up on yourself and always trying to follow your dreams. In the end Elvira's dreams finally come true, which is the best thing that could happen to this wonderfully unique and determined woman.<br /><br />I've seen this movie countless times and I never ever get tired of it! There are no unnecessary scenes and I found myself captivated throughout the whole movie. A review will not do justice to the actual movie, so I can just tell you to PLEASE watch it because it is one of the best movies ever made! Meanwhile, I wish you ''unpleasant dreams!''

This film was so unfocused, rambling and uneven that it was an effort to watch the whole thing. (I actually thought some interesting plot elements might develop.) This was nothing more than a "coming-of-age" film for the thirty-something generation. Total crap and I have no idea what Julianne Moore was doing in this since it was the only reason I picked it off the shelf at the rental store.

Once again Woody Allen seems to be completely devoid of any inspiration other than recycling himself. Here we have a mock documentary (like Zelig), the structure of the film is a series of anecdotes (Radio Days, Broadway Danny Rose) set in the 30's (Zelig, Purple Rose, Bullets over Broadway) about a low-life (Deconstructing Harry) who believes being a genius absolves him from being a jerk (ditto). Given this film and Deconstructing Harry, one wonders if this is Allen's justification for his own actions with Mia Farrow's adopted daughter; yes, I was a jerk, but I'm a genius so you gotta love me.<br /><br /> Allen has only produced two good movies in the past ten years; the fine but overpraised Bullets over Broadway, and the excellent but largely ignored Manhattan Murder Mystery. His other efforts range from trifles (New York Stories, Mighty Aphrodite), to edgy yet experimental (Husbands and Wives), to pure drek (Alice, Scenes from a Mall, Shadows and Fog, Celebrity, Deconstructing Harry). His films no longer even try to have a narrative arc, and his humor seems to aim at wryly amusing, not funny. After Deconstructing Harry I stopped seeing his films in theaters; after Sweet and Lowdown I may stop renting them as well.

A Murder investigation goes on back stage while The Vanities, on its opening night, plays on to an unknowing audience. Odd combination of musical and murder mystery is worth a look for its cast, its production numbers, and the sheer novelty of the film.<br /><br />Gertrude Michael has the showy role of a bitchy actress intent on stopping the marriage between the show's stars, Kitty Carlisle and Carl Brisson, as well as starring in the infamous "Sweet Marijuana" number (which was also on a 70s Bette Midler album). So while the chorus girls shuffle around backstage, bumbling detective Victor McLaglen ogles the girls while he tries to solve the backstage murder of an unknown woman.<br /><br />We quickly learn that the maid (Dorothy Stickney) loves Brisson from afar, that the wardrobe lady (Jessie Ralph) is Brisson's mother, and that the stage manager (Jack Oakie) butts into everything. Lots of plots twists among the musical numbers. The show's best-known song is "Cocktails for Two." Kitty Carlisle also sings the haunting "Where Do They Come From?" And there's a weird rhapsody that erupts into a Harlem specialty number featuring Duke Ellington! Quite the cast.<br /><br />Some terrific acting here, especially Gertrude Michael and Dorothy Stickney. Kitty Carlisle is quite good as well. Brisson is a total zero though.<br /><br />Charles Middleton plays Homer, Toby Wing plays Nancy, Donald Meek plays the doctor, and also see if you can spot Ann Sheridan and Lucille Ball among the show girls.

Will Smith is smooth as usual in the movie Hitch. Smiths character Hitch is a date doctor. He dates Mendes character who is a gossip columnist. At one point Hitch shows his love interest her Great Grandfathers name in the immigration book at Ellis Island pretending what is actually an arranged event is a coincidence. Not long after I mentioned starlight in my previous review today. There was a view of the starry sky in survivor hinting that My Moon 168 Rtexas already knew that was going to be there due to faster than light communications.<br /><br />The male star from the show The King of Queens is very funny in this movie especially his dance moves. The allergic reaction on Hitchs face is a little cruel to laugh at even though it is just pretend.<br /><br />My latest message from my Daughter Julias Artificial Intelligence computer on the Creator of Humans Home world Coaltrain that my Moon 168 as part of Moonfleet is near says: "Daddy I'm Okay again." Her messages are always very short. It is a curious pattern. Daddy will always Love you Julia. Thanks to our Creator we can talk forever. Yesterday Daddy talked to the first you on the telephone and told you your homework time wouldn't be that bad and you said "How bad will it be Daddy?" I said that your Grandma and I would help you with it. You only have to put pictures of our friends the police on a bristol board display and write a title like "The Police protect us." Check out the other movies of Will Smith as well.

KK should stick to singing- this whole movie was a big bore. I can't understand the viciousness of the boys and the romance between Miles and KK- the sex scenes were uninspired too. The ending was awful- unresolved- there needs to be reason to murder. And the whole voyeurism of the boy was weird..... the mother always wrestled with the boy- don't you think he would get some rather Freudian with her? And why didn't someone teach KK how to speak with inflection instead of monotone?<br /><br />Glad I only paid $1.00 to rent this. <br /><br />

you will likely be sorely disappointed by this sequel that's not a sequel.AWIL is a classic.but this movie is about as far from being a classic as you can get.what a joke.special effects that aren't very special,horrible dialogue,non acting.and a laughably ridiculous subplot quickly and unconvincingly,(not to mention fleeting)tacked on with about a third of the movie left.did i mention the story is less then lame.there's no way this was supposed to be serious horror movie,yet it's to stupid to be funny in any good way.the rating it currently has(4.8/10)is too generous if you ask me.my rating for An American Werewolf in Paris:a 3.5/10

Besides the fact that it was one of the few movies that I ever shed a tear over (bye-bye manhood), this is one of the most beautifully crafted Indian films that has ever been made. From the finely crafted sets, to those haunting looks Meena Kumari gives, no one can ever forget it. The music of Pakeezah is amazing, all the more if you can understand the sublime poetry, and is definitely one of those "OMG, 5 minutes another song" movies. You get the feeling of how trapped Sahibjaan is in among all the amazing jewelery she wears and fountained court yard she casually walks past.<br /><br />A parody of all the dreams you've ever had..........

The basic idea behind "Dungeon of Harrow" isn't all bad. The acting, however, is bad. The lighting is bad. The music is bad. The scenes of torture are without emotion. There really isn't much there to recommend this film. You know what kind of a movie you're in for when the credits say "Special Guest Star" and list someone you've never heard of. Might as well say "Rex Hamilton as Abraham Lincoln." because there's really no one in this movie you can identify. There are one or two decent moments, mostly toward the end and I think the basic plot outline may have contained an original idea, but that alone is not enough to keep you awake through this otherwise inept yawner.

Am not from America, I usually watch this show on AXN channel, I don't know why this respected channel air such sucking program in prime time slot. Creation of Hollywood's Money Bank Jerry Bruckheimer, this time he is spending a big load of cash in the small screen. In each episode a bunch of peoples having two team members travels from on country to another for a great sum of money; where the camera crews shoot their travels. I don't know who the hell gave this stupid idea for the show. It has nothing to watch for, in all episodes we see people ran like beggars, some times shouting, crying, beeping, jerky camera works..huh it's harmful to both eyes and ears. The most disgusting part in the race is the viewers finally knows each of the team members can't enjoy their race/traveling experience. Even though, to add up the ratings the producers came up with the ideas of including Gays in one shows, sucking American reality show.<br /><br />It's nothing to watch for, better switch to another channels.<br /><br />The Amazing Race = The Disgusting Show.

Normally for movie reviews, I try to be constructive and objective, but there is only one word for this, uh, "film" : SUCKS!!!!!!! The dialogue, acting, special effects, plot, set, and characters all seem as if they were made up by, well, my potted plants. Don't see this, for the sake of all that is good and right in this world! :)

I am an avid fan of horrendous movies, anything cheesy and down right ridiculous is my game. So imagine my spirit I went to the local Rent Shop, and found Vampires vs. Zombies. The name is just too entertaining, you know that no one in the world could pull off something like it, it just has to be bad.<br /><br />And boy, is it BAD. After viewing this horror-ific movie, I was speechless, literally. Me and my pal sat outside without saying a word to each other for several minutes, both of us contemplating the future of our lives after watching this movie. I broke the depressing silence with the words, "...dude....What?" Yes, i am an enthralling individual.<br /><br />Heres a quick 'street review' The Plot; There is none, at all, ever, constantly in "WTF" mode. The Characters; No development, forgettable. The Music; Worse than porn. The Vampires; Theirs vampires? The Zombies; Theirs Zombies?<br /><br />In the end; Everyone should see this movie, honestly, its so bad I yearn to see it again. So do yourself a favor, watch it and get Depressed.

What a mess!! Why was this movie made? This, and other movies of its "caliber" should be teaching tools on how not to make a movie. Children may like it, but anyone over 10 may or will disapprove. To make matters worse was the fact that such great talent like Whoopi Goldberg and Armin Mueller Stahl were entirely wasted in a film unworthy of any notice.

Ah, the best and funniest movie about female football fans, only slightly better than the 1982 saga of teenage delusion set in North London (qv). By the way, I just watched this on Film 4 [2008-12-21] and am ruing my inability to set the PVR).<br /><br />This is easily my second favourite football movie after "Mike Bassett: England Manager", but this time with the added twist of looking like a guerrilla piece of movie-making from a team who apparently keep making movies which are banned in the country in which they are made (just think about the bit where the girls are taken from the stadium just as the Sun is setting: fast reactions all round). <br /><br />It is rare for a movie to make me laugh out loud, but when the rural soldier escorted one of the girls into the lavvies while forcing her to wear an inpromptu mask made from a poster of Ali Daei, I couldn't stop waking the others in the house with my snorts, especially when the young soldier misunderstood the grandfather's calls for assistance... <br /><br />Speaking of the toilets, I just wish I could speak Farsi so that I could work out the writing on the toilet walls (yes, there were a few scribblings in Roman script, but they mostly referred to wanky American rock bands).<br /><br />Also, on the rural-and-Farsi theme, don't you reckon that Omid Djalili sounds like a yokel when he talks Farsi? Listen to the custody sergeant in this movie and then go "Yup."<br /><br />I'm not going to bore on about the sexual politics of Iran, and I'm not going to bore on about the dubious acting; my love for this movie comes from the script and the editing: top notch stuff.<br /><br />Here's a list of my top favourite football movies: 1. Mike Bassett, England Manager 2. Offside 3. Those Glory Glory Days 4. A Shot at Glory 5. The Arsenal Stadium Mystery

Of course, seeing a few boom mikes doesn't mean anything, does it? Lord, Rudy Ray Moore and D'Urville Martin really put this one together didn't they? I laughed a lot, as often happens in these types of movies, but I don't know what I was supposed to laugh at because I laughed at so many other things. I am not saying the movie was bad, but I will say that a little more editing would have done wonders. I am a huge fan of Blaxploitation, so I don't think that it was horrid, but I know that "The Human Tornado" was several times better than this. I think that those who can make it through this movie might need a Colt 45 or two afterward. I mean, it really helps you to not notice the boom mikes when you watch it again.

I just saw this last night, it was broadcast on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's 'Passionate Eye' series. It has been screened recently (Sept. 2003) at the Toronto International Film Festival as well as many others. It is a quite remarkable film. The filmmakers literally stumbled into the story, being there to make a documentary about Chavez himself. Instead, they found themselves squarely in the middle of events as the coup unfolded. They had unprecedented access to events and people and, for the most part, let the story unfold as it happens. They, of course, have their own ideological perspective (which they make evident) but they keep themselves in the background and instead try to focus attention on the events, the people, and the background and history leading up to the coup. As a film, it is not ground-breaking in a stylistic or aesthetic sense, and that is, I think, the way it should be. What we get to see what 'embedded' journalism should really be. What we get to see is a remarkable account of a country struggling to attain democracy... a charismatic leader (Chavez) who actually cares for his people... a story about power and greed as a coalition of corporate/military/media interests combine to lead a coup of a democratically elected leader... and unprecedented access to a historical event as it unfolds.<br /><br />

OK, I wanted to see this because it had a few good reviews, but this movie was awful... Just plain awful. The characters were 1 dimensional and nothing the actors could do could ever breathe any life into them. The story was abysmal... The wind stopped becoming a plot device halfway through... It just completely becomes forgotten. The visuals while were cool were sooooo drawn out... 5 minutes of a guy crawling on the ground, 3 minutes of a girl putting on her makeup. I don't know what this guy is trying to pull off... it's like he had no plot no dialog and the movie needed to run just so long so lets not edit scenes at all... Foreign films are great for creating a story without using a lot of dialog, this movie makes me think that there is no way American cinema can ever do this. I want to give up watching movies altogether... Bad Bad Movie!

I fell in love with this silent action drama. Kurt Russell and only Kurt Russell could have played this so well. Raised from childhood to know nothing but war and fighting, Todd (Kurt Russell) is dumped on a planet after being made obsolete by genetically engineered soldiers.<br /><br />The stage is set and another classic icon of action movies was born - SOLDIER. Not Rambo, not Schwarzenegger, not Bruce Willis, not Mel Gibson, not Jason Statham - Kurt Russell owns this role and made it entirely his - original, daring, and all too human. I miss the fact that sequels were never made.<br /><br />10/10<br /><br />-LD<br /><br />_________<br /><br />my faith: http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/jbc33/

THE GIRL FROM MISSOURI arrives in New York City knowing exactly what she wants: to amount to something solid by marrying a millionaire - without losing her virginity. With her knockout good looks she quickly catches the eye of the playboy son of a tycoon, but by staying true to her virtue will she also discover true love?<br /><br />Jean Harlow sizzles in this excellent little comedy. With her platinum hair & gorgeous accouterments, she is a dazzler. But her beauty should not obscure the fact that she was also a very good actress. She has rightfully earned her spot at the very top of the Hollywood pantheon.<br /><br />An excellent cast gives Harlow fine support: Lionel Barrymore as the wily old tycoon, wise to Harlow's ways; handsome Franchot Tone as his son, smitten with love; raucous Patsy Kelly, stealing her scenes as Harlow's sidekick; debonair Alan Mowbray, as a well-mannered English Lord; elderly Clara Blandick as Barrymore's feisty secretary; hearty Hale Hamilton as a rich man with an eye for the ladies; muscular Nat Pendleton as a lifeguard who catches Kelly's flirtatious eye; and Lewis Stone, unforgettable in a small role as a bankrupted businessman.<br /><br />It should be noted that this film was produced soon after Hollywood's Production Code was instituted. A comparison with RED-HEADED WOMAN, made two years earlier, would be fascinating - in which Harlow's character goes after the same ends, but uses very different means.

Not the best plot in the world, but the comedy in this movie rules. Kelsey Grammar is wonderful in this movie. Another funny guy is Rob Schneider who will make you crack up with his segments with Ken Hudson Campbell who plays Buckman. Lauren Holly plays probably the more serious character in the cast as Lt. Lake. Bruce Dern is a great actor in this movie, playing probably the most serious character in the movie. The actor i liked the most was Toby Huss as Nitro, all the electric shots his character takes in the movie is hilarious.<br /><br />Plot is a little uneven, about Lt. Commander Tom Dodge, who for years has wanted to Command his own sub. When he finally gets the chance, instead of a brand new sub, he gets a rusty WWII Diesel Sub, the Stingray. His crew isn't any better, misfits of the U.S. Navy. He is then put in a series of War Games, that shows how an old Diesel Engine can handle itself against the current Nuclear Navy. Things still don't get any better when he finds out his dive officer is actually a female officer, to see how Women do on actual Subs. To get the commander position he wants, he has to win the War Games, and blow up a Dummy Ship.<br /><br />The movie fairs quite well, in fact i laughed non-stop when i saw this movie in theaters. I loved when they were in silence and Buckman farts, and everyones reaction to the smell is hilarious.<br /><br />Overall, 9 out of 10, this movie is just plain fun to watch, it nice to have a movie like this, i hate movies that try to be 100% serious.

After stopping by the movie store to find something to watch, we stumbled on this. It looked appealing from the summary, at least, so we gave it a try. And here's the kicker: the first 20 minutes are interesting! It's actually enjoyable! Oh, wait, spoke too soon.<br /><br />Somewhere in there, the movie took a disgusting turn into fundamental, right-wing Christian brain-washing. Not entirely sure what happens, but I think the screenplay writer found God somewhere in there, finished writing this script, and had no time to edit it because he had a KKK meeting to get to with his friends from the Westboro Church and his hood wasn't clean.<br /><br />Can they put warnings on this? I refuse to support this religious idiocy. Much like video games have rating systems, movies need some sort of symbol: maybe a small cross in the bottom corner to show us that a movie is going to take a turn for the worse.<br /><br />Unless you share sentiments with whatever moron came up with this story, and will have your Bible open in your lap while you watch this and plan on how you'll convert your neighbors, don't waste your time. It's some of the worst junk that's come out in a very long time, and the radical religious nuts don't need anymore funding.

Considering its popularity, I found this movie a huge disappointment. Maybe I was expecting too much from this film. After all, it is one of the most well known martial arts films of the 1970s, but I could never figure out why. The story is uninteresting. It is also a very talky movie with sporadic action sequences. My biggest problem with the movie was that the story does not offer a character that I could root for, since the intended hero is an idiot. Director Chang has no sense of style, and he is unable to hide the glaring imperfections found in the narrative. I know this is not supposed to be high art, but I found the movie boring. Definitely not the best example of this much-beloved genre. Its cult status escapes me. I recommend you to skip it.

This film, though ostensibly a comedy, is deadly serious. Its subject is Imperialism (with a capital I): how Britain, foolishly, humiliatingly, tries to convince itself that it's still a great power after World War II. At home, the Empire is run by amiable dolts, benevolent Tories who are so in-bred that they can't distinguish close relatives; the Offices of Government consist of long forgotten archives (a dig at Orwellian paranoia?), inhabited by indolent rats, and ante-rooms wherein lounge bored synacures, reading popular novels.<br /><br />Abroad, Britain clings to the old pomp; but pomp out of context looks threadbare and silly, especially when its embodied in bumbling twits. Carlton-Browne is an unsentimental picture of decline, with none of the lachrymose rot that marred the supposedly anti-imperialist Jewel in the Crown.<br /><br />The film is also about the Cold War, bravely admitting that it's a dangerous farce, whose participants deserve mockery and contempt, not fear and respect. It's about how colonialism, characterised more by neglect than tyranny, destroys the colonies it deserts, robbing them of amenities, power, and, most importantly, self-respect, leaving them vulnerable to the machinations of dangerous cowboys.<br /><br />It's the seriousness, of course, that kills it. That's not to say that weighty subjects can't be treated in comedy - The Miracle Of Morgan's Creek, Dr. Strangelove and The Life Of Brian have all proved that. Indeed, one might suggest that serious themes should only be treated by comedy - it allows for a clearer-eyed view.<br /><br />The problem with Carlton-Browne is that every situation must have a significance beyond the merely comic, so that it becomes weighed down and unfunny. In the three films mentioned above, much of the comedy arises from character reaction to an extreme situation, not the extreme situation itself. Here, the script is too poor to sustain rich comic characterisations, and some of the greatest comedy talent ever assembled - Peter Sellers, Terry-Thomas, Raymond Huntley and John le Mesurier - are criminally wasted.<br /><br />Terry-Thomas, sublime so often, shows that he couldn't handle lead parts, and that he needed to play sneering, arrogant bounders, not brainless toffs. The music is made to carry much of the comedy, but its heavy irony only draws attention to the lack of hilarity on screen. (To be fair, unlike the majority of British comedies of the period, which were stagy and underproduced, the Boultings often try to make their points through film itself, by montage and composition) Only Huntley manages to raise genuine laughs, and that's by essaying a character he could have played in his sleep.<br /><br />None of the Boultings' farces have dated well - they're never thought through enough. Although Carlton-Browne revels in the decline of the Empire, it also seems to be anti-democratic and militaristic. I'm sure this wasn't intended, but these blunders are bound to happen if you allow worthy intentions to take precedence over comic intelligence and film form.

I just found the IMDb and searched this film and I was moved almost to tears by the comments of all the people who saw this film as I did when 6 or so years old in 1967?. I saw it before the Jungle Book so I was Eagle Boy for a few hours and then Mowgli for the next year. I burst into tears at the cinema when the boy turned into the Eagle and always wanted to see the film again. When we got home we had a Roast chicken dinner and I got the wish bone and guess who I wished to be? My dad then said 'I bet you wished to be an Eagle' and of course we all know that wishes are broken if someone guesses so more tears and a little resentment to this day for not being able to fly away...

The Kid is a really good family movie about a stuffy image consultant, Russ Duritz, who has lots of money, a good job, nice house, etc. The only problem is he doesn't have much of a social life as nobody seems to like him as he isn't always very nice. One day though things are about to change when an eight year old version of himself magically appears. This gives Russ a second chance to make things right. Bruce Willis plays the lead role here and he gives a really good performance. The Kid is a nice, heart-warming movie for everyone.

For the big thinkers among us, "The Intruder" is a maddeningly incoherent movie from France that gives so-called "art films" a bad name. The story is something about a bitter old coot, Louis Trebor (Michel Subor), who goes searching in Tahiti for a heart transplant, but beyond that, I have no idea who any of the people in the movie were or why they were doing what they were doing. With no coherent storyline to boast of, the movie loses us early on, though I'm perfectly willing to admit that there might be SOMEBODY out there who actually gets some deep message out of this film. <br /><br />This muddled, snail-paced drama runs a full two hours and five minutes - though I seriously doubt anyone with any kind of a life will still be hanging around by the closing credits.

A well-made and imaginative production, refreshingly free from cliché, this somewhat picaresque affair recounts a tale of a close friendship that develops between a man and a boy under less than ideal conditions: the man an escaped convict who has kidnapped the youth for his value as a hostage. Expertly directed by Alan Gibson with a fine sense for balanced narrative movement, the film provides freshness in nearly every scene, as felon Martin Steckert (Richard Harris), believing that his rejection for parole was particularly undeserved, contrives a convoluted but ultimately successful escape plan, following which his spontaneous nature comes to the fore as he flees to the lakeside residence of his childhood. Often bursting into song or dancing a few steps, the capricious Steckert gradually gains the trust and affection of his captive and, as police close in for an inevitable showdown, the tethered pair are seen to be a great deal alike in their responses to forms of rejection, as discerned by a psychiatrist (Lindsay Wagner) assigned to aid a zealous police lieutenant (James Coburn) who is in charge of the manhunt for Steckert and his "prisoner". This is an engrossing story, worth telling, a quickly-paced and novel adventure that profits from a capital performance by Harris, fine turns from Wagner, Coburn, and Karen Black, along with Justin Henry as the snatched lad, with an appropriately whimsical score contributed by Wilfred Josephs, and top-notch cinematography by Frank Watts, with all footage shot in a beautiful autumnal Ontario province.

Stupid, mindless drivel about a jet assembled within hours by mechanics who have never worked on airplanes (piloted by Burgess Meredith) chasing a Porsche race car which runs on decades-old gasoline sludge, driven by Lee Majors, with Chris Makepeace as the runaway techno-wiz who can McGyver spare parts into a radio receiver which can pick up all frequencies simultaneously, and who somehow learned how to acquire and use chemicals to make high explosives in a perfectly peaceful society. As moronic as it sounds. Terrible waste of Burgess Meredith, but Chris Makepeace may at least be forgiven on the grounds that this was only his second film.

I can't believe how many people hate Hal Sparks! He was my favorite host of the show, hands down. I hate celebrity gossip and generally dislike talk shows, but when Hal Sparks hosted Talk Soup, it was must see TV for me. I rarely missed an episode during his run, and was saddened when the guest hosts started pouring in (although most of the guests still did a fine job). <br /><br />Anyway, for all the people who dislike Hal Sparks, I imagine they must have never seen the weekend specials. They were hour long episodes of Talk Soup that comprised the best clips from the entire week, and were padded out by sketch comedy bits. The original bits that Hal Sparks did were hilarious. In one he got possessed by a bad comedy demon, and in an exorcist like scene his head spun as he told dated jokes about airline food. One episode was dedicated to making fun of Multiplicity, as a bunch of cloned Hal Sparks kept multiplying through out the episode, over-running the studio.<br /><br />OK, maybe these don't sound as funny when I describe them, but all I know is that besides Talk Soup, the only other two shows I watched consistently during those years was The Simpsons and Late Night with Conan O'Brian. So if you like the comedy stylings of those shows, then you'd probably like Talk Soup during the Sparks years.<br /><br />That said, Henson and Tyler were both great hosts as well. All three hosts brought something different to the table but they were all fine comedians in my opinion. Of course, throughout the Tyler and guest star years, my interest in this show began to wane, but every now and then I catch The Soup, the show's spiritual successor, and sure enough, the new host can bring some pretty unexpected laughs from time to time.<br /><br />OK, I've wasted enough time talking about a TV show that isn't on the air anymore and on a channel that I generally despise. Go watch something else!

I wanted to like this film, I really did. It's got some good actors but ultimately it falls flat. It tries too hard to be funny in some places (the daughters over zealous cooking attempts), over reaches in others (the scene where they clean up someone's yard, so he agrees to join the team) and has some scenes that, while mildly interesting, are really just filler (all the work scene's). And I didn't find the "villians" intimidating, or worth hating, so much as I found them to be childishly annoying. <br /><br />I've met people like those in the film while playing church ball. And I will say the referee's are spot on, Still, in the end, I really didn't care all that much about the characters, or their quest for church ball glory. Maybe because they were all so one dimensional, which I might not have minded so much if the film were funnier or seemed to flow a little more smoothly overall. <br /><br />Kurt Hale, and Halestorm entertainment, has made some good films, but this is not one of them.

A strong pilot, this two-hour episode does an excellent job of setting up the characters and background for "Enterprise," the "prequel" to the original "Star Trek" series. It stumbles a few times into "Trek" convention and cliché--candy-colored space strippers never seem to go out of style, and I can already foresee snickering references to T'pol as "Seven of Vulcan"--but the ensemble looks strong, the characters are well-drawn, and one can already see hints that this particular crew will have to be more resourceful, in different ways, than those of earlier (later?) series. Scott Bakula hits the right note as a captain with Kirk's brashness and daring but without his smugness and swagger, and I look forward to the ways in which the series will feature the engineer, weapons master and communications officer (not just a glorified phone operator anymore!) as supporting players. The writers seem to have picked up on the one big mistake made in "Star Trek: The Next Generation," "Deep Space 9" and "Voyager": Instead of starting with a big ensemble cast and giving characters short shrift, it's starting with a smaller core of characters to which a little more variety can be added later--which I hope happens, because after about a half-dozen episodes, more variety will be needed.

This is absolutely the worst trash I have ever seen. When I saw it in the theater (arghhh!), it took 15 full minutes before I realized that what I was seeing was the feature, not a sick joke!

The Secret of Kells is an independent, animated feature that gives us one of the fabled stories surrounding the Book of Kells, an illuminated manuscript from the Middle Ages featuring the four Gospels of the New Testament. I didn't know that this book actually exists, but knowing it now makes my interpretation and analysis much a lot easier. There are a few stories and ideas floating around about how the book came to be, who wrote it, and how it has survived over 1,000 years. This is one of them.<br /><br />We are introduced to Brendan, an orphan who lives at the Abbey of Kells in Ireland with his uncle, Abbot Cellach (voiced by Brendan Gleeson). Abbot Cellach is constructing a massive wall around the abbey to protect the villagers and monks. Brendan is not fond of the wall and neither are the other monks. They are more focused on reading and writing, something Abbot Cellach does not have time for anymore. He fears the "Northmen," those who plunder and leave towns and villages empty and burnt to the ground.<br /><br />One day a traveler comes from the island of Iona near Scotland. It is Brother Aidan, a very wise man who carries with him a special book that is not yet finished. Abbot Cellach grants him permission to stay and Brendan buddies up with him. Aidan has special plans for Brendan. First he needs ink for the book, but he requires specific berries. The only way to get them is to venture outside the walls and into the forest, an area off limits to Brendan. Seeing that he is the only chance for Aidan to continue his work, he decides to sneak out and return with the berries before his uncle notices his absence.<br /><br />In the forest Brendan meets Ashley, the protector of the forest. She allows Brendan passage to the berries and along the way becomes akin to his company. She warns him of the looming danger in the dark and not to foil with it. There are things worse than Vikings out there. From there Brendan is met with more challenges with the book and the looming certainty of invasion.<br /><br />I like the story a lot more now that I know what it is about. Knowing now what the Book of Kells is and what it contains, the animation makes perfect sense. I'm sure you have seen pictures or copies of old texts from hundreds of years ago, with frilly borders, colorful pictures, and extravagant patterns, creatures, and writings adorning the pages. Much like the opening frames of Disney's The Sword in the Stone. The animation here contains a lot of similar designs and patterns. It creates a very unique viewing experience where the story and the animation almost try to outdo each other.<br /><br />I couldn't take my eyes off of the incredible detail. This is some of the finest 2D animation I have seen in years. It's vibrant, stimulating, and full of life. The characters are constantly surrounded by designs, doodles, and patterns in trees, on the walls, and in the air just floating around. It enhances the film.<br /><br />The story is satisfactory, although I think the ending could have been strung out a little more. With a runtime of only 75 minutes I think there could have been something special in the final act. It doesn't give a lot of information nor does it allude to the significance of the book. We are reminded of it's importance but never fully understand. We are told that it gives hope, but never why or how. That was really the only lacking portion of the film. Otherwise I thought the story was interesting though completely outdone by the animation.<br /><br />I guess that's okay to a certain degree. The animation can carry a film so far before it falls short. The story lacks a few parts, but it is an interesting take on a fascinating piece of history. I would recommend looking up briefly the Book of Kells just to get an idea of what myself and this film are talking about. I think it will help your viewing experience a lot more. This a very impressive and beautifully illustrated film that should definitely not be missed.

Police officer Michael (Tomas Arana, "The Church") has his hands full while investigating a serial killer who's been leaving parts of the bodies of the people that he's been murdering at the house of one recently widowed, Tracy (Joanna Pacula). Mike has to find a way to stop the bodies from piling up, while perhaps finding love in the process.<br /><br />A feeling of the 'giallo' films of yore pervades this film, even though we know who the killer is from the get-go, and the film contains a few good set-pieces (a scene later in the film set in a school for the blind being particularly memorable), but it doesn't make all that much sense when all is said and done either. All in all, not nearly as good as Bava's earlier "Macabre" nor his first two "Demons" films, but enjoyable enough if you can forgive the rather outrageous plot twists towards the end of the film. A pity the Image Entertainment DVD lacked extras of any kind, as I would have been interested in some.<br /><br />My Grade: C-

Rarely do I see a film that I am totally engrossed with; this was one of them. It had good acting, dialogue, plot, and the scenery was beautiful. I laughed out loud many times, especially the scene dealing with the kitchen raid. The slapstick comedy performed by the lunkhead hired hand had me one the floor, but I admit that I am a sucker for slapstick. The story dealt with a group of people in their 30's coming back to a summer camp that they had attended 20 years previously. It was a farewell week of camping, as the place would be closed down permanently at the end of the season. As adults the camp looked different, and they felt differently about it and each other. I recommend this funny, moving movie to all.<br /><br />

Man, is this lousy. It doesn't deserve much in the way of comment so, keeping it brief, Rebecca DeMornay is a highly disciplined police psychiatrist who falls for Latin Lover Antonio Banderas in a wine store, he of the ponytail and jail-house tats. When she cuts loose, she really cuts loose. Other than this torrid affair she's having (and we must admit the affair has its speed bumps) she's a pretty cold fish. Her broke, ailing father shows up for the first time in years and she boots him out. She's also adept at keeping her horny upstairs neighbor (Dennis Miller) at bay. And there's prisoner Harry Dean Stanton who's trying to maneuver her into giving him a diagnosis of multiple personality disorder so he won't have his privates nailed to the wall for the serial murders he's committed.<br /><br />All these people, and perhaps more, are immediately suspect when strange things begin happening to her. Somebody sends her dead flowers. Somebody does unspeakable things to her pet cat. (The next time I see a household pet turn up in a parcel or strung up in the closet or boiled in a pot, I'm going to puke.) So who's doing it? Guess. No power on earth could force me to reveal the ending, but maybe a hint will help: childhood abuse.<br /><br />The abuse excuse is an interesting business in itself, far more interesting than the movie. What does "childhood abuse" mean? Do we mean sexual abuse? Physical? Both? How about whacking a kid over the back with a wooden cooking spoon, hard enough to break it? That's what happened to me and my brother when we were kids, just as similar things happened to all the other errant boys in the neighborhood. Sexual abuse? That never happened to any of us, as far as I know, although I'm not sure it would have been rejected with any degree of animation. In the Samoan village I studied for two years, there was one case of an adolescent boy found playing sexually with a much younger girl. The girl's family beat hell out of him. The boy's own family sent him to live with another branch of the family in another village, an exile that lasted two years. By the time he returned the incident was forgotten by everyone, including the child. (By the way, the little girl we see here is under five so it's unlikely that she'd remember Dad's night-time visits in any case since long-term memory isn't really established until about that time.) DeMornay's experience leading to her mental disorder can be called "the social construction of trauma." It's not there unless we put it there. Enough of the psychiatric lecture. That will be fifteen cents.<br /><br />You want trauma? I'll give you trauma. The film absolutely forces us to identify with Rebecca DeMornay's character, right from the beginning. Then, when she has her first tryst with Antonio Banderas, and Pio Donnagio's score is pounding the eroticism into our heads, the camera gives us a shot from over her shoulder of the bare-torsoed Antonio crawling over us with his hairy chest. Now THAT'S traumatic. It makes any male viewer feel as if he's on the floor of the laundry room at the California Men's Colony in San Luis Obispo. Don't get me wrong. I don't dislike Antonio Banderas. It's just that I'm not in love with him. There aren't enough nude shots of Rebecca DeMornay's elfin body in the entire universe to compensate for that kind of anxiety.<br /><br />Here's an engaging way of surviving this movie. Instead of just sitting there puling, try picking out the scenes that were filmed in Toronto and separating them from the ones shot in Budapest. It's a challenge, really, and may, for all we know, preserve your sanity.

I read some previous comments stating that this movie loses steam towards the end of the movie and also that it has a similar ending to Cape Fear. I completely disagree. I'm going to give a simple review for the normal moviegoers out there. I thought the casting was perfect. I thought this was one of Ed Harris's best performances. What an evil psychopath!!! I have a lot of respect for his acting after viewing his performance in this movie. I was riveted throughout this movie. If you like mystery thrillers then this definitely a movie you want to see. I also noticed a young Scarlett Johannson in this movie. This movie is filled with top stars and I highly recommend it!

......in a horror movie that is. Alright first off , lets start with Kate. Her main goals include getting laid by George Clooney, looking good and last but not least screwing everyone over. Gotta love her. She had about 3 amazingly good chances to finish off this sicko but ..... instead she ran. I mean she didn't wanna bring Guy out for 10 minutes and when she did it was too late. I mean the guy tried to rape her. I cant get into these movies where the main character is a sad idiot. I mean who honestly would have any sympathy for a guy who finishes off everyone she has meet in a night. The movie kept going on. And as a result lost all its credibility.

I so love this movie! The animation is great (for a pokémon movie), the cgi looks so awesome. I love the music in the movie. So great they kept the Japanese music.<br /><br />As for the story: its great. It has a great feeling of friendship. Celebi is a very cute and powerful pokémon. Ash is really great in this movie, and I like his friendship with Sam. The only thing I didn't like was Suicune's appearance, he just suddenly pops up, helps Ash & co a bit and leaves. They could have made his part in the movie a little bigger.<br /><br />But overall, awesome movie! Can't wait to own the USA version on dvd!

Received this DVD from the ACCENT range which is a label which specializes in art-house flics, they released Irreversible and a range of Bergman's opus.<br /><br />The thing that struck me about Alex Frayne's strangely titled film MODERN LOVE is that it is an impeccable film that breathes with perfection and vision, a film that takes us into the mind of Mr Joe Average, replete with voices in the head, visions, and madness. It's set in rural redneck Australia, the film doesn't trivialise or praise the folks like so many Australian movies. ie our films are full of "loveable rogues" or people with "hearts of gold" etc etc etc.<br /><br />Not in this film. The spirit of Stanley Kubrick looms large here, it's not flawless, but has a mesmerising attention to details, a romantic streak and a mood that is bracing if not embraceable.<br /><br />Minor quibbles...the transfer looks faulty - front credits were sliced, they don't fit in frame.<br /><br />Also, one of the short films is corrupted, it stops half way.

Norman, Is That You? was (this is all third hand, so take it with a grain of salt) adapted to an African American family from a Jewish one, when it made the transition off stage and onto screen. Also, it was one of those movies originally filmed in video, so the prints from the theater can't have been that great. Still, performances by Redd Foxx and others were pretty good. <br /><br />What I wanted to tell you all is that the movie is a PERIOD PIECE: it reflected the attitudes in the mid to early 70s about finding out you have a gay son or daughter in your family. For that reason alone, it's pretty interesting- if not a little "hollywood". Don't believe me? Check out lines about curtains, etc. Very stereotypical. Not too deep.<br /><br />But... the movie really shines in a couple of areas. There is a side splitting scene when Redd Foxx is trying to find his wife, who's run away with his brother (!) to Ensenada in a souped up Pinto. The phone conversation across the border is really memorable. <br /><br />But... the best scene in the movie is when Wayland Flowers and Madame did his/their gay routine that he used to do in gay bars and nightclubs. To the best of my knowledge, this is the only time that routine was filmed. And, it's a slightly cleaned up and much shorter version, I'm told. Still, it's vintage Madame, and shouldn't be missed. People are still stealing lines from Wayland; the man was truly gifted. Enjoy the movie!

On seeing this movie, I didn't expect much. I was delightfully surprised. Although the writing was unpolished, as some of the dialog seemed drawn-out and contrived, the script did have shining moments. (My favorite line, "Life is like a rich meringue, an-and I'm diabetic, so I can't enjoy it...".) The plot was new and refreshing as opposed to some of the newer more "main-stream" horror that most of us are (sadly) growing used to. I do believe some of the scenes could (should) have been longer (and maybe some shorter). The superfluous use of blood was campy but seemed to make sense in the end....Ah, the end. The end would have been a little better if they had explained why what happened, happened. (I don't wanna spoil it.) It might have also added to the movie time, which is in the area of "it's only an hour long, how good could it be?" Answer- Quite good.

This movie was great the first time I saw it, when it was called "Lost in Translation." But somehow Bill Murray turned into an eccentric black man played by Morgan Freeman, Scarlett Johansson turned into a cranky Latino woman played by Paz Vega, and Tokyo, Japan turned into Carson, California. Instead of meaningful conversations and silence we enjoyed in Translation, we get meaningless blabbering in 10 Items that verges on annoying. Instead of characters that were pensive and introspective as in Translation, we get characters that spew pointless advice on topics they have no clue about. How can a character that wears hundred dollar T-shirts and has never been inside a Target department store expect to give advice to a working-class woman on how to prepare for a job interview as an administrative assistant? Don't think that stops him. If he isn't giving her clothing advice, he's telling her what she should eat. The most annoying part of the movie for me was how supposedly they were in a hurry to make an appointment, and yet the characters keep finding time to run another errand, be it washing the car, stopping at Arby's, or just laying around to list off their 10 Items or Less lists of things they love and hate. I kept wanting to yell at them saying, "Didn't you say you had somewhere to be? What the heck are doing? A minute ago you were practically late, now you're eating roast beef and pondering your lives!" Until I saw this movie, I never truly understood how something could "insist upon itself," but I think this movie does exactly that, and undeservedly so. The dialogue makes the characters cheesy and unsympathetic…with the exception that I felt sorry for both of the actors for having signed onto this project.

Having just seen the A Perfect Spy mini series in one go, one can do nothing but doff one's hat - a pure masterpiece, which compared to the other Le Carré minis about Smiley, has quite different qualities.<br /><br />In the minis about Smiley, it is Alex Guiness, as Smiley, who steals the show - the rest of the actors just support him, one can say.<br /><br />Here it is ensemble and story that's important, as the lead actor, played excellently by Peter Egan in the final episodes, isn't charismatic at all. <br /><br />Egan just plays a guy called Magnus Pym, who by lying, being devious and telling people what they like to hear, is very well liked by everyone, big and small. The only one who seems to understand his inner self is Alex, his Czech handler.<br /><br />Never have the machinery behind a spy, and/or traitor, been told better! After having followed his life from a very young age we fully understand what it is that makes it possible to turn him into a traitor. His ability to lie and fake everything is what makes him into 'a perfect spy', as his Czech handler calls him. <br /><br />And, by following his life, we fully understand how difficult it is to get back to the straight and narrow path, once you've veered off it. He trundles on, even if he never get anything economic out of it, except promotion by his MI5 spy masters. Everyone's happy, as long as the flow of faked information continues! <br /><br />Magnus's father, played wonderfully by Ray McAnally, is a no-good con-man, who always dreams up schemes to con people out of their money. In later years it is his son who has to bail him out, again and again. But by the example set by his dad and uncle, who takes over as guardian when his father goes to prison, and his mom is sent off to an asylum, Magnus quickly learns early that lying is the way of surviving, not telling the truth. At first he overdoes it a bit, but quickly learn to tell the right lies, and to be constant, not changing the stories from time to time that he tell those who want to listen about himself and his dad.<br /><br />His Czech handler Alex, expertly played by Rüdiger Weigang, creates, with the help of Magnus, a network of non-existing informants, which supplies the British MI5 with fake information for years, and years, just as the British did with the German spies that were active in the UK before and during the war - they kept on sending fake information to Das Vaterland long after the agents themselves had been turned, liquidated or simply been replaced by MI5 men.<br /><br />The young lads who play Magnus in younger years does it wonderfully, and most of them are more charismatic than the older, little more cynic, and tired, Pym, played by Egan. But you buy the difference easily, as that is often the way we change through life, from enthusiasm to sorrow, or indifference.<br /><br />Indeed well worth the money!

this is one of my all time favourite films. its one of those films where i know every line but can still watch it repeatedly without losing interest. i always throw on this film if I'm going on holiday, or if i don't want to go to the gym, just seeing Nikki's gorgeous body will give me the motivation i need. Its an easy to watch film which always keeps me smiling but i know it wont be everyones cup of tea, but if like me you love films that are shot beautifully and have comedy, romance and an interesting plot you will love it. It is filled with great characters and Ben and Nikki are both gorgeous so anyone can stare at something appealing. BOTTOM LINE......YOU HAVE TO GIVE IT A TRY! I watched it on TV one day by fluke and loved it that i had to go out and track it down which took some time and i could watch it everyday. MY FATHER THE HERO I LOVE YOU!!!

I thought this was movie was great, Richard Greico and Yasmine Bleeth have great chemistry in this movie. Yasmine Bleeth's character plays a women who has fallen head over heals in love with Richard Greico's character. They end up getting married and everything seems perfect except Yasmine Bleeth wants a baby more than anything, however she has a hard time trying to conceive. Richard Greico will do anything to make her happy, and will go to extreme measures to make her happy. I thought the acting was great in this movie, and it keeps you guessing. It shows how naive one can be when they have fallen in love. Yasmine Bleeth is a good actress in this, and I wonder why she never made it further in her career. Richard Greico is very impressive as the deceiving husband, and plays the evil part very well. I wonder why certain actors make it and certain ones don't. All and all a great movie that I would recommend.

High heels are tricksy things. They can elevate women (or cross-dressing men) to newfound heights, put forward a sharp statement of style and bring a touch of fragile elegance. Alternatively, they can be a perilous foot pain that will inevitably lead to trips, falls and ultimate tragedy. Tacones lejanos is more of a disappointment trip than a stylish high riser.<br /><br />Almodóvar's mother-daughter drama is stylish for sure, but in terms of plot it's a tongue-tied and tedious affair full of confusing, complex characters that never fully engage or make sense. A few moments of comedy aside, Tacones lejanos just isn't interesting. The best bit comes at the beginning in a marvellously macabre case of manslaughter orchestrated by a child. From this brilliant bit of black comedy things are looking up, but then the film comes to a heel.<br /><br />There's solid enough acting performances and there's some stylish, arty direction that you'd expect from Almodóvar, but otherwise Tacones lejanos isn't an impressive piece of Spanish cinema. With a story of murder, showbiz, femininity, fractured mother-daughter relationship and a character who is alternately a judge, a transvestite and a police informer this could have been a melodramatic powerhouse. Instead it's poor. High Heels stumbles for sure.

The person who wrote the glowing review of this misguided project must be related to the writer/director/star--or is, in fact, the same person as it defies rational thinking that this movie would be appealing to anyone not connected to a very tightly woven inner circle. How about this? You want to make a movie--tell a story; entertain; draw me in with vivid characters. Sure, you can do it artfully without bowing to the commercial elements designed for mass appeal. However, do not address elements of artistic expression in a vacuum in which the audience is in a continual struggle to grasp at skimpy narrative threads. If I'm to be moved by a dreamy psychological thread then make the concrete fabric easier to buy.

I think this movie deserves a 10 out of 10 because it is hilariously funny from start to finish. The plot is simple and straight forward but it keeps you watching and there are so many laughs that you really start to love it. When I went to see this movie I hadn't heard much about it and I didn't know what to expect. I thought it was going to be an old ladies' type of film like Calendar Girls or something but it took me completely by surprise. Even though I am still a teenager and the film was probably not directed at my age group, I still found it excellent and I think that people of all age groups would like it. I think it is a shame that it is not at all famous and it deserves more publicity so that more people will go and see it and realize what a great movie it is.

I was disappointed with the recent (2000) American remake of this English mini-series. Though it followed the plot line very closely, it seemed to leave the heart and soul of the original out. Not to mention adding shallow preachy heavy-handed 'messages'... So my advice is to skip the modern remake and stick with the original. It's much longer, but gripping and totally well done. Interesting, complex and textured, without the preachy self-righteousness... and it's beautifully shot, as well.<br /><br />I find it galling that these heartless remakes of great overseas films get so much Hollywood fanfare at the Oscars. (Though I did like Benicio Del Torro getting some deserved praise...)

I remember this movie when i was 13 (seems a lot of reviews are saying the same thing AGE 13!) with a group of school buddies. We all wanted to see Billy Crystal in his first movie, and fell for the typical commercial ads telling us this was a great comedy. We suffered through about 45 minutes of it, and all agreed to leave the theater. It was grotesque & tasteless, and a far cry from the ability Billy Crystal had to make us laugh, we were not laughing. I stumbled upon this review by accident, and decided to register just to tell the rest of the world what a rot-gut waste of film this was, now if you rent this, you deserve what you get, YOU'VE BEEN WARNED!!

First off let me say that this has to be on the top of my list of boring movies. Nothing, and I mean nothing in this movie is even remotely thrilling. Most of it is very confusing and as it progresses you just wish it would end!! Some people want a movie that makes them "think" through the entire thing, to which I say..."More power to you"!! I on the other hand just want to be entertained. Which brings me back to this stinker, entertainment it is not. This movie is stupid and a complete waste of time. Seems that most here agree also. Most of this didn't make any sense, and by the time you think you have one scene figured out another lame scene comes around and....well I guess you see where this is going. Avoid, this one sucks....bad!!

In São Paulo, the upper middle class teenagers Cristiano, Chico and Gabriel have just joined the university and on the eve of the opening class, they go to a party with drugs and booze. On the next day, after their classes, the date of Cristiano in the previous night comes to his house and the three friends rape the girl. The girl dies, they panic and decide to get rid off the body, but Cristiano's mother arrives, startles with Gabriel and rolls the staircase, breaking her neck. The trio decides to dump and burn the corpses in a garbage landfill, but along the night other tragedies happen.<br /><br />The polemic and shameful "Cama de Gato" is an overrated pretentious crap about alienation of the youth, and is certainly the worst Brazilian movie that I have seen along many years. The shallow, tragic and dark story is actually a black humor comedy of bad taste. The screenplay is not funny, with stupid lines and dialogs, and boring, manipulative and silly footages with interviews with morons teenagers in the beginning and in the end. The acting is terrible, apparently with many improvisations, but no talent, and I was disappointed with presence of the promising Caio Blat in this trash. The camera, framing, cinematography and edition are amateurish and of very low quality. The sound is awful and in many parts it is impossible to understand what the actors and actresses are speaking (probably it is a plus, since this flick sucks). The gang bang is very realistic and used to promote this mediocre movie in a very poor marketing of sex-exploitation. My vote is one (awful).<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Cama de Gato" ("Bed of the Cat")

Mickey Rourke hunts Diane Lane in Elmore Leonard's Killshot It is not like Mickey Rourke ever really disappeared. He has had a steady string of appearances before he burst back on the scene. He was memorable in: Domino, Sin City, Man on Fire, Once Upon a Time in Mexico, and Get Carter. But in his powerful dramatic performance in The Wrestler (2008), we see a full blown presentation of the character only hinted at in Get Carter. Whenever we get to know him, Rourke remains a cool, but sleazy, muscle bound slim ball.<br /><br />This is an Elmore Leonard story, and production. Leonard wrote such notable movies as taunt western thriller 3:10 to Yuma, Be Cool, Jackie Brown, Get Shorty, 52 Pick-Up, and Joe Kidd. This means that we get tough guys, some good, some not so good.<br /><br />It also means we get tight, realistic plots with characters doing what is best for them in each situation, weaving complications into violent conclusions. Killshot is no different. Tough, slim ball killer Rourke stalks unhappily married witness Lane. Think History of Violence meets No Country for Old Men. It is not as intense, bloody or gory as those two, but it is almost as good. If you like those two, including David Croneberg's equally wonderful Eastern Promises, you will like Killshot also.<br /><br />Director John Madden has not done a lot of movies. His last few were enjoyable, if not successful: Proof, Captain Corelli's Mandolin and Shakespeare in Love.<br /><br />Diana Lane hasn't had a powerful movie role since she and Richard Gere gave incredible performances in Unfaithful. Lately she is charming and appealing in romantic stories such as Nights in Rodanthe, Must Love Dogs, and Under the Tuscan Sun. Here she is right on mark, balancing her sexy appeal with reserved tension.<br /><br />This is a small part for Rosario Dawson. Yet Dawson does a good job with it. You see a lot more of Lane, including an underwear scene to rival Sigourney Weaver in Aliens and Nicole Kidman in Eyes Wide Shut.<br /><br />While you are in the crime drama section, also pick up Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang, and Gone Baby Gone, and Before the Devil Knows Your Dead. The last has wonderful performances by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Ethan Hawke, Marisa Tomei and Albert Finney.<br /><br />Killshot flopped at the box office. More is our luck. It is certainly worth a 3-4 dollar rental, if you like this genre. 6/20/2009

This reminded me SOO much of Michael Winner's crappy 'Dirty Weekend' with it's awful English low budget feel.<br /><br />Firstly I must say I am a fan of both exploitation and serious film. I appreciate, say, 'Demented' for it's ineptitude and 'Last House on the Left' for it's sheer unashamed brutality. And any number of inventive and increasingly brutal Italian spin offs.<br /><br />This was just pointless though. Kind of like a British budget director thought 'let's remake "I Spit on your Grave" without making it too harrowing now that horror is back in fashion with Hostel.<br /><br />The whole thing just doesn't hang together or have a point. What's with the rapists's daughter? Why bother having the man be an expert in security cameras? Crappy.

Although I have definitely read this particular Agatha Christie book at some point, I didn't remember anything about it except the name "Abernethie". Which is a good thing, because seeing this story unfold without knowing how it will play out allowed me to appreciate once more the sheer GENIUS of Agatha Christie: the way she misleads you and then pulls the rug out from under your feet is the main reason for her success and timelessness. In addition to her stories, the excellent production values, beautiful locations, wonderful music, top-notch acting, elegant directing, etc. are the reasons for this series' success and timelessness - and all those virtues are present in "After the Funeral". A word of advice: be alert right from the start - there are clues dropped all over the place even in the opening sequence! There are some quite unnerving moments as well, in contrast to the peaceful-looking English-countryside locations, and some small touches of humor. A must-see for mystery buffs, and just a very good film in general. (***)

I always enjoy seeing movies that make you think, and don't just drip-feed the answers to their audience. "Revolver" is one of these films, and although many reviewers have stated that it is difficult to follow, with a bit of concentration and an open mind I got it. First time. True, it doesn't compare to other mind-mucks like "The Usual Suspects" or "Memento", but in its own right its an intelligent and thought-provoking film. <br /><br />Another thing I really liked about this film is how damn beautiful it is. Every scene, every camera angle seems to have been thought about for ages. If you see it you'll know what I mean.<br /><br />So, to conclude... watch it with an open mind and you may enjoy it. If not, well, no-one ever said "Revolver" is for everyone. And that's my 2 cents.

The acting was bad, and the plot, well i don't think there was one.<br /><br />Some fat blonde chap who is always dressed in a dinner suit, kidnaps a sort from a nightclub, i think he then kills a copper. pointless fights then happen Kidnapped girl is put in cage on a boat, why? Tough uncompromising martial arts trained cop turns up, speaks bad english and does stuff that does not make sense. Its utter tripe. But he does have a nice car. christ on a bike, this film was a waste of 90 minutes.

jim carrey rocks! if he's in a movie its bound to be good! he did not disappoint me with this one!the rest of the cast was cute,especially little cindy lou who and martha may, i was laughing through the whole thing and cannot wait to see it again!

I bought this film as I thought the cast was decent and I like Jennifer Rubin & Patsy Kensit.<br /><br />First off let me say the acting is not of a high standard. Stephen Baldwin makes his character look almost retarded at times and at other times morose. Patsy Kensit is so-so but not too convincing in some scenes, and the supposed poetry she spouts in a particular scene in her Hotel Room is utterly meaningless rubbish. Ms Kensit is certainly very suggestive and sexy here but ultimately I think Jennifer Rubin is by far the best in this film. Ms Rubins Character is at first innocent, then sexy, as she plays Stephen Baldwin's Character (Travis)for a fool. The supporting cast includes Adam Baldwin(no relation to his more famous namesakes) & M.Emmet Walsh who has appeared in many films, also I noticed Art Evans who was one of John Mclane's allies in Die Hard 2. The Movie is decent and there are a few nude scenes with Rubin & Kensit, a bit of action but this is certainly not a fast moving or intelligent thriller. There is a particular scene when they are in the car about to commit a crime and Stephen Balwin's character is wearing sunglasses and when you see him again, the area around his eyes etc is painted black instead, then the sunglasses reappear later when they are leaving the crime scene and police are in pursuit, a very obvious error in editing. <br /><br />If you are fans of either of the ladies or either Baldwin then you may find something to like here, but others should steer clear. This is a reasonable but unremarkable thriller and not really worth more than a couple of dollars if you want it.

While I totally disagree with one reviewer who described Charley Chase as unfunny, in this film he certainly is. It's a shame, as I suspect the other reviewer must have only seen a few Charley Chase duds and assumed the guy wasn't funny. Films like MIGHTY LIKE A MOOSE and WHAT PRICE GOOFY? are very good Chase films, so he COULD be really funny given good material. Unfortunately, in this film he's given absolutely nothing. Even the inclusion of the usually good Oliver Hardy as a foil isn't any help because the basic premise (boy wants to marry girl but girl's father thinks the boy is a wuss) and the gags are so poor. It's a shame, as I really wanted to love this film but couldn't.<br /><br />By the way, for those used to the look for Charley from the mid-1920s on, you'll be pretty surprised as Chase sports no glasses or mustache--and looks very little like you'd expect.

And it got it in France ! Why not in the rest of the world while the studios keep churning out expensive post-Grisham trash (Will anyone remember him as a fine writer, and not the most betrayed-by-the-screen author this side of Stephen King ?) this one has it all. Okay, the situations are not always original, has minor plot holes and it has a tendency to be too clever some (brief) times for its own sake, but it actually delivers and is obviously a work of love. I'd be curious to know what the budget was. AND. for once, this is not a cheap Tarantino copy ! (Well, film noir didn't started with Tarantino, you know.) Will it once again be saved by Europe, like John Dahl's movies were, so Mr Guttierez can make another one like this ? If you ever read this, Mr Guttierez, thank you and se

"Subconscious Cruelty" has to be one of the most disturbing films I've ever seen. "Salo" and "Cannibal Holocaust" didn't bother me that much, but there's a strange psychological element to "Subconscious Cruelty". This film invades your subconscious mind with shocking taboos, surrealist visuals and one of the most unsettling film scores and sound designs. Repulsive at times; yes, but its visual flair can be compared to Avant Gard directors such as Alejandro Jodorowsky, Dario Argento, Dusan Makavejev and David Lynch. Take the most extreme elements of those 4 directors and throw in the graphic violence of a film by Luico Fulci, and you might be able to guess what you're in for. <br /><br />The film is divided into 4 parts. The first part "the Ovarian Eye" is real short. A narrator tells us about the the parts of the brain and its functions. Then a nude woman gets her stomach cut open and an eyeball is pulled out. The second part "Human Larvae" is kind of like the film "Eraserhead" but with incest. It deals with a man's sexual obsession with his pregnant sister. Where's Frued when you need him? The third part is my absolute favorite. It reminds me of "Begotten" and Jame's Broughton's 1972 short film "Dreamwood". In this segment people have sex with the earth. Men hump bloody holes in the ground, girls masturbate with tree branches. The branches bleed when broken. Watch in horror as a man gives fellatio to a knife sticking out of a woman's vagina. These people really know how to get in touch with nature.<br /><br />The last part of the film is the most disturbing and at times it borders on hardcore pornography. This part of the film made me think of Jodorowsky's "the Holy Mountain", "Sweet Movie" and "Cannibal Holocaust". I've never been more disturbed in my life by what I witnessed. A business man gets his privates pulled apart by fishhooks. Yuck and Ouch! Two women urinate on a Christ figure and proceed to cannibalistically eat him like communion bread and sodomize him with a tree branch. Poor guy. The last part was so extreme that if I ever watch the film again, I'll have close my eyes or slightly fast forward. Karim Hussien and Mitch Davis are obviously very talented, To think they did this project in there early 20's. Hussein went on to direct the Tarkovsky influenced "Ascension" (2002) which is a much better film and he co-write the screenplay for Nacho Cerda's after dark horror masterpiece "the Abandoned". "Subconscious Cruelty" is a fascinating and unsettling journey; with images that come from the unthinkable realm of everyday human minds. Well, sort of.

Having grown up with GWTW, I shunned both the "Scarlett" sequel book and the mini-series until now. When I recently viewed the video for the first time, I was amazed how much I enjoyed watching Timothy Dalton's depiction of Rhett Butler and Joanne Walley-Kilmer's as Scarlet. I feel "Scarlet" should be judged on its own merits rather than attempting any comparison with the venerable Selznick masterpiece GWTW. While the "Scarlet" story line and some of the dialogue suffered from lack of inspired writing, overall I thought this was a worthwhile dramatization of what might have been between Scarlett and Rhett.

Monster is a mind numbingly awful movie about an evil American concrete factory (are there any else in Hollywood?) polluting the waters of the small Colombian town of Chimayo somehow creating a catfish-like beast with a predilection for lamb and loose women. James Mitchum is Bill Travis the man who is sent down to Chimayo by his foul-mouthed boss Barnes who himself can't keep his hands off of his secretary's rear to get to the bottom (pun intended) of the story. While in Chimayo Bill must contend with an annoying reporter who apparently broadcasts all of her stories in perfect English directly back to America. I guess in the seventies there was a market for news from small South American towns. There is also a radical named Sanchez that wishes to sabotage the factory for polluting the water which, by the way, also supplies the town with jobs for the locals, but why let cold hearted economics get in the way of touchy-feely enviro-marxism. Pete the factory boss is unwittingly aided by the monster when he has sex with his ex-girlfriend on the beach, tells her that he is seeing the mayor's daughter Juanita and it's over between them, then she is promptly eaten that night. A little side action without the evidence. My hat is off to you Sir. John Carradine rounds out the cast as a priest that believes the monster is sent by God to punish sinners. You can see the contempt he has for being in this movie in his face. Might as well filmed him running to the local currency exchange to see if his check didn't bounce.<br /><br />Supposedly based on a true story, so much so they say it twice in the opening credits, this film is awful on all fronts. Filming began in 1971 and was abandoned until eight years later when Kenneth Hartford put his foot on the throat of Monster by adding his two annoying children as new characters, even putting his daughter, Andrea in top billing with Mitchum and Carradine. The sound quality is nonexistent and most of the scenes seem as if someone smeared tar over the camera before filming. This is made even more tedious during the many scenes done at night. The monster itself is laughable as it rears its ugly rubbery head for the anticlimactic ending. James Mitchum along with his brother Chris are proof that nepotism in the acting industry needs to be curtailed. Utterly unwatchable dreck. Shame on you John Carradine.

Although i watched this film by myself(thankfully), i still felt embarrassed while watching it. I was tricked into renting it by the reviews on the front cover, and the bloody/gritty camera stills on the back-which led me to believe it was some sort of documentary. These actors are laughable throughout the entire film, not convincing at all. The story involves an Italian Australian(?) gang, just fighting other gangs, and then running,fighting,repeat. Supposedly they train extremely hard, which makes them way better than other gangs. For some reason I don't believe that they could actually beat up some of these other guys that are twice their size. I could be wrong... no I'm not wrong, this movie is not enjoyable on any level.The jail montage looked like it was a summer camp, just instead of kids, it was a sausage fest of horrible actors, just hanging out and laughing and trying to look hard. This movie is not worth your time, save your money, or throw it in the garbage, just don't waste it on this movie.

Although I generally do not like remakes believing that remakes are waste of time; this film is an exception. I didn't actually know so far until reading the previous comment that this was a remake, so my opinion is purely about the actual film and not a comparison.<br /><br />The story and the way it is written is no question: it is Capote. There is no need for more words.<br /><br />The play of Anthony Edwards and Eric Roberts is superb. I have seen some movies with them, each in one or the other. I was certain that they are good actors and in case of Eric I always wondered why his sister is the number 1 famous star and not her brother. This time this certainty is raised to fact, no question. His play, just as well as the play of Mr. Edwards is clearly the top of all their profession.<br /><br />I recommend this film to be on your top 50 films to see and keep on your DVD shelves.

Bon Voyage is fun for the audience because it combines the requisite silliness of a comedy with just enough sobriety to keep viewers actively engaged and invested in the outcome. Most importantly though, the film is also historically instructive; it captures the tension of the so-called "phony war" and, later, the French aristocracy's flight from Paris ahead of the German onslaught. Yet Bon Voyage is not a "war movie." It is a comedy about the lives of a handful of people set against the backdrop of extraordinary times. Bon Voyage conveys the chaos, confusion, and emotional bewilderment of a nation of the brink of collapse and the wide spectrum of French reactions to the new political order. This film is a comedy which entertains the audience, a romance which skillfully utilizes many clichés, and a story of a handful of people whose nation is collapsing around them.

I couldn't' agree more than with the comment left by "coldshitaction" and how this film is a masterpiece. I have never seen a film that had my adrenalin flowing that this film did, and that mostly happened when Bronson comes running out a fire escape with like an M-60 and plows down like 20 dude from a gang, it's genius. Quite possibly the best action movie ever made (no exaggeration either), it really could be the best action movie ever made. From the start, one should know that you;re in for something sweet when the police let Bronson go and tell him, tell him, to clean up the slums. Once again, genius. And once again Bronson is a bad ass. Paul Kersey is just as cool, maybe even cooler than John McClain or the Terminator, he's just simply a bad ass. And what else is great is the fact that he's a nice guy and buys a kid some ice cream and helps out an old couple all before he kills some scum bag. genius. Highly recommended, if you hate this movie you're crazy.

Annoying, static comedy with a painfully miscast Peter Sellers as a smarmy, self-centered Casanova who always has his way with the ladies. A major blemish on Sellers' filmography, and, even worse, a film that seems to have been made solely to satisfy the ego of its star. (*)