Datasets:

srivatsavaasista

/

textgenerator-ds-mini

like 0

This movie is basically a spoof on Hitchcock's Strangers on a train, which i thought was overrated anyway. The plot has Danny Devito going to see Strangers and then thinking Billy Crystal wants them to swap murders, For Crystal to murder his mother and Devito to murder his wife. Both Devito and Crystal are great and so is Devito's mother. This is Devito's directorial debut and it's better than the war of the roses.

It's partly bad luck for "Illuminata" that it comes out after "Shakespeare in Love" as it deals with virtually the same themes of life as art, art as life and the Magic of the Theatre and the same archetypal Foibles of Theater Folk, but a whole lot more ponderously.<br /><br />There are scenes that come alive, as a play develops and gets reinterpreted by a writer's life, but there's a whole lot of Orson Welles-ish ego in this produced by/directed by/lead acted by John Torturro as a vehicle for his wife Katharine Borowitz (with an adorable cameo by their son).<br /><br />Each actor gets his/her moment literally in the spotlight, but there's so many "masques" or set pieces that seem like 19th century parlor games. Bill Irwin Talks. Susan Sarandon gets to be a diva. Christopher Walken gets to be a different kind of villain - a gay critic. The women have to disrobe unnecessarily because this is an Art Film.<br /><br />The art and set direction are marvelous, though quite dark. This should get an award as the Best Use of a Jersey City Theater as A Set Ever In a Movie. (originally written 8/21/99)

Simply one of the best movies ever. If you won't get it - sorry for you. I believe that someday people will include this one in their all-time top 10's. Not now, but in the far future.

This is a low-budget spoof of the espionage genre. To help frame your expectations, you should know that: (1) The acting is wildly heavy-handed. The stars are having great fun delivering their lines with excessive eye movement, frequent hand gestures, and off-key pacing. (2) The script deliberately lacks continuity and plausibility. Oftentimes lines are abruptly jarring and humorous because they have absolutely no relevance to previous plot elements. (3) Shots are frequently framed in off-balance angles, poking fun at genre excesses. (4) A pop-eyed Jeff Goldblum delivers complex and classically preposterous dialog in a winningly sarcastic manner.<br /><br />The film has a guiding intelligence, deliberately starting with a plot element stolen from the B-films of the 1930's: a secret code with a structure that would defy explanation by Carl Sagan. The film's over-the-top acting is used mostly for comic effect during the first 90 minutes. In an early running gag, Fay Grim's son Ned is so frequently told to leave that you can't help chuckling while feeling sorry for the lad. Parker Posey's nicely choreographed fall from bed also helps set a humorous tone early in the film.<br /><br />The film's slow pacing does not enhance the comedy elements or the drama elements that later emerge. The film's impact as drama is significantly lessened by the early comedy. Moreover, it is hard to be overly involved with the characters and their fates when the early portions of the film are so sarcastic. The musical score is intentionally heavy handed, and I found this (and the off-kilter camera angles) more irritating than humorous.<br /><br />The over-the-top acting, the implausible and nearly incomprehensible plot of conspiracies/counter conspiracies, and the slow pacing will grind on many viewers. The movie is much too long at 158 minutes.<br /><br />That said, fans who are receptive to the film's sarcasm might want to watch again ... using closed captioning to best catch the intelligent ridiculousness of the dialog. The film was too slow for me and the sarcasm felt more heavy-handed than light-hearted. But, the comedy may well appeal to your tastes. The film is worth a view for those who enjoy independent films, fans of director Hal Harley, or devotees of Parker Posey (who has the most camera time).

I was looking forward to seeing Amanda Peet in another good role after recently renting "The Whole Nine Yards"--easily worth the rental, by the way--but this wasn't it.<br /><br />I remembered that the trailer for "Whipped" was somewhat funny and the plot about three oversexed New Yorker twenty somethings all falling for and getting manipulated by the charming Ms. Peet was worth a shot. So, I convinced two friends one afternoon to come see this movie with me. This review is my penance.<br /><br />In the first act we have the three lead studs, recounting their conquests in a diner. What should have been funny, or at least telling, comes out rather pathetic. Was there any redeeming quality about the three men and their encounters that we were supposed to get out of this?<br /><br />[And while I don't mind movies that are cheerfully vulgar, I kept wondering why no one in the diner turned around when the studs talk loudly about sexual and scatalogical details. They do this every week at the same diner? You would think someone would complain. Oh, wait, I forgot: two other diners do notice in one scene. But this is just a setup for a punchline. Everyone else in the diner is deaf.]<br /><br />The second act has the three studs all falling for Mia and then developing brain rot, failing to ask each other or her about what's really happening between the four of them. And I kept asking myself, as the studs keep acting like they have been, what redeeming qualities does she see in them to stick with them longer than one date? Does she start out with brain rot? I kept hoping for Eric's character, the married buddy, to become something more than simply the annoying punching bag in this act. His role is clearly to dispense advice on being married. But why do they even bother to talk to him when they won't talk to each other? And his advice? Sheeesh!<br /><br />The third act resolves what plot there is but by this time I was looking at my watch. My friends told me they were still waiting for something genuinely funny to happen and I had to agree. The Scene That Explains All was adequate and managed to explain all of the questions and mysterious dialogue bits throughout the movie but we were just checking them off a list. ("Oh, okay, that's why Brad had that happen and Jonathan says this and...")<br /><br />What laughs we made were from the stupidity of the plot than at anything amusing. Even the outtakes during the credits weren't very funny. Ultimately I was left with nothing except a desire to warn people away from this movie.<br /><br />Rating: 3

This TV show is possibly the most pathetic display of crap on TV today. Horribly predictable, obscene usage of slow motion photography, cheesy story lines. Chuck Norris is an abomination who should never have been allowed to be filmed in anything. The way he chooses to make each episode into a public service announcement is really annoying. His acting sucks so bad that it makes a person cringe with embarrassment. I will give the series some credit though...it does get entertaining at times, but not enough for it make any difference. With all the negative points this series has, i still prefer it over reality TV, it can't really get any more worthless than that.

The word impossible has led many to select a particular view concerning any incredible task. In 1927, it was believed no man could fly the breath of the Atlantic Ocean. Many had tried but failed and some even gave their lives to the effort. Nevertheless, it had to be done as every challenge needs to be met with equal determination. Such then is the heart of this movie called "The Spirit of St. Louis." The actor chosen for this historic film is none other than America's own James Stewart who convincingly plays Charles Lindbergh. Although there are many facets of Lindbergh's life, the segment featured here is his efforts to be the First Man to fly across the Atlantic. The story is an interesting one and for Stewards' fans compelling to say the least. Seeking enough funds to build a special aircraft, to the fateful decision to began the journey on a gloomy day in May 1927, 'Luck Lindy' as he was christened, endured enormous risks, which are featured in this superb film. Other notables which helped make this film believable are Murray Hamilton who plays Bud Gurney, Bartlett Robinson as Ben Mahoney, Arthur Space and Charles Watts as O.W. Schultz. The sum total of this now famous movie is that despite poor endorsement on its debut, it has since become a Classic in it's own right. Well done! ****

I just saw this film at the 2001 Toronto international film festival. The working title there was 'Dog Days'. The audience reaction was mixed. Some people found the graphic sex and realistic violence to be too much for them. Others seemed to genuinely appreciate how good this film was.<br /><br />This film isn't for the faint of heart. It's like 'Happiness' with explicit sex and a less optimistic view of humanity. There's animal poisoning, a strip-tease from a senior citizen, an orgy'esque' bathouse in a shopping centre, anal candle penetration, and the molestation of the mentally incompetent.<br /><br />If any of this sounds like too much to handle then this film isn't for you. This film shows humanity at its most desperate and pathetic. The banality of our existence is shoved in our face with utmost glee.<br /><br /> Seidl has no interest in redeeming humanity here. And why should he? This film features excellent performances from all involved, is always interesting, and is probably the most intelligent social statement to be made on film in awhile.

i chose to see the this film on the day it opened nationally in france, as a personal way for myself to reflect on what had happened a year previous; the collection works as intended: it provokes a whirlwind of thoughts and emotions, working as an intellectual hommage, never stooping to cheap sentimentality nor knee-jerk reactionism.<br /><br />there have been many allegations made that the film is anti-american: while i cannot speak for everyone in this regard, i am one american who found such statements to be completely untrue. people make much noise about the egyptian segment, by Chahine, because it voices perspectives of palestinian suicide bombers asserting that civilians in a democracy are "fair targets" for they elect the governments the bombers are seeking to attack, but this ignores much else in the piece: several perspectives are discussed, no one being held up as the truth, and critics--if they even saw the piece--seem to forget the fondness and warm dialogue that takes place between the director and the ghost of the american dialogue, and the director's intense sadness upon hearing of the tragedy.<br /><br />pretty much all of the films are beautiful, thoughtful & inspiring, in particular the brilliant work by Mahkmalbaf, Tanovic, Loach & Inarritu. Nair, good as usual, effectively tells a true story of an injustice committed against a muslim family in the wake of anti-islam hysteria that swept--and still sweeps--the states. i did find Gitai's piece a bit vulgarly loud and simple in it's critic of media hysteria in the face of terrorism, and Penn's piece was too impressionistic and elliptical for my tastes, though i had expected to like it. Borgnine is very good and brave in it. SPOILER WARNING: one reviewer below incorrectly read the falling of the towers as being a happy moment for the character; my read is rather that the falling of the towers is what, because light floods his room, keys him into the loss in his life that he refused to recognize. again this is a sort of impressionistic piece, for we know that if the towers were really blocking the light to this man's flat, then there would have been nothing but smoke and ash, not light, flooding through his window.

Teenage Exorcist is one of those God-awful films to video that makes the viewer give up any expectations of decent entertainment for low brow sexual antics, adolescent humour, and empty writing. This film delivers exactly what its was trying to deliver. It is about a girl moving into a house where a Baron de Sade(hmmm) once lived and finally being drawn to him through her own inner demon. Her sister and brother-in-law, along with an Irish priest, her boyfriend, and a pizza delivery boy, try to save her and exorcise her demon. Well, not much here in way of horror or suspense. In fact, one line from the film pretty much sums up what to expect. Mike(the girl's brother-in-law) has tied her(the name is Diane by the way and she is played by Brinke Stevens) up after trying to chainsaw her sister. He removes a gag from her mouth and says something like, "This won't be the last gag we see tonight." Indeed, it was not. The special effects are cheesy and poorly crafted, and the film makes use of this by playing on its comedic appeal. Some of the lines and situations are funny. Robert Quarry, old Count Yorga himself, really steals his scenes as an Irish priest. He hams it up wailing Biblical verses and crooning Irish songs. You know you are in trouble, however, when Eddie Deezen gets top billing. Deezen does his schtick and has a couple nice moments as well, but the material is just too threadbare than to be anything more than teenage sophomoric time filler. Michael Berryman, from The Hills Have Eyes, also has a brief but interesting cameo in the film. As for the other thespians, well, they are all pretty good at being pretty mediocre. Stevens is lovely in fishnet stockings and French-cut panties, but beyond that don't expect too much more from her. Her sister is played by Elena Sahagun, and she shows a bit more than Brinke(a very lovely young lady by the way) and out acts Brinke by miles. Her husband, played by Jay Richardson shows off his ability to act and be funny amidst mediocrity. Again, not a bad film to waste a little time that involves NO thinking on. If you are a Robert Quarry fan, watch it for his performance at the very least.

The film "52 Pick Up" simply does not work. See it if you are at all interested in Elmore Leonard or John Frankenheimer, or anyone in the terrific cast, especially John Glover who's admittedly brilliant. But the book--a slow-burning, noir thriller with lots of pulp--should have translated into an Oscar-contending film instead of this dud that couldn't figure out whether it should faithfully portray the hard-boiled, gritty crime story of the book, or opt for a 1980s Schwarzenegger shoot-em-up spree. Shifting the scene from the original locale in the book, Detroit (an area where Leonard has resided for years and knows very well), to Los Angeles makes for a substantial problem that Leonard tries to fix in his script, but ultimately can't. It was, for example, a clever device making Mitchell's wife a City Councilwoman (she had no job in the book), if you think about it: that's the only way you could ever plausibly blackmail someone in a sex-crazed city like 1980s Los Angeles for adultery, or any type of potential sex scandal. Even then, it's more plausible in a more conservative Eastern state like Michigan to believe that a) its tiny porno "industry" is a sleazy, money-grubbing hell where three losers could desperately set up a not-so-stupid upper-middle-class fellow going through a mid-life crisis, and b) adultery alone might be something you could blackmail someone with, if their upstanding careers and old-fashioned wives couldn't handle the shock. As consultant Ron Jeremy will tell you, 1980s Los Angeles was a colorful, stylish porno Mecca, more like the movie "Boogie Nights" than Leonard's dark, shadowy world of hijacked tourist buses, grimy apartments, and drug deals in depressed urban squalor. Then again, Los Angeles could be the backdrop of such a tale if one arranged the scenery more carefully--there are still plenty of dark crannies and psychopaths there. Unfortunately, Roy Scheider's Harry Mitchell comes off in the film as a sexy, handsome Uebermensch dancing through his problems without even working up a sweat. In the book he was fending off a jerk union official while struggling with a business that was failing. He also had a skeleton in the closet during the war involving friendly fire that he was responsible for, but never appeared to come to grips with. Elmore Leonard's stories usually have a central image involving a bizarre civility between criminal and law-abiding citizen. Here, Harry Mitchell sitting in his office with his blackmailer, Alan Raimy, turning over his financial books to him and negotiating a more practical ransom, makes for such a central image. Glover's blackmailer plays the scene with convincing intelligence, but Scheider portrays the victim here as a cocky "good guy," in charge of the situation as if he were more a Rambo with an M-16 than the everyman barely staying afloat as his world crumbles around him. "52 Pick Up" ends with one of the worst throwaway conclusions ever, considering all the thought that went into the original story and then the film. Trapping Raimy inside Mitchell's Jaguar and blowing him up with marching band music blasting out along with a sadistic monologue by Mitchell, plays to an audience wanting the "sweet revenge" conclusion of a Chuck Norris movie, not the intelligent balanced world of Leonard's book, where Mitchell barely escapes in the end and the conflict between good and evil could easily go either way. I left the theater shaking my head and depressed. What a waste of talent.

Always enjoy the Classic Horror films, however, this film was really a big waste of time and if it were not for John Carradine playing the mad man doctor who is able to control human beings through his experiments. This film was made during WW II and John Carradine was a German Nazi working to find a human weapon against the entire world. Bob Steele playing in many roles as a cowboy or gangster and in this picture Bob seemed bored to death with his role in this film and acted like this was his first film. Mantan Moreland, (Jeff) gave an outstanding performance with great comedy which helped keep the audience attention. I hate to criticize a film made in 1943, but this is really a big disappointment. If you like John Carradine and the roles he played as Count Dracula throughout many films during the 1940's, you just might like to watch John doing his best.

Kirk and the crew are visiting a federation mining colony on a remote planet rich in mineral resources. The Devil in the Dark is the Horta, a very unusual silicon based life-form which tunnels through solid rock. The Horta has been killing miners and, it is decided, must be destroyed. But how? <br /><br />It is hard to continue this review without writing a spoiler, so instead I simply concentrate on the technical aspects of the episode and touch on its themes. The special effects are OK, but many of the scenes with the Horta look a little absurd. The acting is fairly average for TOS. Some of the miners are a little awkward. Nimoy has the most difficult role of all in Devil in the Dark, and he pulls it off well. <br /><br />Why is this still a favorite of mine?<br /><br />Devil in the Dark is really an anthropological and ecological morality play disguised as an adventure. More than many episodes of this great TV series, it brings home the importance of maintaining an open mind and at least some degree of empathy toward others. Plus, it involves one of the most interesting, if not probable, plot twists in the original series. <br /><br />Enjoy!

Is it possible to give a movie NO STARS? I suppose not. However many stars IMDb displays this just think zero and you'll get my drift. Director and photographer Timothy Hines didn't have much of a budget compared to Spielberg's Herculean effort with the same material (rumored to be the most expensive movie ever made), but that need not be an insurmountable handicap. I've seen some wonderful work done on a comparative shoestring ("Soldier and Saints" is a recent example). With hard work, integrity and, above all, talent it is certainly possible to realize a faithful rendition of Wells' novella -- and at fraction of what was spent by Dreamworks on its "War of the Worlds". Unfortunately, Hines failed in all these departments. Even if he had had Spielberg's budget and Tom Cruise signed for the lead his movie would have stunk just as badly as this barnyard animal he's foisted on us.<br /><br />Primarily, Hines seems unable to tell a story. Thanks to digital video technology he can record images and sound, but he shows little aptitude for assembling a narrative with what he records. A guy walks down a country lane, a lot. He talks badly aped Received English to some other guy. Then he walks down the same lane, only shot from the back this time to show he's returning -- clever, eh? Walking and talking, for nearly an hour that's all that happens. OK, I'll grant that one extended excursion from the main character's house to the impact site on Horsell Common to show that it's a considerable distance from one place to the other might be useful (a first-year film student could storyboard a more economical and more aesthetical establishing sequence than this, btw), but half a dozen times? Back and forth, back and forth, et cetera, et cetera with some yakkity-yak in between. Remarkable. The only explanation for this surfeit of redundancy other than total artistic ineptitude is a desire to pad out thirty minutes of wretchedly amateurish CG works into something that could be offered as a feature-length film. Finally the Martian fighting machines appear and the walking and talking becomes running and talking, or shrieking. Later we get staggering and wailing for dessert.<br /><br />Thankfully, much of the dialogue is lifted straight from H.G. Wells' text; else we'd have no idea what is going on. But is it not the whole point of cinema to illuminate a text, to realize what words alone can't convey? If a film relies on dialogue or monologue to tell us what we see or how to feel, why bother? Why not do a radio play? Orson Welles made himself a household name doing just that. However, Hines thinks he's a filmmaker, so he's content to mouth the words and swallow the meaning.<br /><br />Secondly, Hines was able to buy some CG effects of a sort for his movie, but he has no idea how to use them. Now I for one have no unquenchable sweet tooth for eye candy. I believe good science fiction cinema doesn't need dazzling technical effects. Some really potent Sci-Fi's have flourished on virtually none at all. But "The War of the Worlds" as film requires a certain baseline effort. Wells tells a story that hinges on things can be seen and heard and even smelled. The effects don't need to be complex; they can even be crude (e.g. fighting machines on wires gliding over miniature streets as seen in the George Pal/Byron Haskins 1953 version), but they must be handled well. Unfortunately Hines' effects are both crude and incompetent – tripod fighting machines higher than a cathedral spire stomp around making a noise like a pogo stick bouncing on linoleum – Martian squidoids even though oppressed by four times the gravity of their native world scurry and flit about without perceptible effort – skeletons totally denuded of flesh and muscle writhe and scream -- the same damn horse and buggy greenscreens its way across the foreground a dozen times (flipped left for right occasionally in hope that we might not notice) – and on ad nauseum. Crude technique is forgivable. So you have a CG fire effect that's less than convincing? Fine, we can work around that. Just don't use it too often and only show glimpses of it. That stomped woman sequence looks more like a crushed plum? Throw it away. It's not necessary. You say your Martian flyer looks like a toy on a string? If you must use it, go ahead, but please don't show it twice! But no, Hines won't listen. We get the worst looking stuff used again and again. Gotta get those 180 minutes somehow, boy.<br /><br />Next we have acting, or more precisely too much acting. Whether in a speaking role or just paid to die on queue everybody in this film is acting his little heart out. Evidently Hines thinks he's getting a bargain -- More fleeing in terror over there! You, quaking behind that tree, let's have a real conniption fit this take. You call that writhing in agony? Nonsense, my grandmother can writhe better -- Nevertheless the cast as a whole and individually stink. They aren't even good amateurs. But this needn't prove fatal. Many a good movie has been made with rancid acting. That's what directors are for. And editors. Which brings up another point… Who the hell let Tim Hines edit this cheese factory? If America's butchers were as adept at meat cutting as Hines is at film cutting your next hamburger would be all fingers and no beef. In spite of the near three-hour running time there is lots of stuff missing from this movie -- not sequences, but single frames, creating a herky-jerky effect that's nauseating to watch. Maybe Hines intention was to simulate the effect of a hand cranked cine camera of the 1890's. If he was I can say he doesn't know how to do it.

This is far more than the charming story of middle-aged man discovering the pleasures of ballroom dancing (although it IS that as well). It's the tale of one person learning to love life again, pushing past all the pressures of work and money to discover joy once more. The bonus in this film is a fascinating insight into the slowly changing attitudes of modern Japan toward everything from ballroom dancing to physical contact. There are scenes that will make you laugh out loud ... a few where you'll want to get up and tango ... and many others where you'll just feel good.<br /><br />This is a great introduction to contemporary Japanese filmmaking for those who might be under the impression that all Japanese movies are "heavy" and inaccessible. <br /><br />

Apart from the fact that this film was made ( I suppose it seemed a good idea at the time considering BOTTOM was so popular ) the one thing that puzzled me about GUEST HOUSE PARADISO was what happened to the lighting ? There is absolutely no artificial lighting used in this film whatsoever , and I watched it on network TV so it wasn`t a case of watching a dodgy tape. In fact the film was shot so darkly it was impossible to see what the hell was going on . But if the dialogue was anything to go by that`s maybe not a bad thing

This movie is the next segment in the pokemon movies which supplies everything on hopes and dreams of a pokemon warrior named Ash Ketchim and his friends. they go out and they look battle and run into new pokemon and take on new adventures with Pikachu and other pokemon favorites. This adventure takes on with a new pokemon called Celebi a time pokemon. Go join ash Brock and Misty to find all sorts of new things!

The lavish production values that you generally find in a Merchant/Ivory film are all here, but this is an exceedingly dull take on what could have been a very lively affair. I agree with an earlier poster that it makes no sense for the story to be unfolding through the eyes of an African American family and yet their own ancestor, Sally Hemmings, has barely a role to play in the proceedings. There is not much clarity to be found in helping the audience understand the motivations of any of these historical figures. And I was very bothered by the accents of a number of the characters. Nancy Marchand sounded very British for what one assumes is a French nun. And both Gwyneth Paltrow and Greta Scacchi seemed to be trying out different accents in various scenes. In fact, Gwyneth is very poorly served in this biopic. Her role as Thomas Jefferson's daughter, Martha, is written in such a manner that we never get a handle on who she really is. One moment she is slapping a slave, and another moment, she's deploring the whole system of slavery. Nick Nolte performs the role well enough but doesn't ever make us truly care for Jefferson or any of his exploits. Very disappointing all in all.

Being the Beatlemaniac that I am, I approached Two Of Us with a combination of fear and fascination. Having seen 'In His Life: The John Lennon Story', I was quite concerned that Two Of Us will turn out no better. The fact that Aidan Quinn and Jared Harris look absolutely nothing like John Lennon and Paul McCartney – even with some make-up and proper hairdos – didn't help one bit.<br /><br />But I was more than a bit pleasantly surprised. It's probably thanks to the involvement of Michael Lindsay-Hogg, who directed Let It Be in 1970 and consequently probably knew John and Paul quite well, that the characters and the dialogue came across as convincing as they did. (The writing credit for Two Of Us is given to a man named Mark Stanfield, of whom I know absolutely nothing; I feel confident that director Lindsay-Hogg had more than a bit to do with the script.) Two Of Us is not a biography of the Beatles; it has very little plot, in fact, and takes place all in one day in New York City. What it does is imagine a meeting between John and Paul in 1976, while John lived in New York. That meeting is entirely fictitious, of course – though it can't truly be disproved that such a meeting actually took place. But through that imagined conversation it gives us a glimpse into the personalities of these two great musicians – their intelligence, their sense of humor, their different reaction to stardom, and most of all their relationship; what made them such a great team, and what broke them up.<br /><br />Since it's a talk movie, nothing much except for dialogue between two characters for an hour and a half, it's likely to bore all but true fans of the Beatles; but it's a fantastic piece of writing and storytelling, and is both informative and touching. For those interested in these two musical giants, very quickly you'll get over the shock of how different the actors look from their counterparts and feel like John and Paul had come to life – so intimate and convincing is the script, and so committed are the actors. Two Of Us gives you priceless insight into the lives of two geniuses, and a tale that is both sad and funny. Most certainly recommended.

I heard this movie was bad…They even warned me it was terrible, but for some reason (probably Katie Holmes) I still watched it when it came on national TV. Watching Kevin Williamson films means torturing! His scenarios aren't funny, definitely not scary and not the least bit creative. Teaching Mrs. Tingle breathes the same irritating atmosphere as his brainless series `Dawson's Creek' and it's probably meant for the same target group as well. Before the credits even started, 5 people already wanted a hug and they stated that eerie `I love you'-sentence. It doesn't get any better as the soundtrack is filled with annoying pop/rock and the storyline is ultra-thin. Three students on the verge of graduation get caught cheating by the wickedest teacher in school. Every high-school has a teacher like that, you know… To save their skin, they try to convince Mrs. Tingle that it wasn't their intention to cheat but this attempt goes horrible wrong. The typical high-school humor is completely lost on me, the overdose of sentiment is pathetic and the acting (with the exception of Helen Mirren) is abominable. I'm sure Katie Holmes can act – that's a fact proven by her role in `the Gift' – but she urgently needs to stop accepting frumpish girl roles. As said before, the only positive comments goes out to the brilliant casting of Helen Mirren as the shrew. It's like Kathleen Turner in `Serial Mom'! The role suits her perfectly and you can't imagine anyone else playing her. Other than that, this is avoidable teenage nonsense.

STRANGER THAN FICTION angered me so much, I signed up on IMDb just to write this review. STRANGER THAN FICTION is a surprisingly complex, touching and thought-provoking movie until the very end. Once you suspend multiple lapses of logic (why didn't Will Ferrell hear Emma Thompson's voice 10 years ago when she fist started writing her book? "The phone rang. The phone rang again." How could she not know it's him calling? etc.), the movie challenges one's thoughts about mortality, fate, and sacrifice.<br /><br />The brief history of literary themes provided by Dustin Hoffman should especially entertain former English majors. And Maggie Gyllenhaal is always a pleasure, even though Will Ferrell might just as easily be an ax murderer as a bumbling soul. Her quick trust of him is a mighty big leap of faith.<br /><br />Ah, but the ending. Until the very end, I would have given 9 out of 10 stars to this movie. The movie as a metaphor for life's journey, as a tribute to the notion of 'writing true,' as a reminder that great literature is either comedy or tragedy, but not both, is outstanding. The entire movie leads the viewer to understand and accept the moment of Will Ferrell's fate. And no matter how endearing a character he may have become, we know full well why we will accept the ending. The last act occurs, the screen goes white, the credits roll. A profound and powerful end to an almost perfect film. An end that would have been debated for weeks.<br /><br />NO!!!!!!!!!! No credits rolled. Say it isn't so. Say Hollywood didn't tack on another 10 minutes of crap that completely undermined the integrity and heart of the movie. Dustin Hoffman got it right when he said, "It's no longer a masterpiece; it's OK." An apt review of the movie. Except to me, it wasn't even OK. I was so offended about the betrayal of 'writing true,' about the decision to pander the film that I actually burst into angry tears explaining this on the ride home from the movie. I don't often cry. I could care less about most movies, but I am still angry about this one.<br /><br />My questions for Zack Helm, the writer, are this: did the original movie end when the screen went white? And were you forced by the vapid movie powers-that-be to tack on an ending unfaithful to the core of the movie? Or did you tack that maudlin ending on yourself? I've read you're brilliant. I hope your original script ended the movie the first time.<br /><br />I know Zack Helm will never see this review, and I've been unable to find a contact for him to ask myself. But, please, movie-goers, am I the only one who feels this way about STRANGER THAN FICTION? One good thing came from me seeing this movie: I doubly admire LOST IN TRANSLATION now.

I went to this film having no idea what to expect. I actually took a date to it in the theaters when it first came out. We both thoroughly enjoyed it and it helped to have someone to discuss it with after seeing it.<br /><br />I only recommend seeing this film if you appreciate non-mainstream movies. It's not as disjointed as Liquid Sky or as fanciful as Forbidden Zone. The original plot is very easy to follow. There's A LOT of subtle humor.<br /><br />Here's a quick summary of the plot if you are completely lost: A big-brother type government keeps tabs on everyone in society. Suddenly a new person appears and there's no data on him (he appears insane). He may or may not be the second-coming of Christ. The over-cautious government goes into a frenzy to find him and discover his true motives. The ruler is also obsessed with immortality.<br /><br />Some scenes are frantic while others are completely low-key. We follow the lead character as he encounters all different kinds of people in society.<br /><br />I didn't need my consciousness altered to enjoy the film, but I know that some of my friends felt that helped.<br /><br />Split was also filmed around Santa Cruz and San Francisco.

i went into this hoping it would be the "thought provoking" little gem people have reviewed this as. i love indy films and expected to dig this too. knowing what a hot button this topics is i expected to be really entertained, maybe even see an outsiders perspective.<br /><br />all i can say is wow....if your into self torture, or mutilation then maybe you'll like this. personally i don't like the idea of being pee'd on or cutting myself so i thought it was garbage. bad script, bad acting, bad story, bad directing, bad editing....i could go on. i have no clue why a reviewer claimed he or she was making a political point by giving this movie a 10. that's misleading and ignorant. voting for a movie on IMDb isn't setting a precedent! it just lets other people think that a garbage bomb like this is OK to watch as long as it's controversial (this film is not, it tries VERY HARD to be but fails). <br /><br />you know the movie is bad when 15 minutes into it your praying that all main characters die horrifically. unfortunately they do die, but not in the painful manners that would have given the viewer some justice or vindication for having watched the 2 hours of crap they just endured. <br /><br />do yourself a favor, just don't even bother. i got this movie in a bargain bin at my local video store for .50 and feel ripped off!

Surface was one of the few truly unique shows on TV last season. I can honestly say I modified my schedule so I could be home to watch every episode. Tons of action, suspense, science fiction, etc.<br /><br />Story was of a boy who found an egg that hatched into a sea creature. The same sea creature that had killed the main character's brother and the woman character (oceanographer) had seen. Most people think it is a deadly killing machine but the one raised from the egg was very friendly.<br /><br />Only problem is NBC canceled it so now we'll never know what happens... Hopefully Sci-Fi or some other channel will pick it up.

It's 2 stars only because they put a lot of work in making this game look good. I played plenty of good and bad games and I think this game has the dullest story I was ever forced to listen. The best thing they could have done is to let you skip the conversations (but no, you must listen to them talking for 10 minutes) and just continue doing the same things over and over again. Climb the building, save the citizen, go kill some dude. IT'S ALL THE SAME! Ubisoft should really hire someone with some imagination.<br /><br />I'm a huge fan of Prince of Persia series (first 3). The story was good and you wanted to know what happens next all the time. I don't even hate Prince of Persia 4. But I think anyone who was in charge of developing the story for Assassin's Creed should be banned to write another thing for the rest of his life.<br /><br />Boring story and same missions over and over again! If just one of these two things was good the game would be worth playing.

Flipper is a nice heartwarming movie for whole family. It's obviously not a great movie, Free Willy looks much better almost in every component of film making. Possibly, at times it becomes a bit naive , and the writing and the script are not the best part of the movie, but it's a entertaining film with very good cinematography (including underwater shots) and some important moral messages. Elijah Wood proves himself one more time as an incredibly talented and underrated actor. He can make bad movie watchable, okay movie - good, good - great and great movie becomes all time classic. Paul Hogan performance also was very good and he is completely fit to his role. As I already say above, whole cinematography was very good. But underwater shots definitely is the best parts. So Flipper is a perfect way if you want to see nice, sweet and entertaining movie. If you like me become sick and tired of modern Hollywood trash, filled with sex, violence, vulgarity and profanity you most likely would like this movie. <br /><br />My rating: 7,7 out of 10. Feel free for mailing me about any of my comments and posts here. <br /><br />Sorry for my bad English.

Freeway Killer, Is a Madman who shoots people on the freeway while yelling a bunch of mystical chant on a car phone. The police believe he is a random killer, but Sunny, the blond heroine, played by Darlanne Fluegel detects a pattern. So does the ex-cop, played by James Russo, and they join forces, and bodies, in the search for the villain who has done away with their spouses. Also starring Richard Belzer, this movie has its moments especially if you like car chases, but its really not a good movie for the most part, check it out if you're really bored and have already seen The Hitcher, Joy Ride, or Breakdown, otherwise stay away from the freeway.

'Til There was You is one of the worst films we've ever seen. It fails in every respect. Jeanne Tripplehorn was better (as an actress...) in Waterworld. In comparison, this film is Dungworld. When a character stumbles once, or even twice, in the course of a film, one can understand it. But Jeanne's character falls, trips, stumbles so often that she might have a bit of Jerry Lewis in her. In her defence, each (prat?) fall was probably blocked, choreographed, and rehearsed. And rehearsed. Although this is bad enough for a film, the actors (Dylan McDermott and Jeanne Tripplehorn) seem to spend most of the plot going "out for a smoke" or trying to find a place to smoke. If the film was a diatribe on having no place to smoke- Ok - BUT, it isn't.<br /><br />However long this film runs, it is too long by 10 minutes past the running time.<br /><br />Oh, Jeanne Tripplehorn, ALMOST acts in a public forum meeting. You ALMOST see her break life into the character. Oh, it's ALMOST as convincing as her scene yelling at Michael Douglas in Basic Instinct--hmm, on second thought, not really.<br /><br />This is a film to avoid at all costs unless you need a cigarette and are trapped in nicotine addicts anonymous or forced to watch outtakes of HOOPER (Burt Reynolds). And even then, toss a coin or go to sleep.

This has been one of my favorite movies for a long time. Recently I was happy to see it on DVD which is a relief from watching the old, grainy VHS versions.<br /><br />I hadn't seen it in years and watched it today to find myself amazed at how well the movie stands up to time. It's one of those rare, perfect storms of comedy where great writing (truly funny line after truly funny line) is paired with great direction and outstanding performances all at the same time.<br /><br />Dudley Moore got an Oscar nomination for "Arthur" but lost (although John Gielgud won for best supporting actor). If Moore's performance in "Arthur" doesn't win a Best Actor Oscar -it's proof that no comedic actor could ever win the title (another example is Gene Wilder in "Young Frankenstein").<br /><br />Steve Gordon crafts the film beautifully keeping true to each of the characters and the warm-hearted tone of the story. Quite simply, IMHO the movie is a rare gem. It's only sad that Steve Gordon passed away just a year after "Arthur" was released.<br /><br />Regarding the DVD that is available as of 1/2007, it's so/so. Although the video quality is a leap over the old VHS copies, there is still no widescreen version available.<br /><br />The DVD has a few extras that are nice but it's just not enough. One example is commentary from the Director stating how he greatly wished how certain deleted takes and scenes could have been included (because they were hysterical), but that he had to make tough choices for a final edit. The DVD, being the perfect format to include such material, certainly should have offered it as well.<br /><br />This, the original "Arthur", is a classic comedy that is one for the books.

This is just about the WORST piece of garbage I've ever had the displeasure of sitting through. The story was embarrassingly amateurish, the graphics were horrible, and the acting... I've never seen worse acting in my entire life. A kindergarten class could come up with a scarier, better written, and more entertaining concept than this. I pity anyone who wastes their time on this film, as well as the actors who agreed to doing the job. It was obvious that they were not given appropriate direction. The writers must have spent their time at film school in the "back room" playing peaknuckle. A lot of professors wasted a lot of time on these two. I would be truly embarrassed to admit that I knew them.

Five teens set out to do some camping in the Oregon wilderness, and despite being warned by the park ranger, they soon realize that something is lurking around in the backwoods waiting to strike.<br /><br />When it comes to old horror movies, the only one that keeps popping up in every conversation is Friday THE 13th, so I took it upon myself to find those good old horror movies that fell short for simply being compared to Friday THE 13th, JUST BEFORE DAWN just so happened to be among the ones I found, and was really very impressive, it wasn't as bland as some of the stuff you find today, it was very sharp in terms of character development as it had quite a few likable ones, and it has this very casual pace, its not in a hurry to get to the hack and slash bits, it takes its time to set the proper mood and tone and is very atmospheric and builds some killer suspense by letting you always have that sense of dread like, somethings out there but you don't know where it is or when it will strike.<br /><br />Where I live its definitely an overlooked gem simply because people never heard of it or won't give it a chance, but I'll state that it is not a Friday THE 13th rip off, the two concepts don't even go near each other, but in my mind, it is overall one of the more impressive slashers I've seen in a while.

Lesbian vampire film about a couple on holiday who are staying on the grounds of what they think is an empty manor house but is really being used as a pair of lesbian vampires. As the vampires bring in the occasional victim the couple go about their business until the two groups come crashing together.<br /><br />Great looking film with two very sexy women as the vampires there is nothing beyond the eye candy that they provide to recommend this cult film. Yes its a sexy vampire story. No it is not remotely interesting beyond the women. To be honest there is a reason that I've been seeing stills of this film in horror books and magazines it looks great, but other than that...<br /><br />For those who want to see sexy vampires only.

...well, pop this into the DVD, waste an hour and a half of your life that you will never get back, and find out.<br /><br />Acting? What acting? <br /><br />Production values? ...Production? ...Values?<br /><br />Story? Don't get me started.<br /><br />After many years of posting on IMDb, I never thought I would see a film so bad that I truly wished for a lower rating than one. I always have found at least a reason or two to see merit - if only in the intent or the effort of the writer, the director, the cast, or the producer?<br /><br />In this case, they're all the same guy (!) who really needs to get a handle on the fact, at least as demonstrated by this worthless waste of video tape, that he has no talent. I mean it would be a reasonable excuse if this were some junior high schooler's "production" for his first cinema class, but the referenced "artist" behind this dreck was twenty-six at the time of this miscarriage. <br /><br />Just how did this ever get made? Who in their right mind ever wrote a check for this? Moreover, don't let the box cover fool you: there's not even anything that remotely resembles a good sex scene or any good "exposure" of the hunk on that cover.<br /><br />Two final items: there was one second when this "film" had redeeming value: the aforementioned "talent" gets roundly punched out by his lover. I cheered! And, I did learn one thing from this "film.". There are times when something is so very bad that it is, indeed, truly very funny. But not in any comical manner; it's just sadly humorous. Very sadly humorous.

The movie is based on a Jules Verne book I actually have read once, about ten years ago. I remember I liked the book a lot, and this movie does a good job in telling the story. The most important thing in this movie isn't the story, however, but the highly original visual look it has.<br /><br />The visuals are absolutely beautiful, and they are apparently achieved by a clever combination of animated drawings combined with live actors, stop-motion animation and sets that are painted so that they look much like from an animated movie. Combined by Jules Verne's own unique versions of airplanes and submarines and Karel Zeman's good directing results in a very well done and convincing visual style that manages to effectively hold one's attention until the end of the movie.<br /><br />There are some problems as well, one of the underwater scenes at the end takes maybe needlessly lot of time for example, as the story in the first part of the movie is rushed through quite quickly. None of this matters much though since the movie is always highly enjoyable. A gem that deserves to be more well known for today's audiences as well. A recommended movie for the whole family.

If you just want gore, and nothing but gore and torture, you've come to the right movie. If you want a at least a sliver of good acting, logic, story, consistencies, or even a good guy ending, go elsewhere.<br /><br />I couldn't help but to think to myself, "Jeeeez, are those people mentally challenged?" Example, after being chased around and seeing other people mutilated, the main actress meets a police officer and spills out her story to the cop with tears and everything and told him about the psychopath that drives in a yellow truck. THe yellow truck pulls up and the officer just walks to it, talks to the guy and the truck drives off without any trouble. The actress comes out and says why didn't you arrest him? And then the truck runs over the police officer... after being rammed the truck stops on the road about 20 feet way just standing there while the actress tries to drag the cop away but he's too heavy. (At the time) At that time the truck backs up and runs over the cops leg twice. The truck then drives off. Why didn't the actress get the gun is beyond me. (WHich later she shoots the cop in the head twice because the psychopath was about to burn him alive) Once through the mouth, which didn't kill him (Duuuumb) and twice to finish the job. *Roll eyes* Right after that, she turns away to escape the bathroom which was going to explode and when she climbs near the roof, she turns around and the cop isn't there anymore... OK...<br /><br />Another example, The main actress meets a trapped woman in the bathroom, she spits out like a gallon of blood on the floor, covering about 1/3s of the room. (Probably more) After the main actress goes outside to grab a towel, she comes back in and everything is gone. :/ They don't explain why everyone keeps disappearing either. Dumb dumb dumb.<br /><br />I like horror/thriller/gore movies, but this one was just way too dumb. I lost brain cells watching this dribble and you shouldn't too.

I don't know what the last reviewer is talking about but this show is pure entertainment. Basically 2 dudes are put in competitions at a club to pick up girls in 3 different scenarios. They mix up the scenarios for each show so it is not the same every time. The panel of 4 judges is not afraid to call people out or admit it when they recognize game. They will break down what the guy did wrong, and what they guy did right. Some contestants are weak, some are strong but what happens is always entertaining. If you are a guy that goes out, you can relate. I've seen weak game, I've seen strong game, and this show is for real. No doubt.

Perhaps I missed something, but I found GOYA'S GHOSTS to be a tedious costume melodrama. As to the story it was trying to tell, I found that a confusing mish-mash that went off in all directions. And perhaps it should have been made by a Spanish director with the appropriate languages subtitled rather than in unconvincingly accented English. I can't judge the historical veracity of the story but it seemed to move along with a similar "artist's model's tragic fate" plot line as GIRL WITH A PEARL EARRING. Was the movie a commentary on the religious injustices of the Inquisition, false piety, torture then and now, or what???? I never seemed to be able to figure that one out. Natalie Portman's various characters also seemed ridiculously stereotypical. And ultimately the movie was crowned with the concluding melodrama of a disheveled Bardem's head and body hanging on the edge of cart heading off into the sunset…with Ines and Goya following along behind………Can't Milos Forman do better than that?

Gypo Nolan (Victor McLaglen) is as poor as anyone on Earth. Living in 1920s Ireland, Gypo and his fellow Irishmen are part of an underground rebellion against the oppressive Brits. One particular rebel, wanted for murder by the English, arrives back into town secretly. He thinks he can trust his friend Gypo, but the £20 reward proves too tempting. Gypo gets his friend killed and sinks into a pit of despair and drunkenness. Meanwhile, the other Irish rebels are searching for the informer. Right away, Gypo, with money burning a hole in his pocket, is their main suspect, but they, who are his friends, don't want to believe it. The story of The Informer is simple in its plot, but complex in its moral and emotional issues. It's easily one of John Ford's most emotionally involving films. What Gypo did was wrong, but we can certainly understand his motives. We also understand his sorry character, and there's a lot of sympathy that arises for him. The script is very suspenseful, as well. It's the kind of suspense where we are pretty sure we know how everything will end up, so we have to grit our teeth and bear along with it. The acting is remarkable. Victor McLaglen, who acted in many of Ford's films, probably gave his best performance here (and won an Oscar for it). Every other performer in the film deserves his or her kudos. In addition to an amazing script and acting, The Informer is one of John Ford's most expressionistic films. I love the darker side of Ford. In its mood, as well as in its themes, The Informer reminds me of two of my other favorite Ford films, The Long Voyage Home (1940) and The Fugitive (1948); it's also a bit similar to The Grapes of Wrath (1940) in these respects. 10/10.

Celebrity singers have always had a tough time breaking into the movies (the cinema is littered with failed attempts), and one can go on and on speculating why John Mellencamp never made it big as an actor. Instead of taking small parts in heartfelt projects, Mellencamp dives right in playing the lead in "Falling From Grace", which he also directed, and the results are as awkward and unbecoming as that title. Story of a famous singer returning to his hometown in the sticks, opening up old family wounds, boasts a screenplay by Larry McMurtry, but the meandering film goes nowhere slowly. The supporting cast is decent, including Kay Lenz (whom it's always nice to see), Mariel Hemingway and Claude Akins (who share the one really strong scene in the picture). As for John's acting, he doesn't look particularly comfortable, despite apparent efforts to make him look at home; he seems to be ducking the camera most of the time, and he never connects with the audience in an immediate way. *1/2 from ****

I really wanted to write a title for this review that didn't come off as corny or gushing but still described my feelings for this show. I can see now that it is not possible. "American Family" is one of the best shows I have ever had the pleasure of watching on television. Several reviewers here on IMDb have mentioned the word "beautiful" when describing this show. Never has a word been more fitting. The cinematography for this show is stunning. Every scene and shot looks like a masterpiece. The lighting, camera moves, scene composition and colors...I have to keep reminding myself that I'm watching a TV Show and not a Motion Picture masterpiece. The score by Lee Holdridge and Nathan Wang brings tears to my eyes. And most importantly, the acting by the all around amazing cast is honest and sincere. I do not feel like I am watching performances...I feel like I'm watching real life. If only real life could be this beautiful.<br /><br />"American Family" has indeed raised the bar for quality entertainment on Television. I highly recommend this show to anyone who is willing to watch it. I could easily chide CBS for passing on this show, but I have to say that it doesn't matter to me who airs it. I'm just glad it's out there for everyone to see. So I do thank PBS for not allowing this show to disappear into nothingness.<br /><br />I have to give special recognition to the way each season's finale ended. The first one was pure creative brilliance and it moved me to tears. I was waiting to see if season two would also end in a creative way, and sure enough it did. Again, tears.<br /><br />My thanks to all of those involved. You really have made a special piece of art with this show, and I sincerely mean that. It is a shame that we only got two seasons, but a miracle we got anything at all.

Masters of Horror: Right to Die starts late one night as married couple Abby (Julia Anderson) & Ciff Addison (Martin Donovan) are driving home, however while talking Cliff is distracted & crashes into a tree that has fallen across the road. Cliff's airbag works OK & he walks away with minor injuries, unfortunately for Abby hers didn't & she ended up as toast when she was thrown from the car & doused in petrol which set alight burning her entire body. Abby's life is saved, just. She is taken to hospital where she is on life support seriously injured & horribly disfigured from the burns. Cliff decides that she should die, his selfish lawyer Ira (Corbin Bersen) thinks they should let Abby die, sue the car manufacturer & get rich while Abby's mum Pam (Linda Sorenson) wants to blame Cliff, get rich & save Abby. However Abby has other plans of her own...<br /><br />This American Canadian co-production was directed by Rob Schmidt (whose only horror film previously was Wrong Turn (2003) which on it's own hardly qualifies him to direct a Masters of Horror episode) & was episode 9 from season 2 of the Masters of Horror TV series, while I didn't think Right to Die was the best Masters of Horror episode I've seen I thought it was a decent enough effort all the same & still doesn't come close to being as bad as The Screwfly Solution (2006). The script by John Esposito has a neat central idea that isn't anything new but it uses it effectively enough although I'd say it's a bit uneven, the first 15 minutes of this focuses on the horror element of the story but then it goes into a lull for 20 odd minutes as it becomes a drama as the legal wrangling over Abby's life & the affair Cliff is having take center stage before it gets back on track it a deliciously gory & twisted climax that may not be for the faint of heart. The character's are a bit clichéd, the weak man, the bent lawyer, the protective mum & the young tart who has sex to get what she wants but they all serve their purpose well enough, the dialogue is OK, the story moves along at a nice pace & overall I liked Right to Die apart from a few minutes here & there where it loses it's focus a bit & I wasn't that keen on the ambiguous ending.<br /><br />Director Schmidt does a good job & there are some effective scenes, this tries to alternate between low key spooky atmosphere & out-and-out blood & gore. There are some fantastic special make-up effects as usual, there's shots of Abby where she has had all of the skin burned off her body & the image of her bandaged head with her teeth showing because she has no lips left is pretty gross (images & make-up effects that reminded me of similar scenes in Hellraiser (1987) & it's sequels), then there's the main course at the end where Cliff literally skins someone complete with close-ups of scalpels slicing skin open & him peeling it off the muscle & putting it into a cooler box! Very messy. There are also various assorted body parts. There's some nudity here as well with at least a couple of pretty ladies getting naked...<br /><br />Technically Right to Die is excellent, the special effects are brilliant & as most Masters of Horror episodes it doesn't look like a cheap made-for-TV show which basically if the truth be told it is. The acting was fine but there's no big 'names' in this one.<br /><br />Right to Die is another enjoyable & somewhat twisted Masters of Horror episode that most horror fans should definitely check out if not just for the terrific skinning scene! Well worth a watch... for those with the stomach.

*** out of ****<br /><br />Yep! Dressed To Kill is that kind of a movie. It's like Kalifornia, but it's different. Remember? That movie from 1993 which stars Brad Pitt as a serial killer who is "welcomed" by a couple of travelers in a trip to California as a buddy who might be a good company along the way. When I watch a movie, I always like not to know anything at all about the plot, before watching it, because the surprises may get even cooler. That's how it was with Kalifornia. When I watched it last year for the first time, I never realized it was a suspense movie, so when I found out, I was shocked, and when the movie went on and on, it got even better and I was at the edge of my seat, almost kissing my monitor, so close I was to it! So, we're discussing about Dressed To Kill, right? Before I watched this movie (today!), I've only watched 2 others movies from Brian De Palma, so I can say I don't really know that well his works, but can tell from afar that these 2 movies for me were as great as they could be. Carrie (1976) and Mission:Impossible (1996). When I watched Carrie on the TV, I was really that desperate to get a DVD copy and I can tell: this movie is great! Mission:Impossible also. And today, I watched a third movie from DePalma. <br /><br />Well, Dressed To Kill is a movie like Kalifornia. When the movie goes on, it goes completely different than what you'd expect. I was watching, very curious, the scene of the museum, where Dickinson follows the mysterious man to his cab and they end together in an apartment room. You may guess what may have happened there. But when the movie reached the scene of the elevator, the movie went completely on a different path. I was watching the rest of the movie, and I really liked it. However, there are some low points... Some characters in the movie are completely silent! Take, for example, the mysterious man from the museum scene. I was always hoping that he could say something but he never did! This was totally ridiculous and was with no doubt something that made me change my mind by not accepting this movie as at least almost something as a masterpiece. Even in the cab scene, where Dickinson tries to apologize because of what happened in the museum, the completely silent man grabs her, pulls her inside the cab, and they start kissing each other. You know, it reminded me of the Mexican TV series of the 70's "El Chavo Del 8", where some characters are completely silent. Getting past these low points of the movie, it is actually a great movie, considering the suspense, the characters and the plot. Dennis Franz is cool as detective Marino! Reminded me of him as Capt. Carmine Lorenzo in Die Hard 2 (1990) where he plays almost the same kind of character. <br /><br />Well, concluding this review, the ending of Dressed To Kill is the same ending as it is in Carrie! I don't know if I really liked that, because I hate imitations! I understand that Carrie is a movie from DePalma, so it's not actually an imitation, because after all it was his idea! But it turned to be a repetitive idea in Dressed To Kill, so DePalma could have done something different instead of showing Nancy Allen waking up from a bad dream the same way it happens to Amy Irving at the ending scene of Carrie. This was, of course, with no doubt, another low point. But if you get past this, you will find that Dressed To Kill is a really good movie, and I assure you that it's not, by any means, a waste of time watching it.

A young solicitor from London, Arthur Kidd is sent to a small coastal town of Crythin Gifford to oversee the estate of a recently passed away widow Mrs Drablow. While attending her funeral, a mysterious lady dressed in black catches his attention. Supposedly Drablow lived a reclusive life, and locals kept pretty quiet about her. After this he heads to Mrs Drablow mansion that can only be reached on a causeway through the swamp during low tide. There he encounters the woman in black again in cemetery out back of the house, and things begin to get creepy as terrifying noises start coming from the marshes. Now can Mrs Drablow's belongings and listening to her recorded dairy entries help Kidd figure out this gloomy mystery that the locals fear to talk about.<br /><br />Often highly regarded amongst horror fans as being one of the most chilling ghost stories ever and I can see their point. But only in doses does it draw upon tag. Yes, from what you can gather I was left a 'little' under-whelmed, despite really liking it. I was expecting goose bumps throughout the whole feature, but that's probably it… expecting. Mainly I had a similar reaction with the 1980 haunted house thriller 'The Changeling'. When you hear so many good things, it's sometimes hard not get caught up with it.<br /><br />Anyhow what the British TV presentation of "The Woman in Black" effectively does is bring out a truly old-fashion, slow burn spine-tingling premise driven by its moody locations, disquieting atmosphere and first-rate performances. Subtly blankets the psychologically gripping story (adapted off Susan Hill's novel of the same name), as the simple mystery authentically opens up with a depressingly tragic tone and successfully characterises its protagonist. Little seems to happen, and can feel drawn out, but the fragile randomness of it catch you off guard. Whenever the camera focuses on the lady in black. Who mostly appears as a background figure, it's ultimately creepy. She might not appear all that much, but when she does…. Talk about unnerving! That also goes for that downbeat conclusion. Pauline Moran, who plays the woman in black, competently gets us nervous by just her gaunt appearance and sudden positioning. A pale look and those minor mannerisms just seem to haunt you. She's a spirit you don't want to cross paths with, yet alone let her see you. An accomplished performance by a marvelously moody Adrian Rawlins as the solicitor Arthur Kidd does hold it all together. In support are solid turns by Bernard Hepton, David Daker, Clare Holman and David Ryall.<br /><br />Drawing heavy on its lushly sombre rural town and foggy coastal locations adds more to the realistically eerie plight and the centre piece were everything unfolds in the forlorn, time-worn Victorian house that comprehensively suffocates the air with constant fear. Director Herbert Wise carefully fabricates alarming imagery that slowly covers one secretive piece at a time in a smoothly paved out rhythm of well-judged contriving. Instead of going out to shock us, some scenes contain a distressing intensity that won't let go. The sound effects are masterfully used, by surrounding and disorienting the air. Rachel Portman's harrowing musical score knows how to get under your skin during those eerie moments and then stay with you.<br /><br />This rarity made-for-television feat is a stimulating rich and unsettling supernatural spook-fest. It might not share much new to the sub-genre, but it competently sticks to it strengths to deliver what counts in this curse.

Slaughter Trail is a B western with some grand pretensions. But it's come down in Hollywood history for a most ignominious reason.<br /><br />Watching this film with it's musical score which can only be described as overbearing, I have a feeling what Howard Hughes was trying to do is recruit a singing cowboy for RKO films. They already had Tim Holt who was as reliable a B picture cowboy hero there ever was, but he was not a singer. I guess Hughes saw what money Herbert J. Yates was raking in with Roy Rogers over at Republic and decided he'd get one as well.<br /><br />So Terry Gilkyson who was a very good performer and much better song writer got recruited and sang some of his material which was not his best and worse, looked like they were shoehorned into the picture. But worse than that, there's this annoying chorus which sang a lot of the story and frankly overwhelmed the actors, extras, even the horses. Needless to say Terry never got to be a singing cowboy. But he did write such classics as The Bare Necessities and Dean Martin's great hit, Memories are Made of This.<br /><br />The plot concerns an inside woman on a stagecoach jewel robbery. That's right, the outlaws who are Gig Young, Myron Healey, and Ken Koutnik plant Virginia Grey in the coach as a passenger which they receive word is carrying some valuable jewels. <br /><br />It's a great act Grey and Young pull off. Young takes her away from the coach to presumably a fate worse than death and they do properly act out the scene within earshot of the passengers, but what he does is slip her the swag. Last place the authorities might look, if she doesn't run off with it.<br /><br />But when they flee the robbery it's on tired horses so they stop at a cabin to take some replacement mounts and shoot three Navajos who object. That puts the Navajos back on the warpath, didn't help that one of the casualties was Chief Ric Roman's brother.<br /><br />That's the situation that Captain Brian Donlevy at the fort has to deal with when the coach and the outlaws arrive there for protection. How it all works out is predictable, but in a gaudy sort of overproduced way.<br /><br />In fact that's the problem with Slaughter Trail. It's a simple no frills B western that got souped up into something almost grotesque.<br /><br />But the real reason Slaughter Trail entered into history is that this film apparently marks the official beginning of the blacklist. Originally Howard DaSilva was to play Donlevy's part and may have in fact completed his scenes, when Howard Hughes officially fired him for Communist sympathies. His scenes were completely re-shot with Brian Donlevy in the lead.<br /><br />Considering what a fiasco this film turned into, I'm not sure whether Donlevy or DaSilva ought to have thanked Hughes or kicked him in his private preserve.

magellan33 said: "You can only do so much when the two stars of the show can only be seen by one fellow cast member."<br /><br />I assume, then, that you never heard of "Topper".<br /><br />Which, in addition to the two stars who could only be seen by one member of the cast, had a dog, ditto.<br /><br />This was the kind of program that had "Not Gonna Make It" written allover it from the first episode - it was like an arcade video game where you actually have to read the instructions to play; no-one (well, very few of us, apparently) wants to watch a comedy program that has a basic premise that actually requires *thought* to grasp.

Viva Variety was a unique hybrid program that was both a parody of and a tribute to the programs it represented. <br /><br />It was most directly a mock up of the classic 1970s favorite, "The Sonny & Cher Show," With Thomas Lennon and Kerri Kenney playing a divorced show biz couple who were somehow forced to host this program together, the female of the pair towering over the male, and the constant barrage of "insult humor" the couple tossed at each other, plus sketch comedy bits and performances from what are most kindly described as "specialty" acts! <br /><br />The "hybrid" was the mix of fact and fantasy. Of course, there was no "Mr. and Former Mrs. Laupin," and the program's announcer, Johnny Bluejeans, was likewise equally fictional. But all the acts that performed were certainly real, and some were even entertaining! But there were also some acts that would have clearly been better suited for the old Chuck Barris "Gong Show." <br /><br />The show itself was really more like an extended sketch from "SCTV" (it was borne from the MTV series, "The State," after all), and some would suggest that it would have been better as a five minute bit in the mix of a program like that one, rather than a stand alone series. But "Viva Variety" certainly should get high marks for original concepts, and even though it was often more odd than funny, it was certainly worthwhile, especially when they road tripped to Las Vegas and brought in even glitzier acts to perform. It's unlikely we'll ever see anything like this on television again.

Jean Seberg had not one iota of acting talent. Like all her films, 'Bonjour tristesse' suffers not at all from her looks (though she is perhaps the first of those modern women whom Tom Wolfe gleefully, accurately describes as "boys with breasts": publicists, of course, use the word "gamine") but suffers grievously from Seberg's dull, monotonous, killing voice. In all her films when had to play anger, Seberg played it with grossly audible, distracting, gasping panting between her monotonously droned verbalizations. Oy.<br /><br />Preminger's adaptation of Françoise Sagan's breathlessly juvenile, fantasy soap opera plot is noteworthy only for his lush cinematography - but then that's difficult to funk on the photogenic French Riviera, and perhaps for his apt, but certainly not groundbreaking, employment of black & white for the present day scenes from which Seberg's monotone narration delivers us to the flashed-back-to color past.<br /><br />Juliette Gréco has a brief moment, as a nightclub chanteuse in the black & white spotlight, delivering in smoky Dietrichesque voice the bleak existentialist lyric of the title song. This moment is nowadays, in retrospect, more than a wee bit drôle. Except, of course, if you're French - particularly if you're a French "68-er" longing for the glorious days of the barricades roundabout the Sorbonne - and your kids riot to retain the lifelong sinecures which have blighted and emasculated France's economy: then you still believe in Sartre and Foucault and all such arcane, irrelevant theorists.<br /><br />David Niven has the hardest role, having to play with sufficient gusto an aging hedonist who's yet to grasp that life isn't all about Sagan's teenybopper notions of a hip, cool, swingin', "mon copain!" Papa. Deborah Kerr delivers her usual, consummately professional presence, convincingly playing the woman who suffers undeservedly Seberg's spiteful teenaged snot-nose jealousy (fulfilling Sagan's shallow teen fantasy of the Classical theme of "there can be only one Queen Bee in the hive"); in fact, to Kerr belongs this film's sole great and memorable on-screen moment.<br /><br />The dialogue is unnatural - I agree with an earlier reviewer who said that it sounds to be "badly translated" from French; combine the unnatural scripting with Seberg's incomparably dull, unendurable monotone and you can save that Valium for another night. Atop all that the ineptly synched post-production voice dubbing is, almost throughout, obvious and thus much more than irksome: this is especially true of the dubbing for Mylène Demongeot because it spoils her otherwise very pleasing dumb blonde performance.<br /><br />Hunky Geoffrey Horne gets the short end of the stick here - a very good looking young man who also suffered from a less-than-lovely, uncinematic voice which, when paired with Seberg's drone, yields unconvincing scenes of puppy love. (Horne was, shall we say, merely adequate in 'Bridge On the River Kwai,' perhaps because his end was held up by those great cinema pros William Holden and Jack Hawkins instead of being unsupported by the regrettably ungifted Seberg).<br /><br />In sum 'Bonjour tristesse' is pretty to look at but it's shallow, immature soap: thin gruel with suds.

This is a "docu-drama" of (mostly) the later years of KW's life, with nearly all the parts played by actors (but spot which TV quartermaster plays himself!). It was made for the BBC4 arts channel but my guess is there will be syndication and DVD releases soon. KW is ably played by the excellent Michael Sheen, here repeating his previous stage role with great success. Most of the supporting cast are also very good, and a nice touch is the recreation of period TV appearances with the new actors. This is not, however, light viewing - anyone familiar with KW's diaries and general unhappy demeanour will already know how twisted he could be in later life - so don't expect 80 minutes of Carry On styled buffoonery, since the emphasis is decidedly downbeat throughout. Recommended, but it's tragi-comic, indeed.

I was really disappointed with this film. The first Waters movie I saw was Serial Mom and I loved it. Then I saw Pecker and I loved it. Then I watched Polyester and really sort of hated it. The only thing I liked about that movie was DIVINE. She/He had a hell of a lot of talent. I was truly surprised. As a whole, I wouldn't recommend this film...

A fine Martino outing, this is a spirited and enjoyable giallo with fine performances from good looking cast and principally the two leads, George Hilton and Anita Strindberg.<br /><br />For me the jig-saw puzzle of a plot is so convoluted and confusing you just sit back and enjoy rather than try to anticipate. Just when all seems resolved we are again taken on a further series of twists, enjoyable twists, it has to be said.<br /><br />Sexy with plenty of gory kills this a well paced movie with London, Athens and Greek coastal locations. A super finale set upon Aegean rocks wraps things up and much fun was had by all.

I don't know where to begin. The cast is full of people who've never done anything before or since. Debralee Scott is listed on cover boxes, but does not appear in the movie at all. The writing is quite bad, even for college films. It's obviously very low budget, with one scene at the sorority house having extremely choppy editing.<br /><br />The characters are pretty typical for college films - timid guy, nerd, suave black guy, tough guys, guy with mustache, attractive girl, small town girl, etc. The featured teacher is about what's you'd expect... middle aged heavy set guy who gets sidetracked easily.<br /><br />If you wan't to see a college flick, stay clear from this one. It's so bad, it's not even funny.

As a long-standing Barbra fan, any posting like this will be biased. That aside, this film ranks as a classic. It has it's flaws (emphasized in other postings), but gives a glimpse of a time (late 70s) that will never be there again, and is fascinating to watch unfold on screen.<br /><br />Streisand fought hard to make this movie her own. I don't think she was ever satisfied. But it gives her fans a new Barbra (for the time) with LIVE singing, a young fresh appearance, and some very heavy-duty acting.<br /><br />The story is rough, but exciting, and holds your interest throughout. The extended one frame "finale" is hard for most non-Barbra fans to sit through, but it speaks volumes to those who admire her talent.<br /><br />

I went to see it in hopes of some good old fashioned Alice Entertainment.Once I realized I would not be getting that,I watched it for a pretty well made movie (in terms of filming,and yeah..that was it).But aside from it having a good film quality,considering I had been watching grainy movies all day long,there was nothing good about that movie.<br /><br />He killed 42.Why were Tweedle Dee and Dum played by Mudler and Scully?Serisouly,Who can answer that for me?Who can answer anything awful about this movie for me.<br /><br />I agree with whoever said it was just one big long inside joke for the staff.That's all it seemed to be.<br /><br />Poor Mr.Carroll.I'm so sorry somebody did that to his wonderful tales.

The often misunderstood Zabriskie Point is Antonioni's political film, Antonioni's American film. Stylistically, it follows suit after "Blow-Up", meaning that the pace is faster than the previous epics, though certainly no less idiosyncratic.<br /><br />Basically the common mistake is that the film glorifies the hippie generation. Not so.<br /><br />The two protagonists come from vastly different environments. Mark from the "rebel" youths, Daria from an estate agency corporation. But in true Antonioni fashion, they are both alienated, both trying to escape their surroundings. Mark leaves a meeting of rebel students and Black Panthers disappointed with the verbose empty rhetoric, while Daria keeps uneasily being on the move with her car.<br /><br />Antionioni, the master director, after portraying the rebelling youth as confused and shallow, then moves to the city. An environment saturated by corporatism, billboard advertisements, meaninglessness, that has to keep expanding to accommodate the similar expansion of the population, generating a profit at the same time. It is this environment that the two protagonists escape from, though it seems mostly out of coincidence.<br /><br />Indeed, when Daria stops by a small village in the outskirts of the desert, the environment is just as suffocating, and the people just as lost cases, best exemplified by an old boxing champion, now reduced to a shadow of himself, sitting around drinking and smoking and talking nonsense. A stunning melancholy sequence, made even more powerful with the inclusion of some half wild children living around, brought in by some "benefactor" but "destroying a genuine piece of American history". In a not-so-obscure symbolism, there is Antonioni's opinion on the hippies. Just a half-positive glimpse in the canvas of human alienation.<br /><br />And then there is the desert, the landscape used to devastating effect, by turns pure and terrifying, primeval, wild and dead. The sequence where the two protagonists make love, "joined" in fantasy by the "flower" generation reflects the similar sequence in "Red Desert", where Giuliana tells her son a story. It is a colourful intermission in a colourless landscape. A vivid half-fantasy in a suffocating reality.<br /><br />The ending probably belongs to the pantheon of great endings in cinema, the Western civilization blown to pieces. A catharsis, an exorcism.<br /><br />Antionioni's two "international" films (the British "Blow-Up" and the American "Zabriskie Point") are lesser efforts than the previous masterpieces, but that is largely because of the faster pace and the inevitably contrived settings (swinging London, flower-power America). But when it comes down to it, it's clear he hasn't lost the edge.

and I for one think that is a good thing. I've just never been a Rosalind Russell fan although the original was my favorite RR movie. But I love Bette and was thrilled to hear she was making this.<br /><br />As for the rest of the production, I think it was slightly less than the original movie. One of my favorite minor characters in the original was Mazeppa with her scratchy fingernails-on-the-blackboard voice belting out "HEY! It takes a lot more than no talent to be a strippah!" and although I missed it, I was glad to see the producers had the guts not to do a carbon copy.<br /><br />I also liked the fact there are large portions of this movie which were filmed as if you are looking at a stage, it gives a feeling that you are in the theatre, not just at the movies.<br /><br />I think the other thing I liked about this production was that there seemed to be slightly less repetition of the song "Let me entertain you", which becomes completely annoying after about the 5th time you hear it.

Chan-wook Park, you have to hand it to the guy. In my eyes, he's not only a brilliant director but a brilliant director who can turn his hand to any genre and often provides something refreshing yet still ultimately satisfying.<br /><br />Thirst is, essentially, a vampire tale but one that plays fast and loose with some of the "rules" of the subgenre. Kang-ho Song plays Father Sang-hyeon, a man who unselfishly gives himself over to a research program and then unselfishly kind of catches the disease they are trying to cure, dies and comes back. All thanks to the blood he was transfused with. Being the only one out of five hundred to survive, he becomes quite the celebrity to those who know him and all he wants is to get back to normal. Normal, however, now involves being able to leap great distances without injury, wanting to drink blood and getting severely hot under the collar when rays of sun get on his skin. It's not long before he's living with a rather dysfunctional family unit who knew him in his childhood and while he hides his new, strange lifestyle he finds himself drawn into a complex love triangle, becoming more acceptable of darker thoughts and sliding down a slippery slope that could lead him from man to beast to monster.<br /><br />Deftly blending a number of genres, Park's movie felt much fresher and more original to me than Let The Right One In (to use a recent example) and genuinely impressed me with it's approach to material that could easily have felt as well-worn and rehashed as any number of other vampire movies we've seen over the years. It's a mixture of horror, melodrama and comedy while also pondering ideas such as strength of faith, the power over life and death, the downside of immortality, etc, etc.<br /><br />Some people have complained that this genre-blending approach weakens the movie but I personally found that it was a lively, entertaining and always enjoyable movie helped by a great central performance from Song as the tortured priest and fantastic turns from a supporting cast with no weak links. Many characters get to move through a range of emotions and all do so with skill and believability, especially the young woman (played by OK-vin Kim) who becomes the object of the priest's love, lust and affection.<br /><br />Fans of Asian cinema (and Park in particular) and also fans of Poe's "The Tell-tale Heart" (watch and learn) should lap this up, it's yet another classy movie from a man who seems to take everything in his stride and always manages to put out nothing less than solid entertainment.<br /><br />See this if you like: Cronos, Near Dark, Dellamorte Dellamore AKA Cemetery Man.

I recently purchased Lost Horizon on ebay, having vivid memories of the Things I Will Not Miss number from childhood (I am an ancient 29). I also recently finished the novel upon which it is based. I was so pleasantly surprised to find a genuine hidden treasure. A wonderful cast brings such warmth and depth to a beautifully simple and elegantly told story, subtly updated from the original film (and by now quite a separate entity to the far more intellectual and thought provoking book by James Hilton). Sally Kellerman in particular has a radiant presence as the suicidal neurotic Sally Hughes, who gradually warms to the charms of Shangri-La. Only Liv Ullmann flounders in her wooden portrayal of the schoolteacher (a role far more suited to a Julie Andrews type. The fact that Finch, Ullmann and Hussey are all dubbed isn't important as it is almost impossible to tell. The songs DO vary in quality, the music being far superior to the lyrics but it is still a vibrant and engrossing film that really deserves a proper DVD release and a lot more recognition.

Hello I am from Denmark, and one day i was having a film evening with my friends. One brought this movie with him "Russian terminator" and it was extremely awful. After watching less than half a minute we decided to fast forward only stopping at some laughable "highlights" or should i say "lowlights" in the movie. I was actually mostly surprised to find out that this film was produced here in my homeland Denmark...that must have been the biggest mistake this country ever made.

I saw this episode of Masterpiece Theatre and immediately came to IMDb to look it up. I was greeted by a comment from another user, who believed that it was nothing special, a 6 out of 10, and underwhelming. I would feel morally remiss if I didn't disagree.<br /><br />Now, I am an avid fan of Masterpiece Theatre, but oftentimes the stories can be a bit silly on television, for example, "He Knew He Was Right" was absolutely horrendous. "Carrie's War," however, is probably the best I've seen so far. The entire cast does an excellent job, and it held my interest more than any other piece I've seen recently. The character Mr. Evans is of particular interest, and through subtle images of, for example, an untouched birthday cake or a garnet ring, my opinion of him went from bad to truly good. Truly. His ultimate demise, and the story of how everyone around him left him a cold hard man, is what brought out the bittersweet in this story for me.<br /><br />The end is gratifying in every sense but one; that everyone did not get what they deserved, but overall things worked out. I absolutely recommend this to everyone.

I saw this movie the other day in a film school class, and I hadn't seen an Almodovar movie before but went in expecting it to be good. Unfortunately, it turned out to be a pointless film with only a couple of laughs mixed in with two hours of sheer boredom. High Heels is just a collection of random scenes that might have worked in their own separate movies but together don't add up to any kind of meaningful whole at all.<br /><br />Or so I thought. Then, the next day, my film professor spent the entire class period explaining all of the movie's hidden little details, like how the mural depicting stereotypical flamenco dancers in the background of the drag queen scene is some kind of commentary on the lack of identity that Spain as a nation has developed under fascist rule. Apparently, the whole movie is chock full of clever little visual tricks and references like this.<br /><br />Great, but you know what? It's still a bad movie. It takes more than depth and complexity to make a good film--you still need to give the audience a reason to keep paying attention, something to interest the viewer enough to actually care about all the subtle tricks. High Heels gives us strange, off-beat characters but keeps them in mostly mundane situations recycled from other movies, and Almodovar doesn't seem to be using them to make any kind of point. What is the significance, for example, of the Hitchcockian surprise character revelation that occurs towards the end of the film? Why is that even in there? Just to surprise us?<br /><br />There is one funny scene that has to do with a news broadcast. And that's it, that's the only entertaining moment. The rest of the movie is just nonsensical filmic references and visual cues that apparently exist only for the sake of showing us how smart Pedro Almodovar is. But no matter what my film professor says, it takes more than self-indulgent trickery for a movie to be good.

My Age: 13<br /><br />James Cole, played by Steven Seagal, is sent to help Detective Jim Campbell, played by Keenen Ivory Wayans, solve a series of killings in which the victims are crucified. Since Cole has arrived on the spot, he notices that the killings have changed a little, and thinks there is a different killer. It becomes personal when his ex-wife is murdered, and Campbell finds his fingerprints on the body. Campbell investigates the mysterious Cole, and finds out about a very shady past.<br /><br />I am not a fan of Steven Seagal. I enjoy action movies, but he is the worst actor I have ever seen. This film is not much fun to watch at all, incredibly dumb, and, obviously, Steven Seagal's acting performance is absolutely horrid. Keenen Ivory Wayans isn't too bad, though. The only redeeming thing in this film is the occasional good action scene, although most come round because of insanely stupid reasons. The plot in this film is absolute gibberish. I didn't care for it at all. The whole "glimmer man" past of Seagal's character was stupid, all the Mafia fights and fights in the restaurant were there for almost no reason. Give this film a miss.<br /><br />Australian Classification: MA 15+: High Level Violence<br /><br />Rating: 35 out of 100 (quite generous)

One of the most beautiful movies ever made in ex Yu.Story is very familiar to people in ex Yul because generation after war used to live in the same way.People in the west cant imagine how political situation in our country affect people.The plot is in the 50",When Josip Broz Tito said no to the SSSR and politbiro and because of that our borders becomes open for western influence.But,in a country were people didn't had much money jeans was only ideal and friendship was everything.The friendship between for young people an a girl was so strong that after 40 years of their emigration from Yu is still alive.They get together after all this years on Ester"s funeral and they start to remember of their childhood,before their went to the emigration and become successful people.

I can't get this flick off my brain. It's definitely totally different than anything that's out there. I've seen a ton of movies over the holidays and while some are okay nothing really rocked my world the way BlindSpot did. There is just something way cool about the actors and the way that they put the film together. It's like there is really scary stuff mixed with with some pretty f****ing hilarious black humour. Franco is great but the older rough dude steals the show in a few scenes, like when he punches the kid out in the dirt grave. I guess some politically correctos won't appreciate the vibe (don't bring your grandma) but it is totally awesome. The thing that's best is the kaliedescope style. There is some really serious stuff mixed with super interesting footage of the road. The movie really makes you sad and scared in parts but it also spins your head with what is happening and the way it is filmed. WTF is up with the world? Sooo many critics are raving about all these supposedly revolutionary ground-breaking films and when you see them they're boring and predictable and not-all-that. I don't get it because there are a lot of other better choices. Blind Spot is really kinda great because it gives you thrills and chills and major upcoming star power but does it in a way that is completely fresh and definitely totally rad.

Bogdonovich's (mostly) unheralded classic is a film unlike just about any other. A film that has the feel of a fairy tale, but has a solid grounding in reality due to its use of authentic Manhattan locations and "true" geography, perhaps the best location filming in NYC I've ever seen. John Ritter reminds us that with good directors (Bogdanovich, Blake Edwards, Billy Bob) he can be brilliant, and the entire ensemble is a group you'll wish truly existed so you could spend time with `em. One of the few romantic comedies of the last 20 years that doesn't seem to be a rip-off of something else, this is the high point of Bogdanovich's fertile after- "success" career, when his best work was truly done ("saint jack", "at long last...", "noises off".

As I said, sometimes low budget is good. You get to see a good movie without a lot of the extra BS that can hide an otherwise piece of crap. Well...this was that piece of crap. If anything, I thought it had humor, unfortunately the humor was unintentional. The only half-witted acting came from Bill Smith and his part was cut out (that's a joke). There was never a Bill Smith, nor was there anyone cast who could act. Even Gerald Okamura sucked, and he's been cast in nearly 40 movies. The fight scenes were comical and made me feel like I could kick all their $%#@#$. The sound was horrible, as if all sound was recorded on the set. My 10 year old could have written a better script...BTW, my 10 year old fell asleep...no kidding. I give a B+ to editing for cutting the movie to only 90 minutes...60 minutes would have been an A+.

A refreshing interview with the legendary Italian cinematographer-producer-director who passed away in 1999 with close to 200 features to his credit as director. A large portion is spent on D'Amato's softcore sex films including his notorious EMANUELLE entries with Laura Gemser. They also briefly cover his porn career, which kept him afloat during his last decade or so. More interesting to me is the section focusing on his horror and action efforts. D'Amato has plenty of great anecdotes about actors and his low budget film-making including a story about an assistant accidentally collecting real bones amid the fake ones while shooting in a 2,000-year-old catacomb. Other interviewees include George Eastman and Al Cliver. I would have liked a bit more conversation about his Stateside Filmirage productions (not a single question about TROLL 2; granted it wasn't the cult film then it was now).

Besides Planes, Trains and Automobiles and Uncle Buck, this is John Candy's funniest movie. When he gets hypnotized with the playing card (similar to the Manchurian Candidate) and becomes a horny guy who does not know what he is saying, he makes two very memorable quotes (Both deal with the male anatomy). The love scene involving grocery items has to be seen, it cannot be described.<br /><br />

Every motion picture Bette Davis stars in is worth experiencing. Before Davis co-stars with Leslie Howard in "Of Human Bondage," she'd been in over a score of movies. Legend has it that Davis was 'robbed' of a 1935 Oscar for her performance as a cockney-speaking waitress, unwed mother & manipulative boyfriend-user, Mildred Rogers. The story goes that the AFI consoled Davis by awarding her 1st Oscar for playing Joyce Heath in "Dangerous." I imagine Davis' fans of "Of Human Bondage" who agree with the Oscar-robbing legend are going to have at my critique's contrast of the 1934 film for which the AFI didn't award her performance & the 1936 film "Dangerous," performance for which she received her 1st Oscar in 1937.<br /><br />I've tried to view all of Bette Davis' motion pictures, TV interviews, videos, advertisements for WWII & TV performances in popular series. In hindsight, it is easy to recognize why this film, "Of Human Bondage," gave Davis the opportunity to be nominated for her performance. She was only 25yo when the film was completed & just about to reach Hollywood's red carpet. The public began to notice Bette Davis as a star because of her performance in "Of Human Bondage." That is what makes it her legendary performance. But, RKO saw her greatness in "The Man Who Played God," & borrowed her from Warners to play Rogers.<br /><br />I'm going to go with the AFI, in hindsight, some 41 years after their astute decision to award Davis her 1st Best Actress Oscar for "Dangerous," 2 years later. By doing so, the AFI may have been instrumental in bringing out the very best in one of Hollywood's most talented 20th century actors. Because, from "Of Human Bondage," onward, Davis knew for certain that she had to reach deep inside of herself to find the performances that earned her the golden statue. Doubtless, she deserved more than 2 Oscars; perhaps as many as 6.<br /><br />"Dangerous" provides an exemplary contrast in Davis' depth of acting characterization. For, it's in "Dangerous" (1936) that she becomes the greatest actor of the 20th century. Davis is so good as Joyce Heath, she's dead-center on the red carpet. Whereas in "Of Human Bondage," Davis is right off the edge, still on the sidewalk & ready to take off on the rest of her 60 year acting career.<br /><br />Perhaps by not awarding her that legendary Oscar in 1935, instead of a star being born, an actor was given incentive to reach beyond stardom into her soul for the gifted actor's greatest work.<br /><br />It is well known that her contemporary peer adversary was Joan Crawford; a star whose performances still don't measure up to Davis'. Even Anna Nicole Smith was a 'star'. Howard Stern is a radio host 'star', too. Lots of people on stage & the silver screen are stars. Few became great actors. The key difference between them is something that Bette Davis could sense: the difference between the desire to do great acting or to become star-struck.<br /><br />Try comparing these two movies as I have, viewing one right after the other. Maybe you'll recognize what the AFI & I did. Davis was on the verge of becoming one of the greatest actors of the 20th century at 25yo & achieved her goal by the time she was 27. She spent her next 50 plus years setting the bar so high that it has not been reached . . . yet.<br /><br />Had the AFI sent her the message that she'd arrived in "Of Human Bondage," Davis' life history as a great actor may have been led into star-struck-dom, instead.

Bela Lugosi plays a doctor who will do anything to keep his wife looking young and beautiful. To this end, he drugs brides during their wedding ceremonies to make it look as if they are dead so he can steal their bodies. I'm not exactly sure what he does with the bodies. I don't remember it ever being fully explained. All I know is that he extracts something from them and injects it in his wife. (I'll just guess that it's spinal fluid. Spinal fluid was all the rage of mad scientists in the 40s.) You can pretty much guess the rest from here.<br /><br />There are a couple (well, really more than a couple, but I'll only write about two) of problems that I have with this movie. One is the way Bela is used. Sure, he does a decent enough job in his own overacting sort of way (BTW, the rest of the cast is simply abysmal). But, to have him hiding in the back of a hearse or having him creep into the female reporter's bedroom to do nothing is just silly. Also, why have him beat and/or kill every henchman he has? Is it to make him look evil? Well, someone who is kidnapping comatose brides doesn't really need to be made to look more evil.<br /><br />The second problem I have is the idea of drugging brides. Why brides? Wouldn't any female under the age of 20 do? Watching Bela go through these gyrations to get his victims, I was reminded of the idiotic Fisherman in I Still Know What You Did Last Summer. In each case, there would appear to be an easier way of reaching your objective than employing a seemingly impossible plan that depends way to much on circumstances out of your control. (BTW, an alternate title for this movie is The Case of the Missing Brides. I guess that partially explains the need for 'brides'.)

The only reason that this movie is rated a 1 is that zero is not one of the selection options. With a plot thinner than depression era cabbage soup, horrific acting, and special effects that look like they came out of the "Thunderbirds" TV series, it is amazing that Widmark didn't kill the director for putting this black mark on his resume. Even by 1950's standards, the special effects are atrocious, except for a couple of underwater submarine sequences. I can only assume that it was nominated for best special effects because, except for 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and THEM!, there wasn't anybody else doing effects. It was certainly no contest for Disney that year if this was their only competition. I wouldn't recommend the film, even for hard core submarine movie buffs, as the most realistic scene on the submarine was limited to one shot where seawater can be seen dribbling down the up-raised periscope. There are other, much better, sub films that you can enjoy from this era, like the aforementioned 20,000 Leagues or Torpedo Run.

This will be brief. Let me first state that I'm agnostic and not exactly crazy about xtians, especially xtian fanatics. However, this documentary had a tone of the like of some teenager angry at his xtian mother for not letting him play video games. I just couldn't take it seriously. Mentioning how CharlesManson thought he was Christ to illustrate the point that xtianity can breed evil? i don't know it was just cheap and childish -- made the opposition look ignorant. Furthermore, the narrator just seemed snobby and pretentious. The delivery was complete overkill. I can't take this documentary seriously. Might appeal to an angry teenager piss3d off at his xtian mother for not letting him play video games.

This very forced attempt to fuse Robert Altman and Quentin Tarantino (who is wildly overrated himself) is neither informative nor entertaining. The character development is arbitrary and unbelievable -- especially in the final scene of the thugs and the little boy, as other reviewers have noted. Also, a couple of humorous moments aside, the film is not as funny (black humor or otherwise) as the director seems to think it is.

Leos Carax has made 3 great movies: Boys Meet Girls, Mauvais Sang, Les Amants du Pont Neuf. In fact those films were not that great but it has the violence of youth, the beauty of juvenile wilderness. Carax in these three movies was well aware of what cinema was, but he tried to make his own vision of the art, without thinking about about all he have seen, but using it and melting it into his times. Pola X is a very different movie because Carax made Les Amants du Pont Neuf, a monstruosity of 20 millions dollars, a film that has destroyed everything on its way. After such a movie you can't do another one in the same point of view. So Leos Carax has to changed, and he did. The movie isn't as beautiful as its first, it's more reasonable, no more studio, no more dreamed Paris, Carax has entered at last reality. It's not clean anymore, it's not poetic characters. Carax have become a romantic in the german sense of it.

This movie was made in Hungary i think. anyway,the countryside is gorgeous,the people who play the farming folks were totally fascinating. their horsemanship is awesome. I got more into the native people, the farm life, and how heroic they were trying to hide Brady from the evil Nazis who where looking for these parachutists. They even sacrificed their life in several instances. the young orphan lad that Brady befriends was a sweet kid. you will marvel at the riding i think, and the action of trying to evade the Nazis. it is entertaining and comic in some spots and very tragic in others. Ladies have hankies handy, as you will be devastated at the end. i own it, and have watched it several times. in other words, not just a one time around flick. its a keeper....

Sure it was well shot and made, very well shot and made! But the story was just so weak. And the portrayal of Lincoln was even weaker. Not that Henry Fonda wasn't good but the character he played was nothing but a loon. Do you mean to tell me that Lincoln was a wise cracking smart ass with no respect of the law or the court. I mean who the hell was he supposed to be? Cousin Vinnie? I mean come on, "I'll just call you Jackass then"???? I understand that Ford was going for great funny hero guy but I didn't really like this guy at all. He cheats in sports, talks like a real sweet simpleton and does not seem to know were to sit in a courtroom. How am I supposed to take this seriously.<br /><br />The twist was even weaker. I mean come on! That was just stupid. The whole story seemed like it was thought up by some 5 year old in his or her dreams. Saying that I liked it enough, it was very entertaining and made me laugh at several occasions so I can't say it's a bad film. In fact I must say that I must say it's good enough, nothing that entertains me and makes me laugh can be bad BUT this vivid and silly story was just so ridiculous that I can't understand how anyone could consider it great.<br /><br />I have no idea how historically accurate this film was but if any of it was true I would really have to shake my head.

Thriller is the GREATEST music video of all time !!!!! Performed by the GREATEST artist of all time ! Thriller really sent music videos going, and other artists have been trying to copy Thriller in one way or another ever since ! IT'S A THRILLER !!!!!!

What a self-indulgent mess! Duncan Roy's film is apparently autobiographical, however it's impossible to find any glimmer of emotional truth in this chaotic, badly acted and woefully amateurish fiasco.<br /><br />In a way, you have to admire the balls of a man who through grim determination and a very generous benefactor manages to make a film about his own rise and fall - from abused, working class lad to criminal English lord. However, the tone is either so self-pitying or so arch, that it's impossible to engage with either characters or plot. The raw material is potentially great stuff, however Roy seems unable to tease out the kind of tale that should grab you by the throat, then move you to tears. And it's a complete mystery why it was ever made to be screened as a triptych of images - presumably because a single image would have been too tedious to watch.<br /><br />It's also interesting to see so many otherwise good actors - Bill Nighy, Diana Quick, Lindsay Coulson - giving career-worst performances.

The film of Artemisia may be considered treason, or as true artistic license. <br /><br />Which might one aver?<br /><br />In documented history, Artemisia Gentileschi was subjected to the thumbscrew, and still affirmed that she was r***ed, as Mary Garrard and Gloria Steinem have eloquently affirmed.<br /><br />In the movie, under a different torture, she refused to condemn her lover/violator.<br /><br />How may a movie deviate so much from received history, yet still inform the human heart?<br /><br />The answer is not so hard to find. In the movie, the director and cast had filled a gaping hole in the historical record, with the power of imagination.<br /><br />That led to a conclusion that differs from the record.<br /><br />So be it. I find _both_ the record and the movie to be compelling.<br /><br />In both the movie and (it seems) in history, Artemisia was a painter, before all else.<br /><br />For that vision, framed in ravishing (sic) film composition, I am truly grateful.<br /><br />Seldom have I seen a movie that so compelled my eyes.<br /><br />David Broadhurst

At the same time John Russell was playing ranch owner Nathan Burdette, trying to free his no good brother Claude Akins from sheriff John Wayne in Rio Bravo he was working the other side of the law on television. These years were probably the high point of Russell's career, his most noted screen role and his most famous television role, Marshal Dan Troop of Laramie in Lawman.<br /><br />Russell kept law and order in Laramie the same way that James Arness did it in Dodge City on Gunsmoke. Unlike Gunsmoke, Laramie never developed the all the minor characters that gave you the feel of Dodge City at the time. Instead it concentrated on Russell taking care of business and learning the business of law to his eager young deputy Peter Brown.<br /><br />Brown played deputy Johnny McKay who was a most respectful young man, constantly referring to his boss as Mr. Troop. He was pretty handy with a shooting iron, but was inclined to be impulsive. Good thing Marshal Troop was around.<br /><br />The other series regular was the Kitty Russell of Laramie, Lily played by Peggie Castle. This is where Lawman most resembled Gunsmoke. There was an unspoken understanding between Russell and Castle that even the smallest of children couldn't have missed. And I wasn't the smallest of children when Lawman was in first run.<br /><br />Sadly Peggie Castle developed substance abuse problems after Lawman's run ended. I remember a small obituary marked her passing in the first half of the Seventies. She was one beautiful woman.<br /><br />Lawman was good no nonsense western from that golden era of the adult television western. It was one of the best.

I would be one of the few people who owns a copy of this classic. But i dont only own 1, i actually own 2. Its THAT good.<br /><br />Well, when i say good, i mean bad. But i will try to do a thorough review. I even watched 'born a ninja' which one of the other reviewers here mentioned, to compare it to this. And born a ninja is actually worse, but not quite as funny.<br /><br />And is this ever funny. EVERYTHING about this movie is poor. EVERYTHING. The plot is absolutely stuffed (note the 'you'll need to keep me alive if you want to know where to find your wife'). EVERY action sequence is stuffed too. Our hero danton is more than a hero; he can stab people with twigs, take 3 bullets in the heart at 50 cm away without even bleeding, and tie a rope up to a tree which, when an enemy steps on it, ties a knot around the enemies leg, picks him up, and throws him 50 metres into a bunch of spikes.<br /><br />The acting is so bad it is impossible to comment on it, but it should have you rolling, especially dantons 'jump out of the ground and growl at the bad guy'. Oh yes, and the bad guys: somehow, it seems they resurrect themselves 5 times each in the movie. Perhaps it's just that there weren't enough actors, but in a movie of this calibre? i doubt that.<br /><br />The 'plot' is about how danton was a soldier in the vietnam war, and now his colonel is hunting real people for training for his mercenaries. The colonel just happens to pick up danton, then danton fights back. This is just the excuse for a rambo clone, with most of the movie being danton slaughtering soldiers. And i really cant explain the plot any more cos there is nothing else to the movie. It still rocks though.<br /><br />What else could be wrong you ask? Dont get me started. Hand grenades which actually go off at the actors' feet because the explosion is the size of a match.Scenes where there are 5 people chasing danton, then the camera cuts away and back and there are 7. The way that every time danton loads the grenade launcher he is against the same background even though he is in completely diffrent locations. And the worst part is when danton pushes the plastic boulders onto the enemies, and one enemy is completely untouched by the boulders, so he doesn't know what to do so he half heartedly dies without even being touched. It's ridiculous!!!<br /><br />But funny. Very, VERY funny. This is one of the few movies i can thoroughly recommend to everybody, cos if you dont find it funny, you are 1 in a million. And for the rest of us it's magic.

Baldwin has really stooped low to make such movies. The script, the music, just about everything in this movie is a waste of time.<br /><br />The sound FX do not sound real, they stick out way too much (technical gadgets etc.) If they are trying to make a movie about things like this, at least try to get real with it and drop those extra bleeps and beeps, because those gadgets don't really make loud sounds like that. Natural sounds like footsteps and such are non-existent, which gives it a void-like atmosphere.<br /><br />Directing seems to be OK for such a low budget film (I sure hope it was a low budget production), although it does seem fairly amateurish at times.<br /><br />Most characters seem empty and false, they simply haven't casted this movie very well. I'd imagine it would've been a better idea to make Baldwin speak some Spanish than to make Spanish actors speak English, when we all know that theirs is the language which is more vibrant and alive, that is why the actors performance can suffer greatly if an odd language is used. I mean, could finally someone realise how stupid it sounds to make international actors speak English with a bad accent? It's should've a long ago buried corpse in movie production. The production team ever heard of subtitles? This movie again manages to depict European police as lazy and corrupt, the societies as vulnerable and helpless. I mean if the plot again goes like "The Interpol can't do jack, so let's call one American to bring down this international syndicate" or whatever.<br /><br />Sony Pictures treads on the same path as Columbia before it, just producing movies for the hell of it. I'd imagine them to have some self respect also. Are buyers supposed to buy every dirty title just because Sony puts out something good a few times a year?! Maybe they should've used the same team as who were making Di Que Si - Say I Do. It's spoken in Spanish and Paz Vega and Santi Millan do a decent job keeping the movie afloat. Looks and sounds much better! Come on Sony, wake up, produce less, sell more.

I have heard about this novel a long time ago, many of my friends have recommend me to read it. I searched it in every place and finally found it. This is a book that every man should read, because it is genius and because of it's vision. I enjoyed every page.<br /><br />I knew about the movie and could not wait to see it. When I finally did I was very disappointed, many things that are in the book are not in the movie (I do not think that this is a spoiler) that just makes the movie not logical... Michael Radford might be a good director, but a bad writer. Especially as a book adopter. The movie is not dark at all, the writing is really bad, the only thing that is good, even great, is the acting. John Hurt is an amazing actor and the only face I myself could see as Winston Smith.<br /><br />What angers me the most are the people in IMDb that called this "The Best Adaptation Ever" without even reading the book! Or knowing anything about screen writing!<br /><br />You can only understand the brilliance of the story by reading the book, do not consider this as an alternative. As a fan of the book, I was very disappointed.<br /><br />The points I gave for this movie goes for the acting.

its great i loved it ha cause i love dinosaurs they r the greatest animals but i loved the show cause it wasn't copied from another show and it was a originals ha it has a good storyline and great for little kids (if they like dinosaurs that is) i have a few downs too its not all that great cause of the dinosaurs look a little mutated so i should have had but a 7 but right now is a little late for that yay 4 more lines to go it is great for a fantasy show though warning this might spoil a part for u so if u don't want it to be spoiled don't read on plz near the end is kinda weird cause all they need to do is get dang i forgot what it was so nvm guess its not a spoiler so never mind i loved it and its my opinion and sorry for any missed spelled words if any

This all looked quite promising. An up-and-coming Presidential adviser is framed for a series of murders, as he has been tipped off that a conspiracy is going on within the White House. It stars the excellent Donald Sutherland among several capable actors. Yet very few people have a good word to say about it.<br /><br />The whole thing really needed some depth. You can pick up the idea that the President is being too left-wing with his ideas, and some within the Government want him dead to stop those ideas being carried out. Conrad appears to simply want the country to be Governed his way, rather than the way of the elected leader.<br /><br />However, the action scenes had a few logic holes - the sewers and elevators already mentioned, and the rather haphazard assassination method - and Linda Hamilton's character is completely uninspired. Her 'the President's my Father' 'diversion' was ludicrous - that would make the President about 10 when that happened. Worse still was her predictable final scene with Bishop.<br /><br />They could have made a challenging, inventive political thriller, but either bottled it or failed. They could've gone to town on special effects, but the good ones were wasted. They could have achieved so much more in general. This was barely worth the £1 it cost me.

One of my best friends brought this movie over one night with the words 'Wanna watch the worst horror movie ever?' I always enjoy a good laugh at a bad horror flick and said yes. I had expected your typical cheesy b-slasher but this was beyond B. This is Z-slasher, the lowest of the low. With obviously low budget, extremely bad acting, bad lightning, no plot, really bad so-called 'special effects', shaky cameras and a horrible soundtrack this makes movies like House of Wax look like Oscar-winning masterpieces. The only good thing about it is about 15 seconds of one of the characters getting topless - she had some very nice tits. Most of what I said during this film was along the lines of 'Wow this is actually SO BAD', 'This is the worst movie ever' and 'I'm not drunk enough for this'. So in conclusion: don't waste your time (or money!).

This movie is about a fictional soap opera. It is very fast and funny. To say anything else would ruin the movie. There are several plots and sub plots in the movie. This movie has ensemble cast with today's hottest stars. They all gives over the top performances. This movie is favorite of mine from the year 1991. Soapdish is perfect for fans of either daytime soap opera /or prime time soap opera!!!If you watch soap go check this movie it's hilarious!!!

Hey Yall! The best drama every is now on Gospel Music Channel! Go to their website to see the schedule and find out what number it is on your cable or satellite This was one of my favorite shows growing up. It has everything that I want a TV show to be, a clean family friendly drama that does not gross me out. The story about a man, who after loosing his work, decides to set off for a great cross country adventure. Along the way they meet all sorts of interesting people and find themselves in the midst of all kinds of trouble. This show was originally a spin off of Touched By An Angel, another really good family show. Make sure you check it out!

This movie is so God-awful that it was literally a chore to watch. I wanted to eject it from my vcr and throw it across the room, but kept thinking (foolishly) that it would eventually get funny and then everything would be all right. "You lose, we win, yay!" This movie should be required viewing for anyone who even once entertained the thought that Jackie Mason was funny. After that, beat them ove the head with this movie until the tape cracks. And if you're even considering renting this turd (or worse yet, have!) I have one thing to ask of you: didn't you even look at the cover? I mean, with crap like this you can tell with just a glance how bad it is! "Oy vey!" This movie sucked.

Back in 1994 the Power Rangers had become a huge franchise and t.v. executives at the USA Network were hoping to get in on the action and came up with the Tattooed Teenage Alien Fighters from Beverly Hills, in which the evil Emporer Gorganus, who looks like he's wearing a home made Darth Vader costume, and his talking bird, that looks like a rubber dog chew toy, come to earth to invade it using giant monsters that look like rejects from a 1970's Godzilla film. Fortunately Nimbar an alien that looks like a giant piece of clear jello recruits four teenagers to defend the earth, Nimbar gives them each a tattoo of a different star constellation that allows them to transform into buffed up superheros who look like dancers from an eighties tech no music video, they could also combined into a giant knight. Forty episodes were made. The USA Network clearly did not have the money to try to adapt a show from Japan like Power Rangers did, and made up this show on their own using the budget of a 1950's scifi film. The fights scenes are generic, the special effects are poor, and some of the sets look like they could fall down. The actors pretty much realized how ridiculous the show was and pretty much ham it up and overact. I can only imagine their shock when the show was cancel led.

I'm not a big fan of movie musicals. "Annie" was a stage show I loved but the movie was a flop. The "Phantom Of The Opera movies" (and I believe there were three) failed to match the Weber staging. But I LOVED this. The DVD will take a place of honour among my "keepers." Even though it's a movie adaptation, it somehow captures the flavour and the atmosphere of live theatre. Bette Midler, always a treat, is just exceptional in this role. There's great music, lots of laughs and even a tear or two. I've seen most of the big musicals of the eighties and nineties. Somehow I missed this one so there's no comparison to make. But if it gets revived I shall be first in line for tickets! But this movie is so good, I'll be in the odd position of wondering if the stage production will measure up to the movie.

I liked this film very much. The story jumps back and forth quite a bit and is not easy to follow. There is no resolution to the story whatsoever, and you are left to wonder what really happened. Since I like that sort of film I enjoyed this. I especially like the "dating" scenes between the boys and I was drawn into their lives. And of course any film with a naked Staphane Rideau will get a couple of extra points. ;-)

is not a bad movie but the acting and the screenplay can be better. I like this movie because i have a life that is in good part like the one in the movie. is hard for a lost generation to get a life in Romania, and 90 percent of us choose something else, and that something else includes dealing with people with "bad habits" if you understand me but that comes with the territory. this movie represent me and i like it. i have a rage in me that i barley talk with people, i live in a messed up society and i can't fit in and i don't want to,and that's the story of movie also, if you r like me you can understand the true movie, if not you will find it easy and cheap.

Oh Geez... There are so many other films I want to see out there... I got stuck with my nephew for the weekend and this is what he wanted - Yeah...<br /><br />I used to watch this show when I was in college...it was mindless, kinda fun, and somewhat action-oriented. The show had a good heart tho...and the characters were cute; no one ever got killed or even hurt badly... it was like a cartoon come to life. Cut to 2005...What happened? This one doesn't work. As others have said, there simply isn't a cohesive story and the performances are weird...almost annoying - definitely not faithful to the original characters...the whole thing is a like a Mad TV skit and it lasts over 100 minutes! This was one of the few times I've been EMBARRASSED watching a film. What were they thinking? As best I can tell, must've been for the product marketing, toys, etc. All I can say is, let this one die a quick death. It makes the original Dukes of Hazzard seem like Masterpiece Theater...<br /><br />I think the only remake left to do from TV is Gilligan's Island... Good Luck!

This was the worst movie I have ever seen. I have to admit I didn't watch it from beginning to end as cleaning the toilet was more entertaining.<br /><br />The 'star' was the most unpleasant character I've ever seen, neither funny nor attractive, in fact, creepy and obnoxious are far too complimentary.<br /><br />It is painful to watch, there is no acting, especially not from the star who behaves as a doped up mentally deficient take off on one of those loud mouthed black actors.<br /><br />As horrible as it is to watch one of those can't shut up black actors, watching a Puerto Rican one is even worse. <br /><br />The name of the movie is descriptive, he is the pest. This movie is a must miss.

It was life-changing, IT REALLY WAS!!!The Man In The Moon is a breathtaking experience to watch.The acting was fabulous, the story line was great, and this was a perfect start for Reese Witherspoon's career.I don't see how anyone couldn't love this film.Sure, it's not the best movie ever, even though it was close to it, but it was highly amusing to watch, and I even had a big laugh at one of the jokes, and a lot of other little laughs.Of course, there was some cry your heart out moments too, but this movie was enlightening, and it brightens up your day, although you have to get a little depressed from the story every now and then.I can't believe this movie didn't win at least one award, and I also can't believe that it's been seen by so little people on this site.See this movie if you haven't for it is definitely touching.

...and my reasons for which are simple- there are so many great films presented and discussed here (most of them by their own directors and stars), so many clips of infamous moments in 70's movie history, and in fact a number of films I have yet to see, that it wouldn't be fair to grade this work. By this logic I shouldn't have given grades to other movie documentaries like Martin Scorsese's Personal Journey through American Movies and My Voyage to Italy. But while those films were on the basis of one man's view of cinema, narrating through most of the way, Richard LaGravanese and (the late) Ted Demmes' A Decade Under the Influence lets the films and the creators speak entirely for themselves. <br /><br />What makes 'Decade' worth at least one watch for film buffs, or just anyone who likes the films of the late 60's-70's in America, are the levels that it goes to, that in the uncut version (three hours, not the theatrical version, which I have no comment on) plenty of ground is covered. Interviews include the likes of Scorsese, Robert Altman, Sidney Lumet, Julie Christie, Jon Voight, Francis Ford Coppola, Paul Schrader, Pam Grier, Bruce Dern, Peter Bogdanovich, Roger Corman, Dennis Hopper, Robert Towne, etc, and there's a constant flow of insight from start to finish. The way the clips and directors/actors pop up, edited together in a flashy and quick style, is also fascinating. <br /><br />The one down comment I have on the documentary is that most of the information presented has been reported on in various books, like Easy Riders, Raging Bulls, and though I haven't seen the movie version of that book yet I'm sure it would have covered many of the films and directors and incidents as here (in fact, the book of that is one of the best I've ever read. HOWEVER, this documentary serves as something special for film buffs and occasional movie goers of the future- they can look at this and learn not only about such well known pictures as Easy Rider, The Last Picture Show, Annie Hall, Coming Home, and lessor knowns like Scarecrow, Panic in Needle Park, The Landlord, Joe, They Shoot Horses Don't They. They can also learn about who influenced them (new waves of Europe and Asia), who they served as influences for, and how the subject matter that created controversy after controversy still serves as intriguing and chancy material for the contemporary crowd. Seek this out!

This mini-series is iconic of the Australian spirit. While there may be what are perhaps considered glaring inconsistencies, the film portrays a spirit that is unique to Australia, and one that should be cherished. If anything, this mini-series demonstrates the Aussie sense of humour. The ability to laugh at the supremely ridiculous. Our willingness to have a laugh in even the most dire of situations. While a large part of this series focuses on mateship and how humour can be used as a means of survival, it also has elements of drama that are evoke real emotions. The main actors who appear are absolutely sensational and very convincing in their different roles. Capturing the essence of their characters perfectly. This mini-series should be mandatory viewing for all Australians.

I've seen about 820 movies released between 1931-39, and THE INFORMER is the worst major release I've seen from that time span. Awful, despicable, unpleasant, unhappy, unredeemable saga of a complete Loser. Watch a 1934 B Western instead.

The first review I saw of Page 3 said "what is madhur bhandarkar finally wants to say?". Should he say something so decisive.<br /><br />The most beautiful thing about Page 3 is it doesn't take sides. No propaganda whatsoever. This is the film that captures so many angles of an issue(I don't know what do I call as an "issue" here) and yet like any mediocre movie doesn't come up with an solution. I was so intrigued when I realized that the movie ended almost in the same scenario just like it started.<br /><br />The movie defines so many characters who are completely with completely different priorities and different ideologies and yet they are all a part of the system which is all the more apathetic. I wish i can say more but there would be more spoilers ahead. So watch Page 3 if you wanna see one of the most mature films of the recent times.

Panahi, whose previous films such as The Circle and Crimson Gold have seemed to range from dour to grim, has produced in his new Offside a funny, obstreperous, joyously chaotic ensemble piece that ends on a note of liberation and heartfelt fun – yet the movie deals with material quite as challenging and relevant as anything else he's done. By focusing on a group of ardent girl soccer fans caught sneaking into the pre-World Cup Bahrain-Iran match in Tehran stadium, Panahi brings up issues of national spirit and independent-mindedness, and the contradictions – and sheer absurdity – of the regime's religious gender apartheid in a world of modern competition with a majority youth population and urban girls who increasingly think for themselves.<br /><br />As the film opens we breathlessly join one of the girls in a bus, with a father pursing a lost daughter. This one has a disguise and has national colors as warpaint, but we cringe with her in the knowledge of what's going to happen: she's still easily spotted. The thing is, most of the men around don't really care. Still, rules are rules, and once they try to make it through the various checkpoints on the way into the big stadium the would-be soccer girls, or some of them anyway, get rounded up and held in a little compound upstairs in the stadium by some mostly young, green, and rustic soldier-cops who have no idea how to deal with these big city girls' independent ideas and would rather be watching the game – whose roar we constantly hear in the background – themselves. Each girl is different – represents a different set of reasons for wanting to break the rules and different ways of doing it. One wore a soldier's uniform and got into the officers' section. One is tough and masculine and mocking and provocative (she could pass for a pretty boy, and teasingly hints at that: "Are you a girl or a boy?" "Which would you like me to be?"). One doesn't care very much about soccer but went to honor a dead comrade. One (Aida Sadeghi) is an ardent soccer player herself – and so on. These Tehrani girls are stubborn and smart and they walk all over the uptight rural lieutenant in charge of them (Safar Samandar). One of the rural cops (Mohamad Kheirabadi) takes the girl soccer player to the men's restroom (of course there's no ladies'), forcing her to wear a poster of an Italian football star as a mask. A comedy of errors and chaos follows in which the girl escapes.<br /><br />Later a spiffy looking van comes with an officer who directs the cops to take the girls to the Vice Department – violating sexual segregation rules qualifies as vice. A male gets mixed in with them – a kid who's chronically guilty of smuggling fireworks into the games. The van turns out not to be so spiffy: the radio aerial is broken. But one cop holds it in place so they can listen to the increasingly heart-stopping reportage. Cops and prisoners are all joined in a common excitement now. There's no score, the game goes to penalty kicks, and the winner will go to Germany.<br /><br />In the background through all this is a real game, a real stadium, and real masses of young men crazy about the outcome of this event. The excitement is tremendous, and the streets are jammed with cars and flags and a milling mob of supporters praying for an Iranian win and united in their excitement.<br /><br />What makes this film so good, as may be clear by now, is that it's shot during the evening of an actual game with a real finale that turns everything around. This, in contrast to Panahi's previous highly calculated narrative trajectories, is spontaneous vérité film-making that improvises in rhythm with a captured background of actual events and sweeps you into its excitement in ways that are quite thrilling.<br /><br />The essence of Offside is the disconnect between modern world soccer madness and retro-Islamic social prohibitions repressing women – the latter existing at a time when young Iranian women are becoming part of a global world in which females participate in sport and share in the ardor of national team spirit. How exactly do you reconcile the country's ambition to become a modern global power with social attitudes that are medieval? A lot of Offisde is astonishingly real, including the way everybody tries to talk their way out of everything. The director's decision to inject young actors into an actual sports mega-event leads to a stunningly effective blend of documentary, polemic, and fiction that is too energetic to seem to have a bone to pick, and that ends in a way that's brilliant and moving.<br /><br />I've had reservations about Panahi's films before, but this one kicks ass. Panahi does something remarkable here. He critiques his society, presents an unusual drama, and touches our hearts with a sense of a nation's aspirations.