Datasets:

srivatsavaasista

/

textgenerator-ds-mini

like 0

Normally i would applaud a movie that tries to do something different or original in a genre. It is obvious that this movie is some sort of parody on ninja movies. And i really did my best to enjoy the movie. But I just couldn't. The jokes aren't funny enough! (I've seen my share of Japanese movies. And most of the times I like and understand the humor used in those movies. "Red Shadow" is just silly!)The characters that are portrayed in this movie know that this isn't a serious movie and show that all is about the fun. Look at the characters from parodies like "Hot Shots" or "Scary Movie". Everything they do on the screen is done with a straight face and never fall out of character! And because of this, certain scenes become funny and hilarious. In "Red Shadow" the actors never achieve that. The shadow ninja's supposed to be very skilled and deadly. Sadly the actors don't do their best in convincing us of their talents. They don't do things with a straight face. The jokes would have worked better if they did! The bad choreography of the action scenes also damaged the viewing experience for me. I like humor in martial arts movies as long as the action is good. "Red Shadow" just fails in that department. So what is left to be enjoyed. Well,the music (techno) was uplifting. It had to be as the action it self never is exciting. And there are some short dramatic scenes that are good but simple. The use of humor,lack of story and depth make me think that this movie is meant for children. But I do wonder if children actually would like this movie. Waste of time!

IVAN (Marco Ricca) and GILBERTO (Alexandre Borges) are partners in a company together with ESTEVÃO (George Freire), but the first ones contract a professional killer, ANISIO, to murder ESTEVÃO (the plot, at least at the beginning, doesn't explain very well why). The guy does it and after receiving his money he starts blackmailing the two partners, appearing in their company and saying he wants a job there (as supervisor or something…). At the same time he meets MARINA (Mariana Ximenes), daughter of ESTEVÃO, and starts dating with her! <br /><br />In a story like this, where crime, corruption, betrayal and blackmail go hand in hand, no one is innocent or can be victimized, exception made to MARINA, which is the only person who doesn't know what's going on and didn't betray anyone… <br /><br />This film portrays with sarcasm the sad and cruel reality which exists in big metropolis like São Paulo, where crime is every day's presence. We can feel irony but also veracity in characters like ANISIO (brilliantly played by Paulo Miklos), which does blackmail to the guys who paid him without any scruples, and even flirts with the daughter of the guy he killed! He really must be a monster to do something like that, but of course I know there're people like him out there, in Brazil or any other place… <br /><br />It's a very good movie, cruel but truthful, about a sad reality… The acting is great and the soundtrack too.

"Chupacabra Terror" is saved from a '1" by the presence of Canadian cutie Chelan Simmons as the heroine. She is a delight to watch, from the front, back and side. Otherwise, what you have here is your standard monster movie, playing like a low-budget, shipboard version of THE RELIC. John Rhys-Davies plays the captain of the ship on which the monster is being transported. And the very nonscary monster is simply a man in a suit. He does commit about 100 senseless, gory killings, at least, so the body count in this one is pretty awesome. Formulaic, to say the least. I love the moment when Simmons ominously tells someone what chupacabra stands for: Goat eater! Oooohhh...scary!

Detective Sergent Vince De Carlo (James Luisi) and company are on the case of a vicious Serial Killer/Rapist. Can Psychologist Carol (Susan Sullivan) help, or will she become the killer's next victim? And what is with the killer's hilarious White Dude Afro? <br /><br />Inspired by the case of serial killer Ted Bundy, "Killer's Delight" aka "The Dark Ride" is a rather dull Serial Killer tale from 1978 that doesn't offer much. If anything, it's more of a police procedural flick than a horror movie, as much of the violence occurs off camera. Sure, we get mutilated bodies, but we don't get a whole lot in the exploitation department-especially considering that they are from the aftermath, and not during the crime. Those hoping for the likes of "The Toolbox Murders" or "Maniac" will be very disappointed.<br /><br />Fortunately, there is an impressive scene involving a woman trying to escape the killer that get's the tone right, and is quite suspenseful to boot. Also, John Karlen is quite effective as the killer, though his hilarious hairstyle (white guys with Afros are always worth a chuckle) is more than a bit distracting.<br /><br />"The Dark Ride" is too routine and mediocre to really warrant a recommendation, as it lacks the proper exploitation elements, and is dated even by the standards of the time. Those looking for a better example should probably turn to "Don't Go In The House" and a few others instead, as this just doesn't cut it.

"Broadcast News" is directed by James L. Brooks (Terms of Endearment, As Good As It Gets) and has a great cast, including William Hurt, Albert Brooks, and Holly Hunter. Everyone gives a good performance, but they're all too unlikable to really care about them.<br /><br />Some parts of the film are really brilliant, such as the prologue, and the short scenes with Jack Nicholson. The main reason it doesn't entirely work, is it's a film that relies on the characters being amusing rather than amusing things happening to them.<br /><br />You could consider it nothing more than a drama, but it's often too silly to be successful there as well. Still, the script makes it worth a watch. Certainly not for everyone.<br /><br />7.0 out of 10

A difficult film to categorize. I was never giving it 110% concentration & consequently as simple as the plot appeared I couldn't say for certain exactly who was doing what amongst the American FBI characters & what their roles were. Nor could I take the Irwins seriously as film characters when their lines & scenes were all in the style of one of his shows, not acted out.<br /><br />This is nothing more than a glorified episode of a Discovery TV show, with a largely insignificant sub plot going on, which just seemed to get in the way. However as any Irwin show is always worth a watch, this film is well worth a look too, but not on Christmas Day. Talking of which, I've better things to do too than be on here.<br /><br />A high 4/10

Wesley Snipes is perfectly cast as Blade, a half human, half vampire known the daywalker. He has all their strengths and his only weakness is the thirst for blood. Since he teamed up with whistler (Kris Kristofferson) he has hunted down vampires who have lived amongst us unnoticed for centuries, but omnipotent overlord Deacon Frost (Stephen Dorff) is tired of living in harmony with the humans (Food as he calls them) and he plans to waken the blood god and take control of the world.<br /><br />This movie is well cast, written and directed; ensuring the viewer has a thrilling ride from start to finish. Packed with great fight sequences and slick dialogue, Blade is certainly more action than horror, but it definitely delivers.<br /><br />8/10

I love Sabrina! Its one of my fave shows!! My favourite episodes are; the one where she turns Libby into a geek, the first episode, the true love episode and most of the rest from the first series. I do think the college episodes were not as good as the high school ones but they were better than the last series which was awful. Valerie was a good character as she was more rounded than Jenny, but Jenny was in some brilliant episodes. Hilda and Zelda were amazing, and there seemed to be no explanation for where they went! Libby was a good character too. I never liked Morgan or Roxy, they just weren't as good as her other friends.

I turned this off about 50 minutes into it! Whoever the moron was who decided to steal the idea of Koushun Takami's book(Battle Royal), & make it into a pathetic reality TV show scenario, deserves to be shot!<br /><br />It has done the Film Industry a good turn though. Now Directors like William Malone(Fear Dot Com) can say "well at least it's better than Series 7" This piece of crap & Dracula 3000 tie for first place in the worst 100 movies ever made! <br /><br />Be warned this is not a 'So bad it's Good'Flick!<br /><br />This is a disgrace to Film Makers everywhere! <br /><br />Never see this movie!

Even a awful 1 is to much for this film, everything form start to finish made you cringe. I don't think it would be possible to cram more overly clichéd moments, into one piece of mind numbingly numbingly waste of film.<br /><br />Prisoner cell block H meets Thunderbirds, hell even Virgil's expressions were more life like than his son.<br /><br />I haven't even finished watching this and I'm on here now.... Oh no, the cheesy clapping of 3 actors and a backdrop done by a child with adobe premiere. This truly is the end of my "I've started so I'll finish watching it" phase.<br /><br />Oh joy, the credits have come to rescue me. (and relax)

This movie is really special. It's a very beautiful movie. Which starts with three orphans, Sho, his brother Shinji and their friend Toshi, They're poor children's, living on the street, but one day they succeeded to steal a bag full of money, and then their able to live on, to buy a house, and their life seems to become much better. They're making new friend, life-friends. But something went wrong and they're becoming enemies and it all ends up with them killing each other.<br /><br />I was negative about this movie in the beginning, because when singers (Gackt - Solo, ex-singer in Malice Mizer, Hyde - Solo, singer in L'Arc~en~Ciel, both very famous in Japan and Wang Lee-Hom - Taiwanese singer) trying to become actors, but this isn't like the other singers-going-actors-movies. They're doing a great job, and with no earlier experience in movies (except for Lee-Hom, who had been in two movies before).<br /><br />This is absolutely one of my favorite movies. Maybe that's a little because I'm a very big fan of Hyde, but - it was this movie who made me discover him.<br /><br />Well, Gackt (playing the main character - the orphan Sho) was a part of the group who wrote the script, and it was he who insisted that Hyde should play Sho's friend, the vampire Kei. At that time they didn't know each other, at least not like friends. But after the movie they became really good friend, and that shows us too that they really worked hard on this movie and that they had good cooperation.<br /><br />The movie have many different feelings running trough the story, Love, Hate, Sadness, Pain, Loneliness, Happiness and so on. I think the first hour are the best, it's so beautiful. After that people are dying, Kei's leaving and it all changes so much. But still it's a great movie, it's the only movie who has ever made me cry, it ends up so sad, but still beautiful.<br /><br />So if you haven't seen this movie, you really should. Because it's wonderful, but sad. You won't regret it. ^^

Total disgrace! Truly awful! The screenplay and dialogue is a joke, and combined with a director who doesn't have a clue about life in Saudi Arabia. It's not a surprise, quite Saudi film ha, the director is Palestinian-Canadian, the writer is Lebanese, the lead actress is Jordanian, and the shooting took place in Dubai, and all those elements show very well to make the film far from representing the Saudi society. Yes it contains some Saudi cliché's, the stuff we see in cartoons in the newspapers everyday, but that's about everything. The film had the opportunity to show real problem with Saudi society, or at least give us something new and genuine about the youth troubles and concerns in Saudi Arabia, instead it copied and pasted from here and there, and the result was a mess. Even the supposedly love story in the movie doesn't exist or at least we haven't seen it. The only bright side in this total debacle is some good acting from the supporting cast. The veteran Khaled Sami was funny in a badly written role as the grand father, which he is clearly got miscasted, for he looks younger than the actor who plays his son. Also the actor who plays the fanatic brother's role, Turki Al-Yusuf, has done well, in fact he was the best actor in the film. The rest of the cast, being professionals for long, did an OK job, but the lead actor Hisham Abdulrahman was just bad. He had one look of a little adorable bobby for all situations. He couldn't even say his lines in a proper manner. He has charisma that made him win the title of Star Academy, a very famous reality show, and he is good in interviews and TV shows, but he was just the weakest link of this film. The lead actress I didn't mind very much, but even she acted badly in some scenes and overplayed her sensuality in unneeded way.<br /><br />The Film was a huge hit, Saudi flocked in thousands to neighboring Bahrain and Dubai to attend it when it was screened there, and it made a tone of money, then it was screened in pay per view, then in broadcasting TV, and that was in a span of a few weeks. This was to cash on Saudis eagerness to homegrown entertainment, but alas; the film was neither homegrown, nor entertaining.

When one thinks of Soviet cinema, the propaganda masterpieces of Eisenstein or the somber meditations of Tarkovsky generally come to mind. They're great films sure, but generally not the most entertaining material out there. However, the countries within the Iron Curtain apparently enjoyed their escapist musicals just as much as the states had. In fact, from the 1930s up until the 70s, forty of these song-and-dance extravaganzas were released to much adoration by the public. However, they are completely unheard of in the West, so this documentary attempts to rectify that situation. It does a terrific job of both showcasing these films and putting them into the proper cultural context. Despite the fact I've never been a fan of musicals, I found this documentary to be completely compelling from beginning to end. It goes to prove that, no matter how many films you manage to see in your lifetime, you're only skimming the surface of whats out there.<br /><br />As for the film clips themselves, they're very entertaining. While some of the musicals are blatant propaganda showing workers singing of how much they love working under the regime, some of the films (particularly the later ones) look quite accomplished from a production standpoint. Plus, they are all extremely campy because of how alien they are to my western eyes. There's a few similarities between them and the American musicals I'm used to, but the presence of strict government enforcing of a message gives them a surreal edge. They certainly don't resemble the musicals made in the West. This documentary is both one of the most bizarre and entertaining films I've seen in recent memory, and its an absolute must-see for any film buff. (9/10)

This film is described as a action/comedy. The first 15 minutes and James Belushi's presence point to it being a humorous gangster film.<br /><br />However, the introduction of the ridiculous female lead begins a number of ludicrous plot twists which do little to conceal the contrived ending. The film moves between comedy(description used loosely) and surreal drama with some out of context adult scenes thrown in. The lead female (the Angel of the title) is poorly acted and the actress is not helped by the script which requires some unbelievable, extremes of character to be portrayed. James Belushi is the only one who handles his part well but is also let down by the poor script. One to avoid.

The best film on the battle of San Antonio, Texas in March 1836, was John Wayne's 1960 epic THE ALAMO. In a one shot job as director producer, that temporarily financially strapped him, Wayne demonstrated that he was talented in movie making outside of his icon-like acting ability personifying the West.<br /><br />I have commented on that film in a review the other night, and I pointed out that Wayne and James Edward Grant (the screenwriter) tackled some points that were barely mentioned in earlier films about the battle. They did bring in the issue of slavery. They also finally discussed the contribution of local Mexican land owner Juan Seguin as an important leader in the War for Independence on par with Crockett, Bowie, Travis, Austin, and Houston. <br /><br />But there was one weakness (though well hidden) in the film. Wayne worked hard to cast it properly, thinking of many people for lead roles in it. But, he did not properly handle the leader of the enemy forces, General Antonio De Santa Anna. The role was played by an obscure actor, Ruben Padilla (on this board, his thread shows only three credits listed). Padilla did not have any spoken dialog (even in Spanish). And while he does have one of the last shots in the film, he just is shown as a silent tyrant, observing the burning of the bodies of the Americans and their allies.<br /><br />Despite several poor choices in the casting of this television movie (THE ALAMO: THIRTEEN DAYS TO CLORY), it is the best film in showing the man who was (from 1836 to 1854) a leading bogeyman to American policy makers. Raul Julia was a wonderful stage actor. I was fortunate to see him in a production (in the late 1980s) of ARMS AND THE MAN in Manhattan, as Sergius. He was never boring, and usually first rate in his acting.<br /><br />Here we see the egotistical monster at his worst. Nothing is acceptable that does not fit Santa Anna's wishes or activities. It can be the failure of an orderly in the army to bring some item he requested fast enough, or it can be the temerity of these "foreign brigands" (as he saw the Americans) in not knuckling down to himself, "the Napoleon of the West".<br /><br />Santa Anna was President of Mexico five or six times between 1830 and 1855. He claimed that he first got involved in overthrowing a President because that President did not live up to the country's constitution, but it was the power that kept him going year after year. It is a sad commentary that he was the leading Mexican historical figure in those two decades. No political figure or military figure would rise to override him until Benito Juarez did in the late 1850s. Initially he claimed great liberal ideals, but he once admitted that the people of Mexico were children who needed guidance for one hundred years before they could rule themselves (and thus he sounds like Gilbert Roland in CRISIS talking about the people he has helped lead against Jose Ferrer). The amazing thing about him was he managed to keep coming back. His policies were disasters. While we know about his attack on Texas (to put down a revolt there), he also tried to expand into Guatamala (and probably saw himself controlling much of Central America). He did win at the Alamo, but at great cost of lives. His massacre of Col. Fannin's men at Goliad was inexcusable (one might make a case for the destruction of the defenders of the Alamo who were fighting to the last, but Fannin had surrendered). Then came the disaster of San Jacinto, where his army was wiped out (he failed to take adequate precautions to watch for the American troops). He was captured, and humiliated, and forced to sign a surrender of Texas. Houston was kind to him: the troops wanted to string him up.<br /><br />Except for losing a leg in a battle against the French in 1838, he managed not to get wounded in most of his wars. He repudiated the forced surrender of Texas, but could not militarily undue it. Instead, he would lead Mexico into defeat in the war of 1846 - 48 against the Americans, leading to the Mexican Session. The U.S. was "decent" enough to pay Mexico $15,000,000 for the Southwest, but Mexico lost half of it's territory. He would be President for the last time in 1853, in time to give Franklin Pierce's horrendously bad administration it's one moment of glory - Santa Anna sold the border of Arizona and New Mexico (the "Gadsden Purchase") to the U.S. No other Mexican President (not even Porfirio Diaz) ever cost his country so much (Diaz did sell out to foreign business interests, but he built up Mexico's economic muscles doing so). He was exiled in 1855, and settled in Staten Island. There he managed to do his most creative work: he introduced chicle to the U.S., and it became chewing gum. Some achievement! <br /><br />Julia's Santa Anna is younger than the practiced cynic and schemer who became America's best land purchase agent. He is not going to stand for opposition and he jumps into furious tantrums at a moment's notice. Most of the time his chief aide, Col. Black (David Ogden Stiers, here a British born officer) holds his tongue - he does not wish to be in front of a firing squad as he could be. But Stiers is secretly less than enchanted by his boss. At the end, when alone with the newly widowed wives of the dead Alamo defenders, Stiers suggests that they tell the world what Santa Anna is really like. And they did!

Blythe Danner and Judith Ivey deliver wonderful performances here as Jonathan Silverman, as Eugene, recounts his life in 1937's Brighton Beach.<br /><br />What makes the film so good is the relationships among the characters with a backdrop of extremely wonderful family values.<br /><br />Bob Dishy had a marvelous opportunity here as the father of the clan. He gives a restrained but compelling performance as the patriarch of the family.<br /><br />His sons played by Jonathan Silverman and Brian Dillinger are fabulous. There are certain scenes when Silverman is skating or hopping where I'm reminded of Jerry Lewis.<br /><br />As for Danner and Ivey, they too are wonderful. Their mannerisms, intonation and idealism of the Jewish culture are beautifully realized by them.<br /><br />The cinematography is just wonderful. Beautiful Brighton in 1937! Even as the inevitability of war loomed, the film is rich with many of the typical problems faced by families in that period. In a sense, you don't have to be Jewish to experience what the family is going through.<br /><br />A must see for nostalgic buffs, and those of us who believe so strongly in family values.

It's just that. Chucky 1 was good. Chucky 2 was better. Chucky 3 sucked. Now, the 4th in the series which is, in my opinion, the best out of the series. Jennifer Tilly was just great in this movie. For dolls, they were better than a few actors that come to mind (Freddie Prince Jr, for one) and funnier than many comedies I've seen in the past.<br /><br />The plot wasn't great, but I really didn't care about it. Just to see Chucky and Tiffany bicker and fight each other. And the ending leaves it wide open for a 5th sequel (which I hear is in the works). Idle Hands premiers next week and looks to be another horror/comedy, but I doubt it'll top this one.

I really did like this show, once upon a time. That is, until I realized all the faults in it. It's so unrealistic. I know it's fiction, but it isn't even the slightest bit believable. Here's why. **Spoilers ahead folks...** Are we really supposed to believe that a kid like Yugi would be descended from a Pharaoh of ancient Egypt? C'mon! He's the biggest nerd on the face of the Earth. And what's up with the Pharaoh (a.k.a. Atem and/or Yami's) hair? Last I checked, Pharaohs were shaved (except for a small bit of hair atop the head) and wore fancy hats.<br /><br />And, are we supposed to be convinced that an evil wealthy boy genius, named Seto Kaiba, can legally run a successful business while still having time to go to a shoddy little school like 'Domino High'? Puh-leeze! First off, he'd have to legally be an adult to run a company. And that would make him not really all too much of a boy genius, since he'd be the only adult in his class. And second off, why would he attend a school like 'Domino High', when his business is clearly successful enough for him to attend a fancy snobbish academy? Plus, the side plots with his little brother are so sappy and lame. Every time you turn around, that kid's been kidnapped by goons for the baddie. *yawn* Nothing new, nothing new.<br /><br />Joey is the poor kid, who lives with a good-for-nothing father. It says that Joey earns all the money to attend his school, because his father's an alcoholic, but you never once see Joey do anything that resembles work. He doesn't even mention work. And his sister Serenity is a complete moron. Why would she choose a snob like Duke (who dressed her brother in a dog costume and publicly humiliated him on television) over a nice guy like Tristan? Is she really that clueless? Various characters throughout the show, get possessed by demonic forces, get their souls stolen by demonic forces, and fall prey to mental illness. (Oh, that's child-safe, NOT.) Tea is the typical girl-next-door type, whose only purpose is to be Yugi/Yami's girlfriend. And while she has some cool points to her, she just doesn't have enough time to shine as a main character.<br /><br />The animation is simply awful. All the characters look sickly and anorexic. The perspectives are terrible (especially when they do close-ups of somebody's hand) and the colors look good, but not stellar.<br /><br />But the worst plot hole to the series was the fact that Yami says that his Millennium Puzzle can send souls back to their bodies. If this was so, how come he didn't save Yugi's Grandpa in the first place, when Pegasus stole his soul, and save himself the trouble of getting it back?<br /><br />All it really is, is a commercial for itself. The only plus side to it is "Yu-Gi-Oh: The Abridged Series" by LittleKuriboh.<br /><br />Please. Do something more worthwhile. Like, watch the Abridged version.<br /><br />1/10

I'm usually not one to say that a film is not worth watching, but this is certainly an extenuating circumstance. The only true upside to this film is Cornelia Sharpe, looking rather attractive, and the fact that this film is REALLY short.<br /><br />The plot in the film is unbelievably boring and goes virtually nowhere throughout the film. None of the characters are even remotely interesting and there is no reason to care about anyone. I'm not sure why on earth Sean Connery agreed to do this film, but he should have definitely passed on this one.<br /><br />The only reason I could see for seeing this film is if you are a die-hard Sean Connery fan and simply want to see everything he's done. Save this one for last though.<br /><br />Well, if you by some miracle end up seeing this despite my review (or any of the other reviews on this site), then I hope you enjoy it more than I did. Thanks for reading.

Sometimes you ignore that little voice in your head that says "stay away from this movie". We should all pay more attention to that little voice. This may be the worst movie I've ever had the non-pleasure of sitting through, or it may be the best reason to remember that your DVD player has a fast-forward button. Made on a budget somewhere in the vicinity of $1.99, "The Cavern" is obviously a quick cheapie made to piggyback on the current bunch of scary cave-lots of darkness-claustrophobic spelunkers-unknown menace flicks like "The Cave" and "The Descent". A few years back there was similar rash of look-alike movies that used sea-going vessels instead of caves. All had scary boats/submarines-lots of darkness-claustrophobic adventurers-unknown menaces...same old same old. "The Cavern" is really "The Blair Witch Project" only this time we're lost under the earth and not lost on top of it. Throw in a flashlight with failing batteries, a cow skull with fangs glued on it for a monster, and one of the stupidest "twist" climaxes ever put on film. That being said, let me urge you to listen to me, the little voice in your head. I'm your friend. I want you to have a happy life. Stay away from this movie.

This (extremely)low-budget movie is compared to the great classic "Silent Night Deadly Night", since it is labeled as a Slasher Flick. First let me say that I think that even "Silent Night Part 2" is better than this (that one was filled with flashbacks of the original for more than half of the movie). "Christmas Evil" tries to get psychological by introducing the main character as someone who goes insane,(a strong word), slowly (very slowly). He is irritated by people who do not get the true meaning of Christmas and at work he can't stand how the fabricated toys are made with such lack of quality and love. Dressed up as Santa he finally goes on a killing spree. Also a strong word, since only 3 people are killed without the real need for special effects. No tension, no thrills, no gore, no cast. For one exception that is: Jeffrey DeMunn is in it. He is best known for playing aside Tom Hanks as one of the guards in the classic "The Green Mile". He still must be kicking himself these days for ever accepting the role. He truly is the only one who really can act, his supporting role is better than the main lead. (who also isn't that bad, but if you're overshadowed by a little supporting character, you're not great either.). And what about that strange ending ? (you have to see it, to believe it). "Christmas Evil" is downright boring, nothing happens and the artwork is just misleading. This is not a slasher. You wanna see a real Christmas slasher, check out the all time greatest: "Silent Night, Deadly Night".

can any movie become more naive than this? you cant believe a piece of this script. and its ssooooo predictable that you can tell the plot and the ending from the first 10 minutes. the leading actress seems like she wants to be Barbie (but she doesn't make it, the doll has MORE acting skills).<br /><br />the easiness that the character passes and remains in a a music school makes the phantom of the opera novel seem like a historical biography. i wont even comment on the shallowness of the characters but the ONE good thing of the film is Madsen's performance which manages to bring life to a melo-like one-dimensional character.<br /><br />The movie is so cheesy that it sticks to your teeth. i can think some 13 year old Britney-obsessed girls shouting "O, do give us a break! If we want fairy tales there is always the Brothers Grimm book hidden somewhere in the attic". I gave it 2 instead of one only for Virginia Madsen.

Footprints certainly isn't your average run of the mill Giallo, and that's no bad thing. Unlike his previous effort, The Fifth Cord (which was your 'classic' Giallo) Luigi Bazzoni's film forsakes almost all of the Giallo trademarks and instead of murder; the focus is very on psychological mystery. It's obvious from the outset that this is going to be an entirely bizarre film as the film opens up with a scene set on the moon. Things don't get any clearer after that as the lunar sequence turns out to be the dream of Alice, a troubled woman. Alice is tormented by dreams of an astronaut stranded on the moon, which have apparently come from a viewing of a film called 'Footprints on the Moon'. After several things go wrong for her, Alice decides to go to a mostly deserted former tourist spot named Garma. Upon her arrival, she is surprised as the people she meets seem to already know her. Alice also meets a young red headed girl who also seems to already know her; the girl tells Alice she looks exactly like Nicole, except nicer and with shorter hair...<br /><br />The fact that Footprints doesn't feature much in the way of sex, murder and other Giallo trademarks puts it somewhat on the back foot with it's primary audience from the beginning as most people going into this film aren't going to get what they were expecting (or, probably, wanted). But on the other hand, Footprints commands respect for the fact that it doesn't just follow on from what went before it. By 1975, the Giallo had started to lose it's popularity and many of the films coming out around this period (with a few very notable exceptions) were merely retreads of what came before, so Luigi Bazzoni would have been taking a big chance on this film. Florinda Bolkan gives a strong performance in the lead role; and the fact that she's not the prettiest Giallo heroine isn't really important. The mystery builds nicely throughout, and while it can become a little turgid at times; Footprints is, generally speaking, intriguing for the duration. It probably won't come as a surprise to many once they get there that the ending doesn't make much sense, and doesn't really clear anything up; but it nicely adds to the bizarre cult value of the film, and all in all; I give Footprints a thumbs up!

Like a great many twilight zone episodes, one of my favorite parts of this one was the overt social commentary that Serling is making with the story. As was the case with a recent episode "The Howling Man," I was reminded of my long standing suspicion that, for example, if Jesus were to come to earth to bring his followers to Heaven, he would be immediately judged insane and probably thrown into an asylum. Our main character in this episode meets a similar problem when trying to convince the 1860s Americans that he is from the future and the President Lincoln is about to be assassinated. The episode wrongly asserts that this means that some parts of the past can be changed while others can't, but it's a fun time travelling romp nonetheless.<br /><br />Granted, we don't know for a fact whether history could be changed by time travel, because time travel has never been accomplished and, sadly, never will be. But it seems logical to me that, if you could physically place yourself in a time of the past, you could physically prevent something from happening, as long as you didn't flail around like a lunatic yelling about assassinations.<br /><br />One of the consistently interesting things about time travel films and TV shows, in my opinion, is the method by which the time travel takes place. There is really no method at all here, our main character is having a conversation about time travel at a posh gentlemen's club and then walks outside and into a dissolve from the early 1960s to the mid 1860s, but no matter. The twilight zone has thus far not struck me for its complex sets or high production values.<br /><br />Russell Johnson plays the part of Peter Corrigan, the time traveller, and upon discovering that he has been somehow transported back to the exact day of Lincoln's assassination, he manages to get himself thrown in prison, but luckily for him John Wilkes Booth, for some reason, just happened to be hanging out at the police station and overheard the frantic Corrigan desperately trying to describe the very assassination that Booth was planning for that night.<br /><br />Booth requests custody of Corrigan for some psychiatric experimentation, and the police officer sees nothing wrong with relinquishing custody to this guy. He had a business card, after all, how bad could he be?<br /><br />The show seems to suggest that you can change people's lives by slightly altering events in the past through time travel, and while I'm not willing to accept that time travel would include such limitations, it's still a fun episode that really makes you think, which is one of my favorite qualities of the good twilight zone shows...

I will never get back the three hours of life this film has stolen from me.<br /><br />The film is basically a psychedelic drug trip disguised as an important creative process. I'd love to know what they were on when this film was being made.<br /><br />Its also the most historically-inaccurate film in existence; 2001 has come and gone without any of the events or predictions taking place.<br /><br />Characters are unlikeable, design is simplistic and everything just rambles on without any sense or logic to it.<br /><br />And the ending is probably the worst of it: its supposed to be thought-provoking but the only thought that entered my mind is "What the F$*K is going on?!" <br /><br />I'd say for anyone looking for serious entertainment purposes, AVOID this film at all cost and choose a sci-fi movie that ISN'T stuck up its own @$$.

This show made me feel physically sick, and totally detached from British society as a whole. It was programmes such as this and Blue Peter that pretended that there were/are no class divisions in Britain. They'd always say things like; "Go into your loft and you may find this.." or "Go into your back garden tonight and..." - what about us 'scummy' working class kids who never never had a "loft", and a "back garden" which was nothing more than a 1 meter square of balcony on the 14th floor of a council block? Public service broadcasting - yeah right! And on top of that, it was awfully depressing to see those stupid, middle class, up-their-own-backside kids mess about with bits of old plastic having 'fun'... do me a favour, and "why don't you" go and slit your wrists or do a coke overdose on "Mama and Papa's" money... you make me sick

I was pleased with the cast of reputable players. The story is one of standing up for a cause, even if you are at personal risk in doing so. In a time where violence and pain are often in the movie forefront, this movie focuses on the old fashioned good cop. Although similar plots have been done repeatedly, these guys pull it off well. Kick back and enjoy. Dennehy is a master of taking over a movie.

This movie was so horrible...I want to beat the hell out of who ever made this movie...I was a original fan of all the ghoulies movies...but when i seen this i just began to cry I could not handle it..There are not even ne ghoulies in it...like the original creative monsters...this is so friggen cheap...I meen come on a witch...thats bull crap no one wants to see the witch...they wanted to see what the movie is about..."GHOULIES" i meen jeesh am i right or what? Thats y we watched the other ones..now we have to actually put up with this horrible storyline...This makes me want to eat my own poop after Spaghetti Monday!!!

Despite all it's trappings of style and cinematic invention, this is basically another serial killer thriller, following the same sort of plotline favoured by such old favourites as Silence of the Lambs ? team of cops follows the trail of (particularly nasty) murders, someone else gets taken and they somehow have to find out where they are before it's too late. Only in this case, the only person who knows, the killer himself (powerfully played by Vincent D'Onofrio) is in a coma and we need psychologist Jennifer Lopez' sci-fi mind-meld machine to get into his head and force him to tell all. This is where the film gets all new and different, as we enter (via a 21st-Century CGI update of Dr Who's kaleidoscopic favourite, the trendy time tunnel) a kind of Hellraiser-y weird world of scary crazy stuff going on all over the place, ruled over by D'Onofrio, now a kind of superking overlord of his twisted mental world, inside his comatose body. The inside-the-mind sequences are well realised and often pretty stunning, all the leads perform adequately, the gruesomeness is to the max if you like that kind of thing, but the hype around the whole thing led to a disappointment for me, as I had expected something completely new and unlike anything ever done before, not this fairly successful blending of serial-killer and special-effect-horror genre staples. Sometimes horrifying, often pretty, a fairly gripping story told with care and attention by talented film people, but by no means the great leap into the unknown it has been marketed as.

doesn't mean this movie is good. i was really frustrated by it on many levels. it's kind of the tip of the hat to bukowski. hey, i've read that guy in college--let's see what matt dillon does with him. and i like matt dillon. i thought he came close to looking a little like hank, but mostly just the ruddy cheeks. i have to care about a character, though, and there just wasn't much here to care about. i think time might be cruel to bukowski, and that bothers me a lot, because the writing was solid in a sort of post counter culture time. hard to sit through, scenes that went nowhere, and a soundtrack that made me want to vomit. i ask for very little, got less.

This Movie had some great actors in it! Unfortunately they had forgotten how to act. I was hoping the movie would get better as it went along but the acting was so robotic it was doomed from the very start. It actually appeared that maybe the actors were reading from a script the whole time. Maybe it was the Musical score or the Director himself, but one thing is for sure the Make-up artist needs to get another job ! The Facial Powder was so thick you could see it caked on the actors faces ! Would not recommend this movie to anyone, no wonder it never hit the Theaters. Cuba Gooding Jr. / James Woods shame on you guys for not giving it your all. The Plot was great just needed a whole lot more.

The first few minutes of "The Bodyguard" do have a campy charm: it opens with crawling text from the Bible (the part that Samuel Jackson recites to his soon-to-be victims in "Pulp Fiction"), continues with two karate school teachers in New York arguing about the eternal question of mankind (who is better? Sonny Chiba or Bruce Lee?), and then Chiba appears, playing himself; he immediately stops a plane hijacking and breaks a bottle in two with his bare hand. Unfortunately, any entertainment value, intentional or unintentional, soon gets crushed by the disjointed story, the lack of action for long periods of time, and the poor quality of any present action. To keep it simple, here's why "The Bodyguard" is an unbearable movie to watch:<br /><br />1) You don't know what's going on. <br /><br />2) There are barely any fights. <br /><br />3) The fights that are there, are short and terribly filmed.<br /><br />Sonny Chiba is cool. Judy Lee is gorgeous, her face is glorious. It's only for them that I give "The Bodyguard" a 2nd star out of 10. This movie makes 87 minutes feel like 5 hours.

There is the thrill of low-budget film noir. And there is the frustration of meandering, uninteresting movies made on the cheap. This one falls into the second category.<br /><br />The Spot is the name of a nightclub. The film is about a policeman whose father has been killed by gangsters. He heads out to track them down.<br /><br />Maybe it was the bad print. Maybe it's me. But I felt I'd seen this a hundred times, most of those times better than it is here.<br /><br />It has promise, too: The cop is fascinated with a woman who plays records she introduces over juke boxes. They then meet. Now, though this was made well before I was born, I have seen that kind of juke box. And it is incredibly fascinating: When I was a teenager, I wandered into a bar that still had such a device. I always liked juke boxes, in bars or diners. But this one was different. You talked to it and a sultry sounding female voice talked back to you! That is addressed here but dropped into the general, uninteresting stew.<br /><br />The movie has one thing going for it: In a small role, it features the very young Anne Jeffreys. What a beauty she was, and doubtless still is!

One thing I always liked about Robert Ludlum thrillers is just when you think you have it figured out, it goes in a completely different direction. There are so many twists and turns in this film that I have a sore neck from watching.<br /><br />One thing I also like about director John Dahl (Kill Me Again, Rounders, Unforgettable) is that he can be depended upon to direct and, in this case, write (with his brother Rick) a good story.<br /><br />Now, add Nick Cage, Dennis Hopper, Lara Flynn Boyle, and J.T. Walsh to the cast and you have a story that will keep your interest even if they are playing characters that all of them have perfected. Dahl seems to bring out the best in folks, and this will keep you interested, and guessing, until the very end.

As a long-time fan of all the Star Trek series,I found this a disappointing episode, and I wonder if the liberal use of "flashbacks" featuring Will Riker's exploits, both positive (and largely romantic) and negative (lots of pain, and a crewmate's death)was a money-saving device, as were many of their "bottle shows" (episodes in which all scenes take place on the Enterprise). Diana Muldaur(who also appeared at least twice on the original series) deserved a better final appearance than this for her character, Dr. Kate Pulaski. Loyal viewers (in the Star Trek world, is there any other kind?) also were shortchanged. This was the last episode of second season; thus, the season ended "not with a bang" but with "a whimper."

I first was made aware of this film when I saw a preview before another movie. I was intrigued but it didn't get to see it before it's short run in theaters was done.<br /><br />It is not an easy movie to watch multiple times. There is much violence inflicted upon unarmed civilians. There are lessons to be learned here. One of Patricia Arquette's lines sums up on. "To Americans if it didn't happen on TV it just didn't happen" There is a lot of truth to that.<br /><br />Another is that at one point she thinks that just because she announces she is an American Citizen that soldiers will part and let her pass. It doesn't work that way.<br /><br />The scenery is beautiful. The acting is all decent. THE PROFESSOR is especially good. Mainly though I care about these characters. Francis McDormand and Spaulding Gray are fine but their appearance is short, so they don't matter much. Patricia has guts. In the hands of a lesser actor this could have turned out very badly. As it is love or hate the movie you should still come away with the idea that there still exist military dictatorships in the world in this century, and until one of our own is hurt we ignore their oppression.<br /><br />Aung San Suu Kyi, is the female political leader in the movie. In real life she won the Nobel Peace Prize. She was only recently released from house arrest. The W. Bush administration, as of the date I write this, is attempting to pressure the military government to engage in talks with her and re-form the government. The Burmize government was under such scrutiny that is changed the name of the country to the Maynamar Republic. The U.S. Government has yet to recognzie the new name.<br /><br />If you don't wnat a message in your movie don't watch this one. If you don't mind a little educations with your entertainment then it's a fine one.

Excellent exercise on multiple plans:<br /><br />- showing the not yet ended colonialism spirit in France <br /><br />- more generally the boring mindset of superiority from all western people<br /><br />- a renewal of the spy and thriller movies: OSS 117 is uncultured and stupid!<br /><br />The good idea is that, in spite of all these messages, it is a funny film, plenty of jokes and gags, very light and sparkling.<br /><br />Special mention to Jean Dujardin and Berenice Bejo.<br /><br />Definitely worth seeing. Wonder how it will be appreciated in US?<br /><br />Seems to be a success in France, so probably a next version will come.

an awesome made for the sci-fi channel movie which by far surpasses many of the poor previous efforts they've churned out. Bruce Campbell is on superb form as a possible investor who gets caught up in a bizarre experiment led by a delirious professor,Stacey Keach,and his half-wit assistance,Ted Raimi. The film is pure b movie gold and its great to see Keach and ram up on screen with Bruce, and the fact that a lot of the film works purely on Bruce's comic slapstick acting is what make it hilarious, and makes me ask the question, why isn't this guy getting more of his scripts commissioned?, it indeed a sick world. Definitely worth a watch.

I get the feeling a lot of people liked this movie (not all people, but a lot of them) because they don't want to admit they don't understand it. People of middling intelligence, if you will, who pretend to be ever so avant garde and trendy who think Lynch is a genius.<br /><br />Lynch, to me, is like Tarantino. They're both great, but neither one is the messiah as so many fanboys want to believe. No director can change the world, so chill out. And both make sucky flicks sometimes, it just happens. Everyone has a bad day. And clearly, since this movie was actually designed as a pilot first and then hack-jobbed into a feature film, it wasn't made with all the passion and forethought one should put into a movie. Face it, much of the movie is gibbering unintelligibility which cannot be understood. We can all make up meanings, Lynch may have his own view, but none of that matters. It was strewn about the screen incoherently. Admittedly, the first portion had the semblance of an intentionally convoluted passingly interesting story, but then it falters.<br /><br />The cowboy, the mysterious organization of men with their phonecalls, the lawyers... come on. I can almost picture David Lynch yelling cut, forcing the crew to gather around him and explaining to them all "Look how crazy and weird I am! Isn't it great?? It's so weird and crazy!" Weird and crazy works if it's a by-product of your style. However, it's pretentious and tired when you go out of your way to do nothing but that. It's like all those half assed Pulp Fiction throw backs that came out after Pulp Fiction. It's just not cool.

Anand is one of those low-budget but well taken movies. It's a "cup of coffee" entertainment, with no violence, blood or "jump out of your seat" excitement which most telugu films have. However, it does have some massala of it's own. Roopa is a headstrong and down-to-earth young woman who is not afraid to confront any sort of situation, even her offensive mother-in-law's distaste for her. She even backs out of the wedding because her fiancé doesn't stand up for her. However, her air of confidence and independence is enough to make Anand, a rich young gentleman living in the city, aspire to be her new husband. His father accidentally kills her parents in a car crash anyways, so why not pay her back? But Roopa is not the kind who will fall for charming smiles and polite behavior, she puts him through a bunch of situations, continuing to be rude and a pain. It's not until he stands up for her and saves her life that she understands she loves him too. But complications ensue…

It has to be said that this film is definitely one of the better "bargain bin" movies out there - I'd feel a bit cheated if I had paid £15 for it, but at about £1.50 I felt that I definitely got more than my monies worth. <br /><br />The film can't quite decide if it wants to be "Mad Max" or one of the Clint Eastwood "man with no name" spaghetti westerns, and as such is stacked with clichés from both. Even the manic loony who hangs out with the bad guys in "Mad Max" is there.<br /><br />That guy from "Blade Runner" also cops a good billing, although he only turns up at the beginning and the end of the movie.<br /><br />Favourite bit - for me the punch-up on top of the oil refinery - if you look closely you can see the "post-apocalyptic" rush hour traffic thundering past in the distance as the two protagonists knock seven bells out of each other.<br /><br />Get several lagers in, a few pizzas and sit back and enjoy what is ultimately lightweight but entertaining drivel.

This is the "Battlefield Earth" of mini series. It has with a few exceptions, all the disastrous ingredients that doomed that movie and will follow it to the grave in the turkey cemetery. They are both adaptations of books with a endless amount of pages who has been turned to a complete mess by a script writer and a director (In this case they are the same person.) who clearly don't know what they are doing, they have both a messiah wannabe that don't really deliver, as a hero (Played in this case by a guy that looks like Mark Hamill but sadly the force is not with him.) and a bunch of stupid bad guys who likes to betray and mess up the life for each other, they are both containing scenes stolen from better productions and they are both cheap productions who tries to look expensive with some (often badly made) computer animation. The exceptions that actually makes the whole thing worse is the terrible work made by the lighting guy who don't even have the skills to turn on the light in his own living room, the camera work that for no reasons at all sometimes are in tilted "Battlefield Earth" mode but for the most of the time are flat as a pancake, the extremely cheap and to small desert set that only contents a pile of sand in the front of a backdrop painted as a desert, that turns very old very fast because it appears in almost every scene, and the bad idea by the costume designer to try to mimic "The fifth element"'s fashion madness with the addition of the silliest hats ever made. Silly moments to remember: 1. Every scene with the guild guys, who looks like MST3K's observer guys but with silly hats. 2. Irulan shows up at the party dressed in her butterfly dress (Why butterflys? -was the one with stuffed parrots in the cleaner?) with matching silly hat, together with a couple of guys with silly balloon hats. 3. Paul the stand-up comedian. 4. Baron Harkonnen in over acting overdrive, screaming "I,m alive". 5. Every Scene with the backdrop, because it newer fits the foreground 6. Every scene with the Fremen's fake religious cermonies, specially the "water of life" cermony. 7. The battle scenes where the same guys gets killed a couple times and the same things explodes over and over again. It is a lot more but it is a 1000 words limit on this so i better stop before i gets carried away.

Jack Frost 2 is out of the question, I'm actually surprised people are allowed to make these sort of movies.<br /><br />As Sam and his wife take to the Tropicana for a relaxing Christmas, Jack returns to kill off the fun and take on a revenge with inbreeding...<br /><br />Don't take a swip at this film at all, most people say its a laugh with your mates, but frankily its a waste of time. If the people who made this film can get a job by doing what they do, they can at least take the time and effort to write up a better story, especially the cheesy character names.

"Robin Hood: Men in Tights" has received no respect whatsoever. It was hilarious! Cary Elwes was excellent as the "Prince of Thieves," and David Chappelle, Amy Yasbeck, Patrick Stewart, Richard Lewis and Mark Blankfield as Blinkin all did fine jobs. I will never understand the hostility toward "Robin Hood: Men in Tights," but I do know a great comedy when I see one.<br /><br />"Robin Hood: Men in Tights" receives *** out of ****.

Wow, I was told this would be a B movie worth watching. I feel that I was misled after seeing this preview event. The plot is a twisted make of several films at best. Even the title is a take on another film if you can give the movie that much credit. I am sorry to say that I was taken to the cleaners. I wouldn't waste your time on this one. This movie appears to be a bunch of wannabes who got together and made a poor idea of a movie on a weekend with a borrowed camera. Being in the entertainment business, I can judge a decent film and this one deserves to be shelved or discarded. My advice, stick to a classic like the 1979 Dawn of the Dead. On a scale of 1 to 10 even a 1 is being nice to producers because this movie BLOWS. (Below Limit Of What Sucks) The producers need to stay with their daytime jobs. If you do view the movie please be honest in your posting, this one seems to have been hyped up and inflated by a few. There are a few who have seen this for what it is and posted correctly. Sorry, but, I have to say this is one to be skipped.

Blade is probably one of the best vampire/action movies ever made.It has it all:action,horror,blood.this movie is for action fans.It's either you like it a lot either you hate it and if you hate it ,it means you don't like action or vampires movies.Wesley snipes takes his role seriously and he his the perfect guy for blade

A woman who deals in art starts to have a passionate love affair with a man named John. They make love everywhere they go and they play sexual games. The problem I had was that was all they did. There was no plot at all to this movie or I just didn't see it. The hot erotic passion was the best thing about this movie but I wanted something else to happen. Perhaps he could have been a serial killer or she could have had a secret. I just needed something and all that there was was a bunch of love making scenes. Not that's it was bad or anything, I just wanted more things to happen in the movie. Perhaps a coworker was sleeping with him too. Anything! I was greatly upset that this was all that there was. Mickey Rourke was so hot back then. I wonder what happened.

This is another Universal fun filled fright fest.Many people want to compare it to House Of Frankenstein.Even though it has similar cast and the same director it can stand on its own.(It does appear that Erle C Kenton directed most of the Universal horror films of the 40's).<br /><br />The plot recap:Baron Latos appears at the home of Dr Eidlemann seeking a "cure" for his vampirism.Larry Talbot (who somehow survived House OF Frankenstein) also shows up at the good doctors door seeking a cure for his affliction.After a failed suicide attempt Talbot and the doctor find the Frankenstein monster. To complicate matters just before he bites the dust, Dracula infects the good doctor with his blood.The doctor becomes a bloodthirsty maniac at certain times.Where this leads to is something you'll have to see for your self.<br /><br />Carradine actually gives a very good performance as Dracula. He isn't chewing up the scenery as he will in later roles. It is hard to repress giggles when he appears in a top hat though.The cape/cloak is traditional but the hat has to go. Where does the hat go when he changes into a bat...?<br /><br />Onslow Stevens gives an excellent portrayal of the doctor. He's torn between his basic kindness and the increasing blood lust he is now prone to. This is a very underrated performance.Chaney brings even more life to the Wolf Man in his 4th appearance in that role.<br /><br />The monster isn't given much to do this time.Just lay on the table until the end(some stock footage from the Ghost Of Frankenstein is used).At least in House Of Frankenstein he was up and around a bit.<br /><br />Yes this does stick to the basic Universal pattern complete with the angry village mob running amok with torches.But it isn't a bad way to spend an hour and ten minutes.It gets a low 8.

Being too young to have experienced the Hammer films when they were fresh and new, I am discovering their hallowed horror films as I find them on DVD. I know it was almost a decade and half between them but it's hard to see much of the magic in the original Hammer Dracula in this late entry to the Christopher Lee series. The original Hammer vampire story had lots of atmosphere and a terrific story to get involved in. Lee was a great Dracula, a vibrant vampire if that possible, in the early outing but here he is nothing more than a cardboard character that mostly stands around and looks threatening. The modish young people talk like cartoon characters (even though my aunt lived in England during the 1970s and she says people actually talked with those awful clichés). I had no interest whatsoever in who lived or died amongst the younger crowd. They were all pretty terrible characters anyway. I did enjoy seeing a young and charismatic Caroline Munro; but she leaves the story too early. Lee and his historic nemesis Peter Cushing add an air of authenticity to the film but they can't draw blood from this empty film. It's D.O.A.

Reese Witherspooon's first movie. Loved it. The plot and the acting was top notch. You are emotionally involved with the characters. In my opinion, a must see.<br /><br />After watching this movie you will see why Reese Witherspoon's acting career has been so successful. <br /><br />The other cast members do a great job also. <br /><br />The movie flows extremely well. There is not a boring moment in the whole picture. The Man in the Moon's length is just right. <br /><br />As I said earlier, I think this movie was excellent. I have seen it numerous times, and have enjoyed every one of the viewings.

What we know of Caravaggio suggests a strutting brawler with a healthy sense of entitlement who lived amongst whores and thieves and hustlers and put them on canvas. His works' themes were sex, death, redemption, above all, finding the sacred within the profane. He lived at a time where homosexuality carried a death sentence and political intrigue normally involved fatalities in a society defined by the maxim "strangling the boy for the purity of his scream".<br /><br />You can't fault Derek Jarman for his cinematography, nor his recreations of Caravaggio's paintings and you certainly can't accuse the man of shying away from the homosexuality. But frankly, Jarman never strays beyond 80s caricature. Italian patronage becomes the 80s London art scene complete with pretty waiters and calculators. Sean Bean is a sexy bit of Northern rough oiling his motorbike. Tilda Swinton performs a transformation worthy of a Mills and Boons ("Why, Miss Lena, without that gypsy headscarf, you're beautiful..."). Jarman provides Caravaggio with a particularly trite motive for the murder which left him exiled.<br /><br />This could have been a visually stunning treatment of a man whose life was dangerous, exciting, violent and decadent but who nonetheless elevated the lives of ordinary people to the status of Renaissance masterpieces, looked on by Emperors and Kings. Instead, what you get is Pierre et Gilles do Italy. The pretty bodies of young boys are shown to perfection, but never the men who inhabit them. Jarman appears to satirise the London art scene, showing it shallow and pretentious. To use Caravaggio and Renaissance Italy to make the point is to use a silk purse to make a pig's ear. In fairness, this film remains visually stunning, but ultimately as two dimensional as the paintings it describes.

The exclamation point in the title is appropriate, albeit an understatement. This movie doesn't just cry -- it shrieks loud enough to shatter glass.<br /><br />Filmmakers Andrew and Virginia Stone made shrill, humorless suspense thrillers that strove for a semi-documentary feel. Here, they shot on actual New York locations with tinny "real-life" acoustics to jack up the verisimilitude. But the naturalism of the sound recording only serves to amplify the Stones' maladroit dialog and the mouth-frothing histrionics of tortured butterfly Inger Stevens.<br /><br />In a performance completely devoid of modulation, Stevens plays the wife of electronics whiz James Mason (looking haggard and bored); both are held captive by extortionist Rod Steiger (looking bloated and bored) and his slimy cohorts in a scheme to blackmail an airline with a deadly bomb that Mason has unwittingly helped construct.<br /><br />Here is another credibility-straining instance of a criminal mastermind so brilliantly attentive to every detail, yet knuckleheaded enough to hire a drug-addicted degenerate as an underling. The Stones' idea of nail-biting tension is to trap the hysterical Stevens alone with Benzedrine-popping rapist Neville Brand, filling the frame with his sweaty, drooling kisser. But the camera work is so leaden and Brand so (uncharacteristically) demure that the effect is hardly lurid, much less suspenseful. The Stones, a square pair at heart, don't even have the courage of their own lack of convictions.<br /><br />The film, which ends with the portly Steiger chasing the fleet-footed Stevens on a subway train track, is as clumsy as its ungainly heavy. With Angie Dickinson as Steiger's amoral girlfriend, Jack Klugman, Kenneth Tobey, and Barney Philips.

by Dane Youssef <br /><br />"Coonskin" is film, by the one and only Ralph Bakshi, is reportedly a satirical indictment of blaxploitation films and negative black stereotypes, as well as a look at life black in modern America (modern for the day, I mean--1975). Paramount dropped it like a hot potato that just burst into flame.<br /><br />But this is a Bakshi film, controversial, thrilling, and a must-see almost by definition alone. Not just another random "shock-jock" of a movie which tries to shock for the sake of shock. It's by Ralph Bakshi. Anyone who knows the name knows that if HE made a movie, he has something big to say...<br /><br />Although it's roots are based in cheap blaxploitation, "Coonskin" isn't just another campy knock-off of mainstream white film or any kind of throwaway flick. "Coonskin" wants to be more. It aims it's sights higher and fries some much bigger fish.<br /><br />The movie doesn't just poke fun at the genre. Nor does it just indict black people, but actually seems to show love, beauty and heart in the strangest places.<br /><br />"Coonskin" tells a story out of some convicts awaiting a jail-break. The fact that it's even possible to break out of a prison in the "Coonskin" world alone makes it old-fashioned.<br /><br />One of the inmates tells a story about a trio of black brothers in Harlem named Brother Bear, Brother Rabbit, Preacher Fox who want respect and a piece of the action and are willing to get it by any means necessary. The Itallian mob is running all the real action.<br /><br />Big name black musicians star: Barry White and Scatman Crothers, as well as Charles Gordone, the first black playwright to take home the Pulitzer. Something big is happening here obviously.<br /><br />The movie plays out like a descent into this world, this side of the racial divide. From an angry, hip, deep, soulful black man with a hate in his heart and a gun in his hand.<br /><br />Bakshi's films never know the meaning of the word "sublety." This one looks like it's never even heard of the word. But maybe a subject like this needs extremism. Real sledgehammer satire. Some subjects can't be tackled gently.<br /><br />Bakshi is god-dammed merciless. Here, no member or minority of the Harlem scene appears unscathed.<br /><br />The characters here are "animated" to "real" all depending on what the mood and situation are. The animated characters and the human ones all share the same reality and are meant to be taken just as literally.<br /><br />Bakshi never just shows ugly caricatures just for shock value. He always has something to say. Nor is black-face is gratuitously. Here, unlike in Spike Lee's "Bamboozled," he seems to be using it to try and really say something.<br /><br />Like 99.9% of all of Bakshi's films, this one incorporates animation and live-action. Usually at the same time. Bakshki isn't just being gimmicky here. All of this technique is all intertwined, meshing together while saying something.<br /><br />Somehow, this one feels inevitably dated. Many of these types of films (Bakshi's included) are very topical, very spur of the moment. They reflect the certain trend for the day, but looking back of them years later, there's just an unmistakable feeling of nostalgia (as well as timeless truth).<br /><br />Even though the music, clothes, slang and the city clearly looks like photos that belong in a time capsule, the attitude, the spirit and the heart remain the same no matter what f--king ear it is. Anyone who's really seen the movies, the state of things and has been in company of the people know what I'm talking about.<br /><br />Even some of the of the black characters are a bunny (junglebunny), a big ol' bear and a fox. One of the most sour and unsavory racist characters is a dirty Harlem cop who's hot on the trail of these "dirty n-----s" after the death of a cop. But for him, it's not just business. Nor is it for the rest of the brothers who wear the shield. It's just pure sadistic racist pleasure of hurting blacks.<br /><br />The sequence involving the Godfather and his lady is one of the most moving pieces in the whole film, of which there are many. It plays out like an opera or a ballet.<br /><br />The promo line: WARNING: "This film offends everybody!" This is not just hype. Proceed with extreme caution.<br /><br />You have been warned...<br /><br />by Dane Youssef

I watched this movie with big expectations. The blurb on the back indicated that this was going to be a nasty one. But it was pretty tame and a little unsatisfying. The violence was nothing I haven't seen a thousand times before, the gore level was only average (mind you there was probably more than what has been seen in Hollywood in the last 5 years - perhaps more), and at no stage was I even feeling uneasy let along frightened. Again a CAT 3 movie with big wraps, has not lived up to its hype.<br /><br />Sure hire this movie, but don't go in with any expectations. I am so keen to get into the whole Asian horror scene, but am continuously disappointed. I did love Ichi, and Audition, but then again, Miike stands alone at the moment.<br /><br />Please inspire me..... there is a large cluster of jaded genre fans who are starved of quality horror!

I remember when this came out a lot of kids were nuts about it. I guess I was a bit too old to get all excited and I was a fan of real martial arts films and always found this a bit cheesy.<br /><br />In the early 90's we were swamped with programs such as this making kids feel like they could fight and be a power ranger or an equal to these kids on 3 Ninjas. I think eventually parents and film makers alike got sick of it because all we had in reality was abunch of kids going around punching and hitting everyone.<br /><br />Many kids movies have some big point they're trying to make and its nice for your kids to watch and get the message, this one doesn't have any message at all...it just exploits a million difference things in less than 90 minutes.<br /><br />The movie has no great visual qualities but would one expect it to? The acting is pretty bad. Victor Wong is a cool actor but it was embarrassing to see him here.. The short, fat, gimped eyed old fart as a powerful ninja that was just hilarious. The kids over acted way too much and the youngest ninja Tum Tum was maybe the worst kid actor I have ever seen.<br /><br />The movie has a plot that anyone knows before they even read the review. 3 ninjas...yea you know they're gonna fight a bunch of bad guys and win obviously... Need I say more. Sorry if I spoiled it for anyone.<br /><br />With all that said KIDS WILL LOVE IT. This movie is aimed at kids and only children could enjoy it. If you don't mind your kid seeing movies about kids fighting this is a good movie to let them see. If you don't mind allowing your children to see complete garbage that has nothing to do with real martial arts, real acting or reality period then you have found a movie for your kids... I say kids because I think even the girls will like it... I recall all the girls having a crush on Rocky.<br /><br />2 out of 10 stars because I think you can make a movie for kids and still make it enjoyable for adults..this movie failed big time at that.. It is beyond cheesy and nothing original or unique and I would not allow a child of mine to watch it... Kung Fu the TV series is on DVD and there's tons of great Shaw Brothers films out there...Why not show your children things that will really entertain them and not make them dumb along the way, perhaps even teach them some moves and not just how to kick a man between the legs as grandpa did on 3 Ninjas...no no no...never kick a man between the legs ...never .. thats so unninja like.

Opening the film with a Bach Toccata is an aural hint of what is to unfold in this intense drama. All the compositional devices Bach perfected to keep his listener (and the performer) intrigued and entertained applies to this film. There isn't a mutual tenderness between the two lead characters and the lead female in the final scene I feel is justified in stating she was raped even though her victimizer feels she was forewarned that he was a cad. Mamet compellingly explores the emotional chasm and differences between the genders but I feel he is clueless about how they actually compliment one another given a healthy sense of humor. If Mamet ever developed a healthy humorous take on the interaction between the genders I wonder how this work would have ended? As it exists it is very somber and mean spirited.

After spotting the high rating on IMDb, I decided to go see this movie. Beyond that high rating, I intentionally avoided reading any of the reviews. I wanted to go into the theater with a clean slate, without knowing the plot or having predetermined expectations.<br /><br />Given my rating, you can see that I was disappointed. I enjoyed the development of the main character Mike Enslin. I also enjoyed how the hotel manager attempted to talk him out of entering the hotel room. By the time Enslin entered the room, I was ready for some scary stuff.<br /><br />First chocolates appear on the pillow and the toilet paper is folded. Enslin reacts in a believable manner. He's freaked out. I'm encouraged and think to myself, this is going to be good. The people who made this movie understand that less is more.<br /><br />But it's what happens next that was a big let down. The subtleness is quickly replaced by the predictable shotgun approach... Just blast the audience with every Hollywood scary trick in the book and hope that something works. Let's see, a clock radio that turns on by itself? Good, that's always scary. Objects that move around in the room? Good, you can't complain about that. Blood dripping from the walls and sink? Great. Ghosts that commit suicide? Good. Anything else? How about loud noises, shaking, fire, more shaking, messing up the room, more blood, etc etc. It's all good. And it's all been done before. Overstimulate our Attention Deficit Disordered audience with all kinds of stuff in quick succession, and they won't be able to look away.<br /><br />Well, it didn't work for me. And you know what else? When I go see a horror movie in a theater, it's typical to hear several groups of girls in the audience yelling in fear at scary moments. But this movie had no scary moments. The audience was silent and disinterested. I felt no chill down my spine. Nothing. The Shining was 100x what this movie tries to be.<br /><br />So who are all these people who are saying that it is one of the best horror movies ever? Friends of the director? Sorry, I just don't get it.

I've seen this movie more than once and it's worth it. For those of you who like martial arts and overcoming internal conflict, this is a worthy choice. After seeing this movie, I wanted to be a more productive member of society because I could relate to the inner turmoil of a girl looking for acceptance and needing a path to follow. Of course, Mr. Miyagi always provides his sage advice. 2 thumbs up!

I discovered this film after reading the book that inspired it. It is not a strictly biographical film; it is "loosely based" on the facts. But I found it a compelling and eerie exploration of evil and madness, and Michel Serrault gives an unforgettable performance as Dr. Petiot.<br /><br />There are many memorable images in this movie; Petiot traveling through the night like a vampire, his black cloak flapping behind him, is almost iconic. There are also several touches of expressionism - Petiot's crooked silhouette mounting the stairs leading from the cellar where the butchered remains of his victims await cremation, reminds me of some scenes from 'Nosferatu'.<br /><br />But I found the primary appeal of this movie to be aural. The soundtrack is loaded with ominous sounds, starting with the foreboding music of the opening credits, accompanied by wordless wailing. Petiot lives and runs his medical practice in a complex with many small shops, and there is a persistent background noise of knives being sharpened somewhere, as well as a peddler playing eerie tunes on a saw. There are animal noises as well - the concierge keeps a goat, unseen cats howl - and later in the film we see hapless cattle being herded through an underpass. The whole atmosphere is unsettling, with overtones of violence and slaughter.<br /><br />Not only animals, but human voices are often heard - the screams of Gestapo victims, Petiot's patients in his waiting room, monitored by a listening device, just the same as the suspected collaborators after the war are monitored in their cells. Even the action of the film is often arranged so that we hear the voices of the participants without seeing them - when Petiot goes to see Mme Kern, we hear her singing as she works, her voice echoing in the theater, before we ever see her. And even when she does appear, she is often filmed from behind, her voice calling out to her husband, whose voice calls out to her in conversation. Disembodied voices echo in large halls, and their owners, when seen at all, are photographed at a distance, so we cannot actually see them speaking. This is a ghost story, and these are the voices of ghosts - many of them Petiot's future victims.<br /><br />Yet Petiot himself is often only a voice; his frightening laughter echoes as he retreats from the camera, throwing comments behind him or into the air to nobody. In a way, he is as much a ghost as those he murders. He is always frantically busy, scurrying from appointment to appointment, never at rest. But his activity is that of a machine - lifeless and imperturbable. It is interesting that among all the horror and danger of occupied Paris, Petiot alone is unafraid; he is amused, enthusiastic, angry, irritated, contemptuous, but never afraid, unlike those real people he lures to their deaths. It is no surprise that he boasts of his mechanical inventions, including a perpetual motion machine (a true detail from the book - he did claim to have invented many machines); he is a sort of perpetual motion machine himself. And mechanical imagery is everywhere in the film, from the opening giant wheel in the movie house, to Petiot's bicycle (with its squeaking wheels echoing the sound of sharpening knives), to the Victrola he keeps winding up to play music before he makes a kill. Even his routine with his victims is mechanical - write a note to your wife, let me disguise you before you leave, you need a vaccination, Barcelona, Casablanca, Dakar - like a well-oiled machine, the routine is always the same, just as the record is always the same.<br /><br />Maeder, the author, says that it was the clockwork perfection of his crimes that weighed so heavily against Petiot at his trial. His system was as smooth and efficient as a Nazi concentration camp, and this may be why the movie invents a subplot of Petiot's involvement with the French Gestapo and the occupying Nazis. Unfortunately, it doesn't quite work as part of the story, because it's very hard to figure out just what Petiot is doing for the collaborators, or what is going on when he ends up at their headquarters in the middle of the night. Disposing of bodies? Hiding stolen goods? It's hard to say, and harder to believe; it's not likely the state would turn to a freelancer like Petiot.<br /><br />But it does remind us of the duality of evil people; Petiot is a robber and a murderer, but he is also a devoted father and husband. Just as we learned that Hitler loved dogs, and that Nazis guilty of the worst war crimes could also be loving fathers and family men, so we have to recognize that Petiot could commit unspeakable horrors and yet also function normally. His insanity is easily camouflaged by the insanity and horror of the wartime situation in Paris; when killing, robbing and disappearing are happening all around, nobody pays attention as Petiot tosses more corpses on the pile.

I watched this movie with my boyfriend, an avid hip-hop fan and he was really really looking forward to catch the "soul" vibe the movie claimed to have. Boy, we were dead wrong. When I finished watching the movie I felt two things: remorse and relief. Remorse because I regretted wasting my time to watch this awful piece of dung, and relief because I watched it free on cable.<br /><br />This movie really really gives a bad name to black people, by putting so much awful stereotypes that I believe all smart black people everywhere has been trying to spell off. I'm Asian, and I feel very very sorry and sick for those who made this movie. What more to say? Bad writing, even worse acting, and horrible storyline.<br /><br />Even if you're bored to death and has no other choice, don't watch this movie. Seriously. The movie really has nothing to offer, except if you want to see things like minor illegal drinking, animal slain, women degradation, and overall: A REALLY REALLY BAD-OBNOXIOUS-SICKENING-AWFUL MOVIE. Yuck.

When I was in school I made a film about a couple roaming around in the trees and talking, and I realized halfway through editing that this was not just a failing aesthetic strategy but a cliché of Canadian cinema: sodden lyricism married to vacant, metaphor-burdened stabs at social commentary. But whatever my own film's failings I feel much better after seeing this...this...thing. For one thing, mine ran 20 minutes, not 85, and had more content at that: every pointless bit of business here is fawned over for four, five, six relentless minutes. The male lead is just incredible, a brow-beating, loudmouthed creep given to outbursts of drama-class improv in between philosophical insights culled from the U of T pub, and he is given lots and lots of space to make us hate him. Admittedly if he weren't such an a**hole then the third act would make even less sense, as a couple snarky dudes show up to provide distant and thoroughly unhelpful echoes of 'exploitation' values; but it doesn't make it any easier to watch the caged creep whimper "please" in closeup until the magazine runs out. I take back what I said about AUTUMN BORN, which at least had the courage of its own misbegotten lechery: this cinematic crater is and will remain the very worst Canadian movie of all time. At least, I really really hope so.

This movie just pulls you so deeply into the two main characters. I popped it into my laptop without even reading the cover (let alone reviews) and was intrigued for two solid hours. Two lost ships from two different worlds collide. The sexual tension that brews between a secretary and a criminal is almost palpable even without hardly any physical contact. Toward the end I couldn't decide which I wanted more: Our hero and heroine to pull off their caper or simply consummate their passion. RML could've done without a curious subplot and a traditional 100 minutes would have been plenty. I'm nitpicking though. After a series of Netflix, Blockbuster and local library duds this movie restored my faith in great film making.

I have to differ from the other comments posted. Amid sporadic funny moments, there are a lot of actors trying too hard to be funny. The strain shows. I watched this with two friends on another friend's recommendation- none of us were thrilled.

First, let's all agree that Lorenzo Lamas could never be considered a skilled actor, barely even decent, sometimes just plain lousy. However, in this piece of @*!^ called SnakeEater, the film industry as a whole sank.<br /><br />First, let's start with the plot. A Vietnam vet named Jack Kelly, aka Soldier (who is supposed to be as tough as a strap of leather and then some, which you can believe when he shoves a palate of nails through 2 guys' feet and pins them to the floor), gets word that his family has been killed and his sister kidnapped. Therefore he goes on a solo mission to save his sister. Had some potential, but still pretty thin to begin with.<br /><br />Now, the acting. Being an actor myself, I am qualified to say that this was some of the WORST acting in the history of the art!!!!! Lamas is, well, himself. The jackasses playing the Clampets/Deliverance rejects should be strung up and shot for their so-called performances which are insulting to actors everywhere, especially talented ones who never get their big break!<br /><br />Finally, the action. The gunfighting is so-so at BEST, and the fist-fighting is deplorable. I've seen more real-looking fights at the Renaissance Festival (and those were pretty fake-looking)!<br /><br />Readers, listen to me: AVOID THIS PIECE OF CACA AT ALL COSTS! IF IT WERE THE ONLY FILM IN EXISTENCE, YOU STILL WOULD WANT TO AVOID IT! For the sake of your brain-cell count, do NOT watch this thing!

Sadly this film lives up to about 1% of the hype that the game created in 2004 and leaves a very sour taste in the mouth. For video game enthusiasts, book worms and movie fans alike there is nothing more disappointing then a film that is based on an original concept (whether on paper or gaming console) that does not deliver. And not only that, goes well under the mark. Far Cry the video game released in 2004 created such a cult following that making a movie from the content should have been easy and scores of gamers would have flocked to watch the film. If you are a gamer that has played Far Cry; do not watch this film. Anyone else who hasn't played the game; it'll still seem like a B grade acted / B grade directed movie. Uwe Boll, hang your head in shame...this should've been easy to make into a blockbuster. The storyline of the game was incredible (think Jurassic Park meets Alien) and yet you still managed to take it and mould it into your own terrible recreation of an instant classic. Video game companies be warned - if Uwe Boll comes a knockin', lock the door. Oh & Til Schweiger...I look forward to seeing you make up for yourself in Inglourious Basterds. What were you thinking taking this one on? Sigh.

What do you do with all the material that does not make the final edit of a film? You might keep it aside in case a director's cut or extended version is released one day. You might sell some it as stock footage to be used in a part of another film. You might just bin it. Or you might collect it, accumulating more and more from each film you make and then use it to make another film, disregarding coherence or any sense. Throw a very primitive skeleton of a narrative into it and line up a number opportunities (nay, excuses) to slot in your celluloid cast-offs. Excuse the abjectly nonsensical nature of the plot by framing it all in the mind of a horror film director and you've got yourself an awful film. This can all be done with just a few days shooting. And idiots like me will waste two hours of their life watching it. And then come on here and try to warn others away. The whole chain of events is one big waste of time.

After seeing this film I complained to my local cinema about the quality of the sound-track or whether the cinema sound system may be faulty. For at least the first half of the film it is extremely difficult to understand what anyone is saying because of the background 20's music and the scratchiness of the sound-track. I was ready to blame the cinema equipment but not so - it was the Director.<br /><br />I was told the subject of my complaint was an essential part of the making of the film. The music and the sound was supposed to be distorted to create a very disturbing effect within the film. These days, directors will go to many lengths to make their film unique. Unfortunately, no matter where or how you see that film the sound score will be the same.<br /><br />So apart from the historical inaccuracies of this film (which you can find out for yourself elsewhere) the sound-track distortions are in themselves a good reason to give this film a miss. You will only hear the distorted scratchiness of the sound-track and certainly not a cat's meow.

I really like this movie. Bozz is an ultra-cool, not to be intimidated soldier who does not want to go to war. His persona is similar in a way to Yossarian in Catch-22, Joseph Heller's classic novel about men and war. This film, however, is not set in a war zone, but in a pre-war combat prep training. This wonderful film is all about the sickening realization that the Vietnam war was a mistake and those men who were pegged to be sacrificed for a losing cause.<br /><br />Colin Farrell is brilliant as Bozz, a soldier who showed as much genuine love and compassion for his fellow soldier as he did disdain and irreverence for the establishment that was trying to kill him. Bozz is totally cool and non-plussed, testing and tweaking his military superiors, getting their goat at every opportunity. He is a Jesus Christ figure with a psychology degree, "saving" his fellow soldiers and showing the ones in genuine need, the way out of this man's army.<br /><br />The acting and action is crisp and believable and as a "Sleeper", Tigerland goes down with Apocalypse Now and Full Metal Jacket as one of the top three Vietnam films in my opinion.<br /><br />FIVE STARS, a top pick.

Joel schumacher Made a heck of a choice when he decided on this cast and this script. The story is well written and well laid out, and this entirely new cast of 10 or 12 central characters was absolutely brilliant. It seemed that there were 6 "leads" and about a half dozen supporting, and by far this is the best thing about the movie, the fresh young faces of tomorrow. It has been a long time since hollywood has touched the controversial vietnam war films,which says something for the"story that needed to be told"(as stated by schumacher) and Tigerland lands in that handful of top war movies period. Yet it can not be labeled as a war movie because it seemed to be based more on the human spirit of Bozz and the others. I Think anyone who just wants to see a good film with out all of the special FX, but just good, gritty drama should go see Tigerland, obviously Shumachers Best works in the past 8 years.

This film is definitely up there with the worst films I've ever seen, probably in my top 5 of worst films. I laughed once and that was when:<br /><br />EVAN: "im building something" Evan's Secretary: "i hope its a barber shop"<br /><br />That was literally the only time i laughed in this 'comedy', awful compared to Bruce almighty which as a big Jim carrey fan...wasn't even that great! <br /><br />This movie lacked the humour of having God's powers and was more about family bonding. Id class it solely as a family movie, definitely not a family comedy. <br /><br />Seeing a bird poo on someone's shirt is not hilarious, neither is a beard that grows back instant!<br /><br />I didn't even think the special effects were great, the animals looked really stuck on, it was like watching a film which hadn't been 'glued' together properly<br /><br />2/10 film - avoid!

I wonder if there is any sense of sense in this movie. Its a big joke. Good.. Its entertaining .. You get to see the most stupid plot played very seriously in the form of a film .. I wonder which audience group this movie is basically targeted to.<br /><br />Priety (a pros) plays a surrogate mom for a happy couple Salman/Rani who want a child but can't. I wonder how it would be if this drama was a real-life take-off from a real couple's life.<br /><br />Rani appears happy with another pretty lady in her house who has been brought in to make a child for her & Salman. She cares for Priety and tries pushing her husband Salman to Preity so they may have some romance. When will the audience get fed up of Salman's nakhras.<br /><br />Though a good past-time, this movie is unbearable. Absurd.

"Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" (an amazingly incovenient title) is simply a bad movie; it has no heart, no deep ideas, nothing very special about it. Yes, the CGI backgrounds look interesting, but the result is that the whole thing is shot in an annoying soft focus. Additionally, the movie uses music the same way as, say, "Gilligan's Island" or the Scooby-Doo cartoons-- IT NEVER STOPS. Terribly, simply terrible. There are no fresh ideas, either, just gobs and gobs and gobs and... etc., of bits taken from older movies and serials. There is no gatekeeper here, the movie just seems to exist because it can. Save your money and your time. Not entertaining at all.

Boring movie. Poor plot. Poor actors. The movie happens in a room supposed to be in Morocco but actually in some American city! The "Arab terrorists" are the patriots the blonde patriot is the "Arab terrorist"...DAMN!<br /><br />There is something good about this movie though (that's why the score is 2 out of 10). The director turns the ridiculous stereotype about terrorism the media feeds us every day into the real thing, the terrorists are Americans (or western people if you like).<br /><br />The movie is divided into two parts. The first part of the movie concerns the Dutchman travel (15 seconds) while the second part is about the staying in the amazing dark brown room (1 hour and something).<br /><br />The Dutch guy is going to deliver money in Morocco to some "charity organization", gets off the plain, takes the bus and ends up kidnapped in a dark brown room. He is kidnapped with another guy that is shot after telling "They will not shoot at us". The Dutch survivor is forced to play chess with a Morpheus-like Arab guy for so long that you'll learn how to play chess too! At the end the dutch guy reveals his plot not because they cut four of his fingers off but because he is tricked by such a lame game you should watch the movie for!<br /><br />Good when you are so tired you can't sleep.

Dean Cain, the one time Super-Man, plays Max Hooper the super-thief. He can break into any company and steal any thing for the right price. Unfortunately his latest heist ends him up in a high-rise in which someone else has set a fire to hide their own attempts to steal the product. Now the thief finds himself having to be the hero rescuing everyone in the building. Unfortunately the other thief is still in the building and the F.B.I. & C.I.A. are outside waiting for Max.<br /><br />The movie is barely passable. Dean Cain is a fun actor and has done much better with more improved material but here he is saddled with a weak script and pretty poor direction.

Since this is Black History Month and I'm reviewing the achievements of many African-Americans on film in chronological order, I got this movie on VHS from the library because Duke Ellington and his Orchestra were in it. Their jazz version of Franz Liszt's "Rhapsody" was the highlight of this mostly overlong murder mystery-musical comedy mixture. Many other numbers I liked were Kitty Carlisle's especially "Sweet Marijuana", Carl Brisson's "Cocktails for Two" as well as his duet with Carlisle on that earlier, and the ones by Gertrude Michael who's great as the woman you love to hate. Jack Oakie and Victor McLaglen probably go a little too long with their love/hate banter as the producer and detective but they grow on you. And Toby Wing is a sexy dumb tease as Nancy who keeps trying to say something to Oakie but gets a "Not now" from him every time. While many of the characters have a motive for the murders that happen, I wasn't surprised by the revelation of who done it. And get a load of how naked the women here are (though of course their breasts are covered, either by their hands or some flimsy top). This was very obviously pre-Code. Worth a look for any film buff interested in this sort of thing. P.S. As a long-time Louisiana resident, I like noting when someone was born here as Carlisle was a New Orleans native.

The first time I saw this film, I wanted to like it for so many reasons, but I simply did not. It just seemed a little dull. But there was a tiny question I had about something I saw near the beginning of the film so I watched it again… and then finally it clicked for me. I first watched the movie knowing the "surprise ending", and while I definitely wouldn't recommend having the ending spoiled for you, I have still thoroughly enjoyed the bulk of the film and discovering the many seemingly insignificant events that all unravel to point to a very sinister scheme.<br /><br />I don't think that everyone will love this movie, or even like it. If you like any of the actors, you'll like this movie because the acting is fairly strong and they all get a lot of screen time. If you like mysteries (namely Hitchcock) you'll like this movie. If you like independent or psychological films, you'll like this movie. It really worked for me on all of those levels. If you don't like the actors, mysterious plots or psychological elements, you might not like this movie. But that's your loss. Personally, the only thing that irked me a little was the accents. Good try, Alan Rickman, on the American dialect, but it wasn't much improvement from the scene in Die Hard. (The wonderful voice makes up for the weird accent though.) The medley of accents in the movie was a little odd, but it was not so distracting that it became difficult or particularly irritating. Also, the camera change from scene to scene was evident and might bother some people, but I actually think it added to the scenes (or scene… I can really only recall one scene where the change was severely different, but it worked).<br /><br />When you see this movie, see it at least twice. The second time you see it, I hope you realize how intricate the plot really is. Every time I watch this movie (it's under an hour and a half so multiple viewings are not difficult) I seem to notice something else about it and find myself wondering, "Why did that just happen?" or "Was that intentional?" I like movies that make me think. This one does. So just see it. Twice.

Like the previous commentator on this film, I too found myself in tears at times during this movie. Sometimes one wonders how a film of such awe-inspiring awfulness comes into existence. From the first moment when our protagonist wakes up in his New York apartment from a dream of subway trains intercut with galloping horses (what Irish emigrant hasn't had that one), its clear we are in trouble. And it doesn't get much better.<br /><br />Whisked back to 1950s Ireland, we enter a world where everybody speaks without intonation, and exclusively on the topic of the Irish Civil War. Schoolchildren go to school to learn about the Civil War. The drinkers in the pub divide themselves according to their Civil War allegiances. Remembrances are carried out for those who died in the Civil War. The town is divided between those who believe we should remember and those who want to forget...the Civil War. Every glance and conversation is dripping with meaning that traces back to the Civil War.<br /><br />The blurb on the videocover of Broken Harvest suggests that the film is a parable of the troubles in modern Ireland. The only parallel which strikes me is that in present day Dublin conversation is indeed dominated by one topic: house prices. If its intention is to offer some sort of insight into Ireland's obsession with its past, it fails miserably. It is striking how few Irish films have dealt with the Irish civil war and its legacies. However it will take a film of a great deal more subtlety and intelligence than this one to tell us anything about the lasting effects of such a traumatic event on the nation's psyche.<br /><br />For those American viewers who have suggested the film evokes the atmosphere of 1950s Ireland: it doesn't. 1950s Ireland was a horrible, poverty stricken pit of sexual repression and misery from which young people fled in their droves. However there was more than one topic of conversation.

I'm not exactly sure why I ordered "Fingersmith" from Netflix -- probably, because I enjoy BBC dramas, it was on a list of recommendations. I had no idea what I was about to see. The plot, which I will only describe in general so as not to spoil it for anyone who will see it after reading my review, has more twists and turns than a mountain road in the Rockies, of the sort that customarily appear in "caper" movies. They are very unusual in a period drama. Not having read the novel (and I do not intend to do so), I was totally unprepared for the surprise that ends the first segment on the DVD and equally surprised by the subsequent twists and turns. Nonetheless, it is extremely well acted by the two young principals (by Sally Hawkins,in particular, as Sue and by Elaine Cassidy as Maud) and, in key supporting roles, by Imelda Staunton as the mother figure in a house of thieves and by Charles Dance as the rich uncle who collects pornographic materials and who rescues young Maud from the mad house where her mother lived to be his secretary. The lesbian affair between Maud and Sue is the "big news" in the movie, but really not its centerpiece. The centerpiece is a plot to steal the fortune that Maud is due on her 21st birthday. The turns and twists in the plot add tension, though not much credibility, to the movie. However, no viewer is likely to doubt that Maud and Sue will somehow end up together -- improbably -- as the credits roll. Although one has been raised as a ady, and serves a collector of pornography, and the other is a pickpocket posing as a lady's maid, the author obviously means for them to live together in the end. It's a bit difficult to swallow, since each has conspired to cheat the other. Despite these reservations, I liked movie well enough. It does not quite deserve the praise that others have lavished on it. The most fearsome and interesting scenes take place inside the madhouse where one of the two young women has been confined until she is able to escape and return to London to bring the story to its unexpected conclusion. Sally Hawkins (Sue) is a very impressive young actress, able to convey her character's cascading and changing emotions with her facial expressions and her eyes. No doubt we'll see more of her. I certainly hope so.

Diane Keaton gave an outstanding performance in this rather sad but funny story which involved quite a few young people and their deep dark secrets. Diane Keaton,(Natalie),"The Family Stone",'05, who had an only daughter and loved her beyond words can describe. She always called her and told her, "Surrender Dorothy", which was an expression used in the 'Wizard of Oz',1939. A sudden car accident occurs and Natalie gets herself deeply involved with her daughter's friends and lovers. As Natalie investigates, the more truths she finds out about herself and her real relationship with her daughter. Great film to view and enjoy, especially all the good acting from all the supporting actors.

When it comes to Paul Verhoeven and erotic thrillers, most people think of "Basic Instinct" and some maybe of "Showgirls". But Verhoeven has made his best erotic thriller years before these two movies: "De Vierde Man". This film is mesmerizing and mindblowing - and above all the story is absolutely plausible, which makes the whole experience even more intense. The performances by Jeroen Krabbe, Renee Soutendijk and Thom Hoffman are exceptional, and Verhoeven's direction does the rest. "De Vierde Man" makes even "Basic Instinct" look quite tame... It can't get much better than this, a true classic of erotic nightmare cinema. 10 out of 10, at least...

One of the great tragedies of life is that Disney is so very successful at everything that they do. If they were not, we might have more unique little gems of animation such as "The Curious Adventures of Mr. Wonderbird." The story is that an evil king has usurped the throne of a place called Up-And-Down-Land (I could have the name wrong). He is hated by everyone. His favorite hobby is shooting birds, and at some point in the past, he presumably killed the wife of Mr. Wonderbird (a bird, played with typical flair by Peter Ustinov) leaving him with four young chicks to raise. Meanwhile, we see that another of the evil king's hobbies is painting. He has done three paintings in particular: a self portrait, a painting of a shepherdess (which he has fallen in love with), and a painting of chimney sweep (of whom he is jealous). One night, the shepherdess and the chimney sweep climb down out of their paintings and run away together. The self portrait of the king climbs down out of his frame as well, and does away with the real king (You think I'm making this up? Its the real plot) and sends the royal police force after the young lovers. Mr. Wonderbird then assists the lovers in attempting to escape the King's forces.<br /><br />The plot is wonderfully surreal, and the setting Up-and-Down-Land is an incredibly imagined place, full of towering buildings accessible only by elevators. Its an equal mixture of the worlds of "Metropolis" and "1984" and the drawings of Dr. Seuss.<br /><br />Watch it for a very unique viewing experience that doesn't fit the standard formula for most animated features.

Dorothy Provine does the opposite here: She keeps growing and growing. I didn't detect any subtext, though. "The Incredible Shrinking Man" and other movies of its ilk during the period were parables about radiation, nuclear war, and other horrors. Provine's growth is the result of an inept computer/robot.<br /><br />And who operates this computer but Lou Costello! I like some of his movies with Bud Abbott. But, though this is a pretty bad movie, he does fine without him. And Gale Green is an excellent foil.<br /><br />Green plays the pompous town big shot. He is Provine's father. He is intent on being elected Mayor. So when his beloved daughter starts having issues, he dumps her. He doesn't exactly dump her but gives up his battle against her longtime admirer Costello.<br /><br />This is pretty implausible: Costello is the local garbage collector.<br /><br />The special effects are minimal. And the subplot involving the military is lame in the extreme.

I first saw this film when i was around 6 or 7 years old and didn't really think it was anything particularly special. AS time went on i watched it a few more times and it started to grow on me as i started to understand the morals of the film, which i will come to later. For a while i left this film alone and didn't watch it for a while. When looking for an old classic film to watch a few weeks ago (now being 15), I dug out the VHS of homeward bound. After watching this i was left on a natural high that i couldn't really explain. The film gives an overwhelming sense of joy that you never really expect. The films nature of three completely different animals collaborating together to find their way home really sends a message home that no matter how different you are you can always find common ground, something that you all need. The way the personalities of the characters is chosen is truly fantastic. In that you have an old knowledgeable wise golden retriever, looking after or guiding 'chance' the fun loving if slightly clumsy young American bulldog, with sassy the clever, vulnerable but confident cat. The film follows these three friends or companions on a journey that is so realistically impossible it creates magic in that you start to believe that this journey can happen. <br /><br />I don't want to sound like a soft tissue grabber when it comes to films i assure you i am quite the opposite, but the most uplifting part of this film is without a doubt shadows return, when shadow desperately tries to escape and chance and sassy, painfully are told by him to leave. When both animals return to their beloved owners there is a silence until shadow limps over the horizon to the awe of all. There is a fine line between heartwarming and corny rubbish but this film is pure magic even at the age of 15. This film may not be Lord of the rings but for Disney to produce such a fantastic film using animals and for it to uplift myself in the way it does even at this age it deserves 10/10.

I feel really bad for reviewing this movie because I wish that I had only watched it as a concept production. The Covenant looked like it could have been a really original piece, but sadly they lose the great idea in the translation to the screen.<br /><br />The story follows four (five) teens that are the descendants of the families that started the town of Ipswitch a survivors of the Salem witch trials. They also happen to be a part of the secret sect called "The Covenant". Their power must be used sparingly as it drains their life-force in small amounts and is highly addictive. In theory this would make a pretty good action sci-fi movie…or at least an interesting teeny flick.<br /><br />But there were just too many glaring downfalls that don't allow this movie to reach its plot's full potential. That acting wasn't good, the sound track was mediocre and we found a lot of unnecessary sync issues. For sure the biggest issue is the poor editing job. The movie has little to no coherent flow and makes one fight to keep a mental timeline or any feel of pacing.<br /><br />The movie has it's moments, but overall was a little disappointing.<br /><br />A witchy 4/10

I have been a "huge" rush fan ever since "moving pictures" and this concert is simply and example to everyone who is a fan why Rush is so popular. They completely admitted to playing their biggest concert yet, and, despite the rain in a soccer arena, they still manage to give an outstanding performance from start to finish. A real example of this is during "yyz" the entire crowd start to sing along to it in a real classic manner, in perfect sinc. They really play all of everyone's favorite songs with a real powerful "lust" that rarely happens anymore. You get the best seat in the house for one of their best concerts given. The second DVD is a fascinating documentary of the band while they are in brazil and shows you a lot of the backstage things going on and it allows you to see them not just a musicians but as actual people in their everyday life. This DVD gift set is a must for any Rush fan young and old and is definitely a keeper for your DVD collection. Their is even a cd of the concert for those who just want to listen to the music. This DVD is worth it!

The original movie, Man From Snowy River, is one of the best I've seen, nearly perfect. A Lady and the Tramp storyline in two senses--rich girl/poor boy, and ability vs. bloodline. The sequel, however, is not only a shameless attempt to capitalize on the good name of the original but also a ridiculous, overblown Disneyfied mess best summarized as "Rambo Meets the Black Stallion." Without the charm of The Black Stallion. The young hero comes back from a 3-year absence, and suddenly he's Superman on horseback; in the original, good film, he was real and believable, but sadly reduced to a caricature in the sequel. I've hardly been as disappointed in a movie, and at times this thing made me quite angry--they missed hardly a cliché. Brazen audience manipulation--do studio heads think that all you have to do with a horse-loving audience is put pretty horses in front of them, to make them happy? A mess of a movie.

Classic, highly influential low budget thriller that gave birth to a horror icon and launched the careers of both director Carpenter and star Curtis.<br /><br />Seemingly unstoppable murderer escapes from mental institution and returns to his hometown where he begins to stalk a local babysitter on Halloween.<br /><br />Halloween is a film that never fails to live up to its reputation as a horror masterpiece! Carpenter's frightening story and clever direction give this film such chillingly good life that it must be seen to really be felt! The direction often consists of such simple elements, shadows, dark streets, creaking doors, that it makes even the everyday setting of a small town neighborhood truly creepy. Carpenter well-times his suspense and his jolting shocks to make them the most effectively startling, that in itself is a feat few horror filmmakers ever manage! Plus, he is wise enough to give us some truly likable young characters and a very scary villain to keep the tension all the more strong. Highest kudos also go to Carpenter's simple, yet frighteningly unnerving music score. In a sense, Halloween is a fine example of a perfect horror film!<br /><br />The cast is excellent. Young Jamie Lee Curtis does a very nice turn as lovable babysitter Laurie Strode, she's so good that she would go on to be in a number of other horror films before breaking into bigger films. The great Donald Pleasants does a perfect performance as a Myer's doctor, who's desperate to capture him again. Supporting cast Loomis, Soles, Castle, and others are good too.<br /><br />So like its own villain, Halloween is an unstoppable force that never fails to thrill and chill. It is a MUST for all genre fans!<br /><br />**** out of ****

Loved the shots of airports -- Dallas, Phoenix, Fresno, etc., just single buildings with the name in block letters on the roof. And the tri-motors, and the well-dressed passengers. Fast-forward 75 years....<br /><br />But what really got to me was the hammer and sickle emblem and what appeared to be a Chinese ideogram adjacent the logo, aft of the pilot's seat on the starboard side of the fuselage. Remember when the mutual acquaintance Neil and Jill encounter says that Jim'd become a general in a Chinese rebel army? That, based on the hammer and sickle, could only have been the People's Revolutionary Army of Mao Tse Dung!!! Never mind the undies and the unwed twosome in bed -- would that logo and that reference have survived during the Cold War? <br /><br />Additional observation 12/27: This film of the 30's with the soviet emblem may/must also reflect the influence on and charm of communism in Hollywood and much of America during the Depression. Adds to the historical value of this terrific film. <br /><br />Also I liked the American Dream aspects of two guys from Winnemucca taking at least part of the world by storm, Red-Blooded (literally and copiously in Jim's case)American Boys.<br /><br />Others have commented more ably than I on the aerobatics, etc. I loved it all.<br /><br />This gem deserved more than the mere 1.5 stars Osborne and Co. rated it on TCM, if only for recording parts of American history of the early 30s.

I actually paid to see this movie in the theater.<br /><br />It would get a 1-rating, but the fight scenes between the robots are okay, and there's a surprise.<br /><br />I realize that some movies have larger budgets than others. I don't have a problem with that. Unfortunately, science fiction movies probably suffer the most on a small budget for obvious reasons. But, one way this movie fails is that just about every piece of each set looked cheesy and cheap. I mean, couldn't they even make it "look" good?<br /><br />The other major reason this movie is horrible is the acting If I watched the movie now and knew what to expect, I might just enjoy it for the cheese-factor, but at the time, I was expecting a good movie and had no clue as to how horrible it would actually end up being.<br /><br />Thankfully, the experience was over in only 85 minutes.

i was like watching it right and i was all like oh this is so totally awesome-full and then i was all like ya quite good indeed so i really enjoyed all the amazing dangers and all the British people and i think that the doctor is very a good doctor in his way of doing such wonderful doctor-y things and he was a very strange man and i was like maybe i won't like this guy because hes a new doctor and i like the old doctor thats not this guy but then i watched him and i was like oh this is awesome and i liked it so then i watched and enjoyed the great evil enemies and the great conquering of the evil guys and the happy doctor who is quite scary and happy looking

Not really all that much to this movie...either a stunt racer or a stock car racer has a flaming car in the beginning of the movie, goes to bar, is approached by a biker gang who ruins his chances with a very lovely lady, offer him a job, he goes back to their place, refuses, the police ask him to accept their ya go!!! What plays out is a very annoying little film that sees the hero not really do all that much and a biker gang that can kill and for some reason the police can not pin a crime on them. I am not sure why the female biker did what she did at the end, but hey it is a bad movie, you always get scenes that make little sense. I am still trying to figure out if I misheard it when they said the hero of the piece was a stunt car driver. They may have said stock car driver because why would a stunt racer be racing and I wouldn't think it would be all that uncommon for a stunt car to crash. The actors are bad, and all the bikers are pretty annoying and the hero is kind of incompetent...really this movie is not full of kicks but it is the pits.

(Spoilers warning) I cannot say enough good things about this movie. It is a great horror comedy/spoof that does everything right for a change. The humor is great and ranges from funny to so-funny-you'll-cry funny. In one scene, Ed goes edit-crazy and deletes a big scene. When his boss is looking at Ed's edit, he yells out: "Where in the fu%# is my beaver-rape scene?!?!" Hysterical. There are also many other great, humorous & memorable quotes and moments throughout: Ed yells out "Don't you fu#$ing look at me!!!" while punching some poor schmuck repeatedly in the face. Very funny stuff. The plot of the movie itself is so ridiculous that it's priceless: Ed is a mild-mannered everyday guy that gets moved over to the horror-film editing department, and after a while goes nuts, sees monsters, and attacks people while quoting the horror movies that he has edited. This movie has it all and is simply hilarious. The DVD only costs about $7, and is a great bargain as it is the unrated widescreen cut. I own a lot of DVD's, most of which cost a lot more money than this one, but not many are as great as this movie. My Evil Ed DVD is one of the highlights of my collection and i would beat someone with a telephone receiver if they tried to steal it. Evil Ed oozes style and quality -- something that Hollywood filmmakers need to majorly learn. Evil Ed is a rare gem, and i would like to thank everyone involved in making this wonderful movie -- you did everything right, and i love Evil Ed! 10 out of 10!!!

This was truly a tense and dark episode. Excellently executed, wonderful acting and atmospheric directing, 'Ice' is one of my favorite episodes. Along with 'Pusher' 'Grotesque' 'Wetwired' and 'Home' (these are quite good in dark atmosphere in my case) It seem quite realistic to me, their paranoia, their suspicion and their ever growing rage was perfectly executed by the great actors. However, 'Ice' had a problem that I got over after a few watches: IT WAS TOO SHORT! I WANTED MORE!<br /><br />Overall, 'ice' had what 98% of all X Files episodes have: Excellent acting, Intense story-writing, gritty directing. All the works.<br /><br />10 out of 10

I had been looking forward to How to Lose Friends & Alienate People for months, particularly due to the fact that Kirsten Dunst and Simon Pegg were starring. Simon Pegg is a comedic genius and Kirsten Dunst has always been a favorite actress of mine. How to Lose Friends & Alienate People hit the spot! Of course not perfect, but very enjoyable and funny. How to Lose Friends & Alienate People follows the life of Sidney Young, a smalltime, bumbling, British celebrity journalist, who is hired by an upscale magazine in New York City. In spectacular fashion Sidney enters high society and burns bridges with bosses, peers and superstars. After disrupting one black-tie event by allowing a wild pig to run rampant, Sidney catches the attention of Clayton Harding, editor of Sharp, and accepts a job with the magazine in New York City. Clayton warns Sidney that he'd better impress and charm everyone he can, if he wants to succeed. Instead, Sidney instantly insults and annoys fellow writer Alison Olsen (Kirsten Dunst). He dares to target the star clients of power publicist Eleanor Johnson (Gillian Anderson). He also upsets his direct boss Lawrence Maddox (Danny Huston). Sidney finds creative ways to annoy nearly everyone. His saving grace, a rising starlet Sophie Maes (Megan Fox) who develops an odd affection for him. In time, Allison's friendship might be the only thing saving Sydney from his downward spiraling career. The storyline is very interesting and the acting was top notch with what the actors were given. Simon Pegg is still hilarious as ever! He makes Sydney bumbling, obnoxious, and annoying as real as it gets, but later in time making Sydney not just likable, but also a real character who you root for in the end. Kirsten Dunst and Jeff Bridges were brilliant! Kirsten had some very wonderful acting and hilarious scenes, and Jeff Bridges is just Jeff f*cking Bridges! How can you not like him?! He makes Clayton a very humorous character with some wit and overall you just love the guy. Gillian Anderson, Megan Fox, and Danny Huston were great as the supporting cast. Each had their own personality that were overall pretty unlikable, but that's what just made the film work. One thing I didn't enjoy was how one dimensional some of the characters were. I understand that most were the supporting cast, but some of the cast was underused and could've given the film some more spice to it. How to Lose Friends & Alienate People will never be on anyone's top 10 films ever, or even top 10 comedies ever, but it has a very high entertainment level and some scenes may even charm you as well. How to Lose Friends & Alienate People is definitely one of the better romantic comedies of the year! 8/10

My main problem with the film is that it goes on too long. Other then that, it's pretty good. Paul Muni plays a poor Chinese farmer who is about to get married through an arranged marriage. Luise Rainer is a servant girl who gets married to Muni. They live with Muni's father on a farm and they are doing pretty bad. When he finally gets some money to buy some more land, a drought hits and nothing is growing. Everybody stars to head north by Muni stays behind at first. When they leave and arrive at town they find that their are no jobs and they are worse off than before. They even think about selling their youngest daughter as a slave for some money but decide against it. When a bunch of people start looting the town, the military show up and start executing people . Paul Muni does a good job and Luise Rainer won a second oscar for this movie.

I agree with Andy, this is a good movie. Kevin McKidd's character is believable throughout the film. We're forced to hate him and latterly sympathise with him. Paula Sage who plays Roberta puts in a good performance too. It's thought-provoking and emotive without any slush over-production. Credit to director Alison Peebles and writer Andrea Gibb for that. A very worthwhile viewing. The pace of the film is just right, raising just enough interest in the subject matter to reel you in, rather than bombard you with facts in a documentary style. Nice little soundtrack to go with the film too, again used sparingly, not to distract you from storyline. Recommended.

I have seen virtually all of Cynthia Rothrock's films, and to me this is the funniest. It reminds me of early Jackie Chan movies. Admittedly, Ms Rothrock may not be the greatest actress, but she is very good to watch as both a martial artist and as a very cute young lady. This film, while probably not the best of all her films, was the most entertaining.

Anyone familiar with my reviews on the Internet Movie Database will know that I can be a grumpy bastard from time to time. There are a lot of films I don't like which, for some unfathomable reason, I've felt the urge to review. However, if anyone out there is curious to know the name of the worst film I've ever seen, look no further than Transylvania 6-5000. Without question, this takes the title of the all-time no. 1 awful film. I can't believe that I actually made it from the start of this clunker to the finish!<br /><br />It is clearly meant to capture the flavour of Mel Brooks's Young Frankenstein, but where that film was a funny take on horror movie traditions, this one is a desperately strained and misguided attempt to wring laughs from embarrassingly weak material. Jeff Goldblum and Ed Begley Jr look ashamed to be here as a pair of journalists in modern day Transylvania (perhaps they realised early on that they were doomed in this dud). During their research, they come up against all the chief monsters from past horror favourites, such as vampires, werewolves and mummies.<br /><br />Anyone who manages to brave this film right through to its end may pray that a stake be driven through their heart to relieve them from the agony of boredom. It marks a career nadir for everyone involved and proves that when comedy fails in a big way, it results in awesomely dire entertainment.

Before the regular comments, my main curiosity about THIS IS NOT A LOVE SONG is that while there's a running time listed on IMDb of 94 minutes, the DVD from Wellspring Media in the United States runs 88 minutes. Any input on this is appreciated!<br /><br />Two friends with very rough lives take on the road for an adventure. What they wind up in is just that, with one accidentally shooting a girl and the two escaping by foot into the countryside. Rather than just a big chase, the film is complicated by the the daft and rather childlike Spike behaving inappropriately, and clutching his boom box like a teddy bear. Some viewers may dislike the story based solely upon the character Spike, but without a bit of frustration added to the story, the film would have been too easy. You'll notice the way the more stable character Heaton refers to Spike as "big man" in contrast to Spike's "kid out of control" attitude and behavior. Frankly, I too was aggravated by Spike's ridiculous actions, especially the spray can sniffing, but in a desperate situation it's apparent someone of his mentality would choose an temporary escape. But, Heaton was there to keep things in check up until things get way over his head as well.<br /><br />Kenny Glenaan as Heaton is a marvel, and after a while I quit wondering why in the heck he would want to pick Spike up from prison and continue a friendship, due to Glenaan's great performance. After all, there are many many reasons during their run that would be a good idea for Heaton to just ditch Spike and try to save himself. I suppose Heaton felt like a protective older brother to Spike, and the loyalty between the two is hard to break -- until things get too desperate.<br /><br />While some of the cinematography is indeed artsy, it does offer more flavor to story instead of just shots of the men running through the wilderness. The beautiful landscapes, rain, and vast gray skies offer a somber tone that increases the feel of the tragic circumstances. The score is unusual as well, and the use of Public Image Ltd.'s song "This Is Not A Love Song" and as the title of the film is quite smart.<br /><br />Overall, it's understandable if you don't care for THIS IS NOT A LOVE SONG as it's focused on two contrasting personalities escaping from another man determined to hunt them down (played by a cool, quiet David Bradley). It's not big-budget action entertainment. For the rest of us that enjoy seeking out something minimal and dramatic, it's time worthwhile spent, and it DOES offer some extremely tense moments that have you holding your breath a bit.<br /><br />I'm really enjoying the films coming out of Scotland recently, with the likes of this one, Dog Soldiers, and The Devil's Tattoo. I'm also a bit thankful for the subtitles offered on this DVD, as the accents are sometimes lightning fast and difficult for some viewers like me to understand. <br /><br />Frustrating, dark, and often tense, THIS IS NOT A LOVE SONG is very tragic yet engrossing storytelling.<br /><br />

This is a complete Hoax...<br /><br />The movie clearly has been shot in north western Indian state of Rajasthan. Look at the chase scene - the vehicles are Indian; the writing all over is Hindi - language used in India. The drive through is on typical Jaipur streets. Also the palace is in Amer - about 10 miles from Jaipur, Rajasthan. The film-makers in their (about the film) in DVD Bonus seem to make it sound that they risked their lives shooting in Kabul and around. Almost all of their action scenes are shot in India. The scene where they see a group singing around fire is so fake that they did not even think about changing it to Afgani folk song. They just recorded the Rajasthani folk song. How do I know it because I have traveled that area extensively. They are just on the band-wagon to make big on the issue. I do challenge the film makers to deny it.