Datasets:

srivatsavaasista

/

textgenerator-ds-mini

like 0

Oh, my gosh...I thought CBS primetime television shows were the<br /><br />worst things Gerald McRaney appeared in...<br /><br />Four people are experimented on by a crazed mind control<br /><br />computer. That's it, don't rent it.<br /><br />I saw this under one of its many titles- "Grey Matter," and it is<br /><br />perhaps one of the worst films of recent memory. The other<br /><br />reviews are right, it is awful. Never have so many establishing<br /><br />shots appeared onscreen, NEVER. The cast is awful, the direction<br /><br />is awful, and the script is awful. I cannot stress how awful this is. <br /><br />Avoid it like you would smallpox.<br /><br />This is rated (PG) for physical violence, some gun violence, mild<br /><br />gore, some profanity, and some adult situations

Totally forgettable. Specially because of the weak acting. This is the first movie I've seen with Dax Shepard. To my surprise, he's been around since the late 90's. I thought he was a newcomer, since his acting was so bland. I could say the same about Liv Tyler. Although I've seen her do well in other movies, she gave Clare Cooper a strange personality. Liv is not the kind of actress that will give the character a fiery, emotional personality like Diane Keaton would be able to, but it was pretty strange to see her say her lines in whisper mode. It seemed that altogether there simply wasn't a very good chemistry going on between the actors, and I think Diane Keaton sensed that as well. She's a fantastic actress, but seemed just a bit over the top in this movie. It felt like she just wanted to get this movie over as soon as possible. I wouldn't blame her.

This movie was so ridiculous i never even finished watching it i actually thought someone had made their own version and dubbed it onto the DVD from the movie store. This movie made me sick not because it was gory, but because i wasted 2 50 on it!!!! It looks like my brother and i went into a house and made the movie ourselves and edited slaughterhouse footage into it! I am so ticked off, even The BTK Killer deserves more credit than that it was not even accurate i mean come on the cow head was obviously made out of play dough or BUBBLE GUM OMG I cant even get all the words out to explain it DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!!!!!!

No real plot to this one, just a series of short skits acting out some VERY old jokes. I chuckled once or twice in the beginning, much to my chagrin. But even at only 73 minutes this film wears out it's welcome before too long and becomes stale and tedious (with some nudity sprinkled in here and there to keep you awake). Still as bad as this movie is (and that's pretty putrid), it's a comedic gem compared to pretty much ANYthing by Aaron Seltzer & Jason Friedberg (Date movie, Epic movie, Meet the Spartans) Also the song is sadly kind of catchy in a sad way.<br /><br />Eye Candy: 11 pair of tits, 3 bushes, 3 asses <br /><br />My Grade: D <br /><br />Code Red DVD Extras: Original trailer for this film; and trailers for "Beyond the Door", "Dead Pit", "the Farmer", "obsessed Ones", "Power Play", "Sole Survivor", & "Wacky Taxi"

As I was watching this film on video last night, I kept getting these tingles that told me this one will endure. I've a feeling I'll be watching this again and again for years to come.<br /><br />It's got all the timeless qualities you could ask for in a story/film. And even though some cultural references are obscure for me, a Western viewer, at the core this is a universal tale.

well well One cant b wasting time just cause of a big star-cast ..i think all i could see is a bunch of talents wasting their time on a big screen with some pathetic humor which will appeal to i do not know who? some pathetic songs that will be heard by who? some pathetically abrupt turnings justified by who? race against time? u mean waste against time? OK so first you spoil your kid,then you teach him a lesson wow we are so ignorant of this fact whoever said its a brilliant new concept probably is some other species other than human alright fine let me come comment like humans do movie has a nice message to be given but it could well have been given by a stranger sitting besides you in the bus rather than you going for such a wasteful movie to learn it Hindi movies have proved it a lot already and also i cant waste my time writing about waste anyway!

Brown of Harvard is a hard movie to pin down. We expect a lot more from our movies these days, so it helps to remember that audiences in the 20's were a bit more innocent. William Haines is charming as the rogue who has to stumble through pain and humiliation to find success and, even, glory. All of the relationships in the movie feel very stilted EXCEPT for the homoerotic tie between Billy and Jack Pickford, the town nerd. The movie has everything, romance, tears, love, death, and even sports... It's a great education in how society has changed in the 20th century.

I was a junior in high school when "Flesh" hit the big screens, but had the good fortune to see it at midnight movie houses in NYC just two years later.<br /><br />Flesh is the first part of a so-called "trilogy" of films, featuring Joe Dallesandro, as an object of desire. It bears the "Warhol" name, but is more the work of Paul Morissey. Essentially the story concerns itself with the exploits surrounding one day in the life of a street-wise male hustler (played by Joe Dallesandro). Joe is young, beautiful, and a bit naive... but he manages to bring home the bacon to his wife, for reasons which should not be explained to appreciate the film fully.<br /><br />Of special note to film buffs is that this film (along with the remaining two of the trilogy), had no script, per se. Warhol's superstars were given simply a premise... and the words and actions which the viewer sees are quite natural (even at times ridiculous or non-sensical). But all in all it works... "Rolling Stone" noted in its review that the film was better than "Midnight Cowboy", a film of the same year, more polished by Hollywood (An Academy Award winner for Best Film) , with big name talent (I equally admire the film)... but FLESH, being improvised, was somehow more gut wrenching and realistic, without the need for complex sub-plots and any "cause de celebre" .. or for that matter any cause at all!<br /><br />The film grossed more than $3 million dollars and was an absolute sensation, particularly in the German market (which, ironically, thought they were given a "censored version" of the film because of the post-editing....see note below).<br /><br />Curiously, the film is very much "cut and paste" with "pops". "clicks", "flashes", and dialogue literally cut off mid-sentence. It is almost as if Warhol/Morissey are stating a simple truth that it is a "day in the life" of a superstar, snippets for your voyeuristic tendencies. Far better than earlier Warhol works of 8 hours of sleeping, and the statue of liberty as a 20+ hour movie.<br /><br />FLESH, in my opinion, is the first of the Warhol films that actually is digestible (given a wide pallette) and Warhol's/the Factory's first legitimate response to the Hollywood phenomenon of "stardom".<br /><br />As the first of a "trilogy", it portrays a young, desirable male icon, naive, sought after, responding to invitations to please his family. Subsequent films would show the "same character" with a differing set of values. (See "Trash" and "Heat")

I grew up on this movie and I can remember when my brother and I used to play in the backyard and pretend we were in Care-a-lot. Now, after so many years have passed, I get to watch the movie with my daughter and watch her enjoy it. If you are parent and you have not watched this movie with your children, then you should, just so you hold them in your arms and watch them get thrilled over the care bears and care-a-lot! The songs, especially "Forever Young" are very sweet and memorable. Parents, I highly recommend this movie for all kids so they can learn how enjoyable caring for others can be! When it comes down to all the trash that is on TV, you can raise your children to have the right frame of mind about life with movies like these.

This film is about a couple that decides to take a vacation to The Everglades along with another couple and the family dog. When they first get there, they are not welcomed by the neighboring gas attendant that warms them to stay away from the cabin in which they are to spend the night at for the week. After pestering with the old man, three hillbillys also do not take kindly to their arrival as they approach their car and threaten them to leave. After asking some of the local dummies that can't speak or just don't want to answer, they finaly find the cabin. After they settle in, strange things happen to the visitors including discovering crap on their car, the man thats the head of this trip thats an idiot shoots the family dog thinking it was a killer clawing at the door and a series of deaths later on in the end. Adding a church group did not make the story any better. Then at the end, the idiot that survives the whole ordeal goes around the town carrying a shot gun. Lame. thats what this movie is.

When I began watching I thought I was watching some pro-Koresh amateur documentary. However, I had never seen 3/4 of the footage they used. They interviewed people saying that the FBI/ATF instigated all these things, which sounded so far fetched, but then followed in up with FBI video and testimony. I was amazed. The documentary followed up with the senate investigation after the fire, and after seeing the interview and video footage you will be shocked at how the Senate and Attorney General turn their backs on Davidians basically to cover up the aggression by the FBI/ATF. If you start watching this you must finish it. Otherwise you will think it is propaganda of something like that.

Let me start by saying that there's really no reason to watch this movie. I only sat through it because I was trying to kill some time before going to work.<br /><br />Basically, it's your typical sophomoric "comedy" aimed at the teenage set. There's nothing remarkable about it other than the complete ridiculousness of the story, not to mention that there are plot holes big enough to sail a Carnival cruise-liner through. Obviously this isn't supposed to be a realistic movie, it's supposed to be funny. Sadly, it mostly fails on that count as well. I must admit that I laughed a few times, but mainly in a "holy sh*t, I can't believe how stupid this is" kind of way.<br /><br />If you never see this movie you're not missing a thing.

Not so many people like the movies of Bertrand blier simply because they don't understand them. Simply because they are different kinds of people.<br /><br />If you have not been living under a deep desperation intertwined with great personal hope it may be hard for you to enjoy the humor blier shown here.<br /><br />And also the film of blier cannot be classified easily as black-comedy or cult etc. like those of pulp fiction etc. Because there is this delicacy which the audience of north-america frequently fail to appreciate.<br /><br />When I looked at these two `hooligans' dining with Jeanne moreau in the seaside restaurant, I felt they were more gentil than any gentleman can have been.<br /><br />The urge to make love wildly like these is the normal reaction we feel under the unbearable pressure of meaningless being-symbolized by the camion suddenly emerges at the Carrefour.<br /><br />SO, les valseuses is much better a name than going places. To dance a valse you need to be elegant, but going places you don't.

I was truly looking forward to this title. It sounded and looked fun. The idea of someone making a cheesy 50s monster movie could have been worth a few laughs, but instead this title only bores. First off, there is almost no Froggg in the entire movie which is the biggest disappointment. I have to sit through 75+ minutes of lame drama and dialog to get a few glimpses of the Froggg humping a bare breasted chick. Why? On top of that the film lacks any sort of fun plot. I mean give me something thats a bit more interesting than just a bunch of talking heads. I wanted to see some hot chicks search for the creature in the swamp, I wanted to see some cuties dragged off to his lair in desperate need of rescue (Creature from the Black Lagoon stuff), I wanted to see a few goofy action scenes of the Froggg going on a killing spree, or it maybe escaping a silly trap. Something exciting! Geez, have fun with it, be creative! Who wants to sit through endless and tiring dialog scenes in a creature flick? My advice to the filmmakers: Keep going, your concepts are good, but your execution needs to be a lot more inspired. Have some fun with the creature, put the humor in the action and most important...put more creature in a creature movie!!!

Pakeezah has a very interesting history (which is well documented in the 'Trivia' section) about how it came to be. It seems as if destiny conspired to test Kamal Amrohi (the director) while at the same time secretly desiring to see him complete his masterpiece.<br /><br />Pakeezah rides on metaphors, poetry and visual elocution. As a result the intensity with which emotions come out achieve a dimension which may not be very real but are very effective and leave an impact on the viewer.<br /><br />Meena Kumari lives the tragedy of Nargis and Sahib Jaan like her own. The other stars of the film, besides her, are Ghulam Mohammed (the music director), Lata Mangeshkar, Naushad (background score) and Joseph Wirsching (the d.o.p). Their music and cinematography leaves you spell bound.<br /><br />Pakeezah is a classic in world cinema. It reveals new layers to you every time you watch it again. Kamal Amrohi is one of the rare poets of cinema and he left us all a gift.

This short was nominated for an Academy Award and I wish it had won! Basically a filmed jam session between some very talented musicians, including Lester Young and Joe Jones, the music is incredible! Hollywood quite often embraced Jazz (particularly animation, believe it or not) but this is a rare look on film at an improvisational jam. This has been added to the Film Preservation list and deservedly so. TCM runs this as filler periodically and runs it every March sometime for its' "31 Days of Oscar" tribute. From downtown at the buzzer, swish, nothing but net and the shot's so smooth, the net barely moved. Most solidly and highly recommended!!!

Pretty pictures with a cool sound track do not constitute a 'movie'. Like all pop promos, MDH's pretentions are are outdone only by its' unjustifiable budget. One dollar spent on this aimless, purposeless dross was one dollar too many. Stick to penning pop songs Bono.

I watched an episode. Yes I sat through the entire miserable experience, and I have to say, this brand of comedy is one of the worst you will get. Imagine Peter Griffin, of Family Guy fame. Now imagine Peter Griffin as a(admittedly slim and minus the glasses) woman, except that he now lacks the something that made him hilarious. Peter Griffin is an idiot, but he doesn't know he's an idiot. Sarah has none of the genuine character, none of the acting ability to pull her character off. Maybe its the trite, formulaic jokes that pull her comedy even lower than her character can take it by herself. Maybe it's the lack of believable foils. Her insensitive, bigoted persona may appeal to insensitive, bigoted people unlike the mass appeal that Stephen Colbert's insensitive, bigoted character has. Like Bill O'Reilly, Sarah creates an annoying, unfunny character. She lacks something that is necessary for the genre of satire, let alone for the entire world of comedy. What Sarah Silverman lacks, its noticeable. And when you don't believe it and identify with it, it's not funny anymore.

I just saw this cartoon for the first time and recognized the caricatures of famous black entertainers... Cab Calloway, Bessie Smith, (not Josephine Baker or Sophie Tucker, who was white), Thomas "Fats" Waller, Bill "Bojangles" Robinson, Stepin Fetchit (notwithstanding) Louis Armstrong and the chorus girls are out of the famed "Cotton Club" in Harlem. True... stereotypes are there, but this was the way it was... and these cartoons were meant as adult entertainment at your local cinema before the main feature. <br /><br />Harmann & Ising cartoons tended to be more "cutesy" and more upscale, (after all... we are talking about M-G-M) than the standard animated short done over at Warners, Paramount, Universal, Fox, RKO or lowly Columbia. Even Disney's very early Mickey Mouse had loads of barnyard humor before Uncle Walt cleaned him up just before he went "Technicolor".<br /><br />Disney had some cartoons with caricatures of black entertainers as well... for example, 1937's Silly Symphony "Woodland Cafe". But we have to remember that these films are part of a certain time and place. 50 years from now... clips of the Simpsons, Family Guy, and South Park will be also scrutinized, analyzed... and even vilified by future viewers.

The title is onomatopoeic, the sound of a streetcar clacking on the rails. It is metaphoric for all that the people who live in the dump cannot have. The misery of those people is illustrated by the passing streetcar which represents the relatively unobtainable rich life of the middle class. The pathos of the little boy and his beloved yet sadly insane father is most touching. This was Kurosawa's first film in colour and he uses beautifully shocking hues, colours seen only in dreams. The movie is surreal and surpassing in beauty. The compassion for humanity is the underling force, but as always, Kurosawa is focused on capturing the beauty of the film. It is a masterwork by a genius of cinema.

I feel like I've been had, the con is on, don't fall for it. After reading glowing reviews (the Director was a film reviewer with Sky for years so must have a lot of mates in the press ready to do him a favour by writing favorable reviews) I expected solid acting, atmosphere, suspense, strong characterization, an intriguing plot development and poetic moments. Sadly, 'Sixteen years of Alcohol', doesn't deliver on the critics promises, for the most part, sacrifices these qualities in lieu of cheesy low budget special effects (what was that clichéd cobweb scene in there for?), unrealistic fight choreography and mindless mind numbing narration, cliché edits and camera angles.<br /><br />'Sixteen years of Alcohol' starts off interestingly with some beautiful location shots in Scotland, but it's straight downhill from here. Unfortunately, instead of spending some time building atmosphere, creating characters we might care about, or building suspense - the director opts to begin driving you crazy with self indulgent heavy handed twaddle voice-over's. The lead characters are so unsympathetic and are so badly acted - the audience doesn't care what happens to them, desperate Actors do desperate things...like this movie!. To make matters worse, the 'homage's' (typical of a director trying to pay his dues to past masters) are either utterly cliché or unconvincing. The soundtrack is the only thing that lifted me and kept me in the cinema but even that failed to support the dramatic narrative other connecting a period of time to the action.<br /><br />For some reason the movie got increasingly flawed and to be quite honest annoying. I still watched the whole damn thing!<br /><br />I guess I liked the attempt at gritty realism in the film but even that was destroyed when they were often inter-cut with weird and abstract, sometimes pointless scenes. You don't need a huge budget to make truly moving film, so much has been said about how little money they had to make this film, half a million is not a little bit of money...SO NO EXCUSES! Sometimes I wonder what the actors...Or their agents were thinking!<br /><br />Pass on this turkey unless you're masochistic or mindless anyway....NOT MY THING<br /><br />1.5/10

I was browsing through the movies on demand and saw Underdog for free and it was only 82 minutes long so I decided to watch it. I wasn't expecting much but it exceeded my expectations of being awful. Everything about the movie was cringe worthy. The dialogue was atrocious including many terrible puns. The jokes were also terrible. I found myself yelling and flipping off my television screen while I was suffering through this trash. It hit its target audience very well but I don't see how anyone else could enjoy this film. It made me very angry and nearly cry because of everything terrible this film had going for it.<br /><br />The only enjoyable thing about this movie was being able to give it a 1/10 after viewing it. I beg you to avoid it at all costs. I understand the fact that its made for kids but there is nothing likable about it at all.

I had not seen the movie trailer when I went to see the movie, instead I based my judgments on a friend's opinions. Now I like Chris Rock and his comedy, but this movie just falls flat on its face.<br /><br />During the movie Rock delivers a couple of funny jokes, but unfortunately the movie is sorely lacking in comedy. The movie seems want to integrate both laughter and love into one, and it that endeavor it fails. The love story in the movie is straight forward (luckily), but it detracts too much from the movie by making Rock serious and bland. After all, the movie is first and foremost destined to be a comedy, where laughter should be the primary concern. Not much of that in the movie.<br /><br />The plot is also pretty uninteresting as a whole. Some parts were discontinuous altogether. If the supporting cast were meant to be funny, they certainly didn't do a good job. The couple of angels from heaven tried to make a couple of jokes, which were dry and dull. Rock's first incarnation's couple of underlings were also bland. If there's one thing they did do right, though, they made Rock seem funnier by comparison.

A little while ago, I stumbled upon this DVD while browsing Netflix, and with such an impressive cast, decided to give it a go.<br /><br />Never before have I seen a movie try to be a new version of an existing great movie (Scarface) and failing so spectacularly.<br /><br />The main issue seems to be a complete misunderstanding of what the story should be. In Scarface, Tony Montana was the self-proclaimed "bad guy." His spectacular rise and eventual downfall wasn't sad, it was a great (and the only logical ending) to someone who lived such a life.<br /><br />Damian Chapa, as director, writer, and lead actor, sees Kilo as some sort of hero, or at least a complicated guy. However he doesn't want to do the grunt work of creating a realistic, sympathetic character. He was raised by a white mother, except for the six months of his childhood where his father, a gangster himself, showed him his life. For reasons never fully explained or even really mentioned, he decides he wants to be a drug dealer, and actually drives to the bad part of town, approaches two dealers and says, "Hey, I'd like to buy some drugs." He drops his father's name, and in apparently no time they are not only rich, the two guys who are supplying him are acting subserviently to him for reasons, again, never explained.<br /><br />Chapa wants you to feel bad when his character is sentenced to prison when a police informant lies about him. However, since he's dealt large quantities of drugs before, why should one feel sympathy for him going to jail for it this time? The most obvious case of Chapa wanting to be the good guy is in his prison execution of a White Supremacist/rapist played by Gary Busey. In Scarface, Tony Montana kills someone in prison because he pretty much has to in order to elevate himself, it's done, he moves on. But in this case they ham-handedly have to make Busey not only a rapist/pedophile but also a White supremacist. A little overkill, don't you think? I won't go into detail in this regard too much more, but their desperate message of "PLEASE LIKE ME! I'M A COMPLICATED GANGSTER!" fails on every level. Try as they might, I didn't feel bad, conflicted, or sympathetic when his buddies are killed (following a shootout), his wife is also killed (shortly after she called him out on being a lousy father, and during an attempted escape when he decided it'd be OK to ride right next to a car filled with gunmen while his wife is in the car), and his eventual demise.<br /><br />Suffice it to say his acting can be fairly summed up as lousy, his only achievement bringing the term "wooden" to starry new heights. Busey should be credited for actually putting effort into his ridiculous role. Tiny Lister did well. Stacy Keach is playing his warden from Prison Break role. Robert Wagner is coasting for a paycheck. Faye Dunaway, while a touch dramatic, still turns in a performance better than this movie deserved. Brad Dourif is in the film for about two minutes and does what he can. And to give the film credit, it does one-up Scarface in one way - Jennifer Tilly now holds the title of "Most Ridiculous Attempt at a Hispanic Accent." (Sorry Robert Loggia.) In short, this movie had an interesting premise, but a poor story arc, unsympathetic characters, and hit-or-miss performances. I'd advise Mr. Chapa to ease up on the forced sympathy next time - really, we don't need to like your character, we just need to be interested. Better luck next time.

James Aaron, a chubby actor living in Chicago, is a man that loves to eat things that are no good for him. That is made clear early on, as Dick, a friendly store clerk, advises him to stay away from junk food. Aaron, an actor working at Chicago's Second City, is a loving man with not much luck in the love department. He still lives with his mother, a spunky lady who encourages him to go out and enjoy himself. James has another job in a sort of gross "Candid Camera" where people are set up for unusual situations, such as surprising a mechanic and telling him he is the father of a daughter he never knew about.<br /><br />On the day he meets his friend Larry he gets to know about the casting call for the remake of "Marty", his favorite film. Being a large man, he clearly identifies with the character in the movie. In many ways, James' own life parallels that of the Paddy Chayefsky's creation in the picture. He wants to try for the part because he knows he can do justice to the role.<br /><br />One day he meets Beth at a soda fountain. James takes a liking to the woman, who one day invites him to go shopping with her for intimate apparel. He ends up having sex with her, thinking they have a nice thing going, but Beth has a another surprise coming when she tells him the reason they went to bed was because she had never done it with a fat man. After being disappointed, James stumbles into an attractive elementary school teacher who seems to share his love for jazz. At the end, we watch James fulfilling his long dream of starring in a theatrical production of "Marty" in a nursing home.<br /><br />Jeff Garlin, who is an affable character man, shows a talent for the type of comedy associated with his friend Larry David. Although both men differ in acting styles, his take on James Aaron is right on the money. As a director, he has done it before, although this is an original concept that he should pursue. <br /><br />One of the assets of the film are the people involved in the project. Sarah Silverman makes an impression for her take of Beth. Bonnie Hunt underplays her role of the school teacher to good results. Mina Kolb, is seen as his mother, a role she has played in "Curb Your Enthusiasm" with excellent results. Director Paul Mazursky is at hand also in a minor role. Joey Slotnick, Tim Kazurinsky, Richard Kind, David Pasquesi, Larry Neumann Jr, Gina Gershon, and the rest of the cast make valuable contributions.<br /><br />Jeff Garlin is a talented man whose next effort will be welcomed by his fans.

It's clear that for this film they wanted to have the story line driven by the characters. But immediately the story line causes you to dislike the new main characters. The fly-over of the island and dinosaurs below lacked any impact at all and almost looked like a cartoon. The all action entrance to the island is merely a rehash of parts from JP 1 and 2. The story-line is predictable to the point of annoyance and it's entirely unsatisfying end left me feeling cheated. This gave me with no option but to award the film 3/10!

Jeff Lowell has written & directed 'Over Her Dead Body' poorly. The idea is first of all, is as stale as my jokes and the execution is just a cherry on the cake.<br /><br />Minus Eva Longoria Parker there is hardly anything appealing in this film. Eva looks great as ever and delivers a likable performance.<br /><br />Paul Rudd looks jaded and least interested. Lake Bell is a complete miscast. She looks manly and delivers a strictly average performance. Jason Biggs is wasted, so is Lindsay Sloane.<br /><br />I expected entertainment more from this film. Sadly, I didn't get entertained.

First, this film is not a "thriller." Neither is it "gripping, taut." It might have been so based on the script, but the direction's slow pace makes it difficult to get into.<br /><br />The plot itself is very interesting and ingenious. Unfortunately, we only get a sense of *how* ingenious after the picture is over. That leaves us with over two hours of long sequences with music playing over them punctuated by some action scenes that don't grab the viewer, and "cunning vixen" scenes that inject a little more overt intelligence.<br /><br />I wish this had been the fast-paced thriller the box promised. It would've been an outstanding film. Instead, Spike Lee made it plod along through the end.

After watching this thing, then reading the summary on the back of the DVD, then thinking back to actual movie....I became a bit dizzy. I thought, maybe I fell asleep and dreamed I was a down syndrome baby waltzing through a never ending forest where people drive 11 miles an hour and stop for no purpose other then occasional tasteless lesbianism. Where (zombies?) come out of nowhere and (vampires?) who (seduce?) pure hearted citizens on their way to save the world. Neither zombie nor vampire notably encounter each other. The only fighting i remember was getting that walrus Bonny Giroux's panties off. Coo Coo ca FAT! All of them! Maybe that was because we were watching it widescreen stretched and were too lazy to change it to its native resolution, but that actually made it more entertaining... In conclusion my trailing thought thesis had more continuity, plot, character development, antagonism, subject matter, and acting then the entirety of this film. It made Bloodrayne look like Citizen F***ING KANE

I bellied up to the bar expecting this to be a hot beer on a sweltering Texas day but was pleasantly surprised. After suffering through "Saturday Night Foolishness" I had no desire to see a re-make in some south Texas barnyard....and I didn't. John Revolta was good as the jealous redneck, Scott Glenn was well cast as a thuggie ex-con, and Debra Winger was, as always, a delight. *Love that woman* Plus, the soundtrack was dynamite [and this comes from a guy that can't stand the sound of country music]. A fun film all the way.

Unusual film about a man who befriends his social opposite out of fear of blackmail. Peter Boyle makes this film with his foul mouthed boorish portrayal of a working class stiff "Joe" in love with the past and fearful of the future and worried about the present. The first half hour of the show features the film debut of a young Susan Sarrandon as Melissa Compton, a weak willed rich girl who slums with her loser boyfriend, replete with a full nude scene. Her boyfriend is the film's weak spot, a poorly portrayed drug addict and dealer who meets his demise following Sarrandon's overdose. We meet Boyle's Joe in a bar as he spouts off and rants about minorities, crime, hippies and drugs, and it is easy to see that the later Norman Lear television character of Archie Bunker is based on a cleaned up version of Joe. The comparison even carries over into Joe's wife and personal life and pastimes. Joe insinuates himself into the life of Bill Compton, Melissa's father, and the two make an unlikely pair as they search for Melissa who has run away from drug treatment and back to the drug addicts she calls friends. Their search leads them to an "oar-gee" as Joe calls it, a free love fest fueled by drugs a lot of nudity and surprisingly, uptight Bill Compton and Ultra Conservative Joe both join in. They get robbed and this leads to a violent and murderous ending that foreshadows the stark and chilling ending to Taxi Driver six years later. Joe is a funny film that on the surface at least, is anti violence and anti racist. Yet the film's main character, Joe, becomes the very instrument of the upheaval he fears when he enters and joins in the illegal and unbridled sexual excesses he rants against. So in that respect, the film falls short of being a powerful message and leaves you wondering what the final outcome really was all about.

I mean, really... either i suddenly lost my sense of humor or this is just a really bad movie. It's stupid, ridiculous and just not funny AT ALL.<br /><br />Since i saw the preview i knew it wasn't going to be a great movie, i just didn't think it was gonna be that bad...<br /><br />What happened to the good old times when you could find clever funny lines at any movie? When the actors didn't have to play ridiculous roles in attempt to be funny?. Now we find ourselves with movies like this one, Borat, Little Men, Scary Movie 4 where i could not find the funny parts!!<br /><br />Just skip this piece of garbage<br /><br />P.S. (sorry for my English)

This film reminds me of how college students used to protest against the Vietnam War. As if, upon hearing some kids were doing without cheeseburgers in Cow Dung Collehe, the President was going to immediately change all US foreign policy.<br /><br />The worst thing is that, while dangerous, the concept of a policy based on if the USSR and US went to war it could mean the end of the world, WORKED. The US and USSR NEVER WENT TO WAR.<br /><br />Had we only conventional weapons, the notion of yet another war, a "win-able" war, in Europe and Asia was not unthinkable.<br /><br />Not that I think they should get rid of this movie. It should be seen by film students as a splendid example of "How NOT to make a film."<br /><br />It should be 0 stars or maybe black holes...

I was expecting a documentary covering the 1950 to 1965 era of Sci-Fi and received a big ol' commercial laced with leftist political innuendo by James Cameron and movie mogul baby boomer's pushing the own works. 'Watch the Skies' has in the past referred to the 'Giant Bug' and 'Space Exploration' movies from the 1950's including such favorites as "Earth vs. the Flying Saucers, "Thing from Another World" and "Forbidden Planet" as well as "Them", "Deadly Mantis" and "Tarantula". There are lower budget examples that rarely get mentioned like "Space Monster", "12 to the Moon" and "Cosmic Man". <br /><br />This would have been a much better documentary had the few remaining actors, directors, stunt men and collectors plus the non-Hollywood 'boomer's from the era been interviewed. I only wish there was a "0" rating available since a "1" is much to generous.

Emanuele Crialese did a fantastic job with one of those films that linger in the back of your mind for years. It was Respiro (see comments and synopsis here in IMDb).<br /><br />Now, carrying the magnificent young talents he had for the first time on screen then, he takes the audience into a dark void. A literal plunge into dangerous waters. The subject is migration. In this case, from Italy to the New World (the name of the film). A big deal calling it for its American release "The Golden Door".<br /><br />The story of a family that leaves everything and risks the rest -that is, their lives, for a dream.<br /><br />I hate to spoil the show telling the story, so I'll dwell a bit in the work Crialese and all his team did so brilliantly.<br /><br />First of all, choosing to stick to what he knows: direct sound as much as possible. This means, the whole film. The textures, the pain, the nuances of reality are always mingled with the smells, the heat or the cold, the sweat and the blood, life and death, as vibrantly as it is in real life.<br /><br />The squeaks of bent metal and grinding wood, the infamous drone of the wind and the ominous sounds of big engines and ship horns are among the points that make this film so involving.<br /><br />Cinematography is in the hands of a French couturier. The symbolism of light is present from the very first shot (again, almost the very first shot from Respiro) and pervades throughout the film with intimacy and a terrible sense of desperation. The subdued tones and the very gray and grim depictions of people suffering the cramped and filthy boat they sail to hope is mesmerising.<br /><br />Light is used sparsely, almost to discover every character in the dark. The beauty of every shot, and every scene is accentuated by the period costumes and the perfectly selected physical features of the actors.<br /><br />Again, as he usually does, Vincenzo Amato is definitely on his own. He plays the father of two sons (the same actors who were fifteen and twelve and now are nineteen and sixteen) with all the power he always conveys to his very complex characters.<br /><br />Charlotte Gainsbourg is so-so. I guess she's never achieved again the perfection she reached in The Cement Garden and in her very first film: L'Effrontée.<br /><br />Maybe it's just that she seems a bit awkward in her role.<br /><br />The locations and sets are harsh and compelling, almost playing a character on their own.<br /><br />Maybe the most remarkable character is the one played by Filippo Pucillo, the mute younger son. The contrast here with his first role is complete. Then, he played a supercharged kid that was as relentless as anything around him. Now, his character is all expression. And just that: no words at all. His eyes tell the whole story with sublime power.<br /><br />Maybe this is one of those films that will not be very well received in the States. It's absolutely Italian in everything. It's so Italian that most of the time, the language is one of the many dialects that is much older than Italian itself. In the USA this film may be a bit too much for Americans because of the subject. But anyone who remembers the story of their families when they arrived in the States, will see this films with awe.<br /><br />And, again, the minimalism that goes hand in hand with Crialese's ideas is back with a closing scene in the water. Only this time it goes from underwater photography to aerial.<br /><br />All in all, another great and very well told story from this filmmaker that only this year (2006) has collected 6 prizes and was nominated for the Golden Lion. Not a small deed!

Did you ever see the film "Marathon Man"? The part with the dentist? I would rather have that happen to me than to sit through "Random Hearts" again. It wasn't simply uninteresting, or uneventful-- It was horribly, painfully, and agonizingly BORING. At one point, I momentarily lost conciousness. To the average layman, I may have appeared to be sleeping, but the other movie patrons knowingly realized I actually BLACKED OUT from the bordom. I thought I was going to die. When the film finally ended (I think it was twelve hours long, but I'm not sure), I let out an exhasperated "Thank You Jesus, It's Over!!", to which all other movie goers cheered. If I had to listen to Harrison Ford drone on one more second in that monotoned whine, I would have been forced to search for something sharp to jam in my eye to divert my attention. This is 136 minutes of my life I will never get back.

While this movie has many flaws, it is in fact a fun '80s movie. Eddie Murphy peaks during his 80's movies here. While his character is indistinguishable from earlier movies, his timing is almost flawless with perfect partners and foils.<br /><br />Couple this with the hypnotic beauty of Charlotte Lewis, this makes for a fun rainy day action-comedy flick.<br /><br />

MGM were unsure of how to market Garbo when she first arrived in Hollywood. Mayer had a lot of faith in her and her appearance in "Torrent" justified that. She did not speak a word of English so she must have found it difficult to work, also Ricardo Cortez did not make it very easy for her.<br /><br />The torrent of the title is the river Juscar that winds through a sleepy little village in Spain. Leonora (Greta Garbo) hopes someday that her voice will bring great wealth and happiness to her struggling parents. Leonora and Don Rafael (Ricardo Cortez) are in love but he is under his mother's thumb and cannot get her to consent to his marriage. Meanwhile Dona Brull (Martha Mattox) has evicted Leonora's parents from their home and they send Leonora to Paris hoping to give her a chance to further her singing career. Leonora sends a note to Rafael, urging him to remember his promise and come with her. His mother is enraged and forbids him to go - so of course he caves in to her request.<br /><br />Years pass. Leonora has a new identity - she has become La Brunna, the toast of the Paris Opera. Rafael has turned out just as his mother wished - he is running for office and is courting a "safe" young girl, Remedios (Gertrude Olmstead) who is a "hog" heiress. Mack Swain plays her father. Leonora decides to visit her old home, and I agree - why hasn't she helped her mother out. Her mother is still living at the family home, working as a skivvy and taking in washing. Leonora and Rafael meet but Leonora is full of ridicule. Garbo is so enchantingly beautiful, it is hard to believe that he could be happy with Remedios.<br /><br />The dam is bursting and the torrent is flooding the town. Leonora's house is in the path of the raging river but when Rafael attempts to rescue her he finds she is quite safe. They then re-kindle their romance. There is a "horizontal" love scene in this film, very similar to the one in "Flesh and the Devil".<br /><br />Dona Brull goes spreading gossip about how Leonora really got her wealth and Leonora's mother believes her and tells Leonora to go. Rafael meets Leonora just before she is about to tour America. Again he intends to go with her but again he lets her down. He spends so much time listening to other people destroy her reputation - "what will she do for you but drag you down". The irony is she has just secured a top government job for him if he comes with her. They meet again, years later - she is as fresh and vibrant as ever - he looks older than his years, bowed down by mediocrity.<br /><br />It is certainly a good film with a positive message to follow your heart.<br /><br />Lucien Littlefield does a good job as Cupido, the barber and Leonora's old and faithful friend.<br /><br />Highly Recommended.

This movie sucked. The problem was not with the cast. I think the cast was great, lots of good talent, lots of great acting. But the script was TERRIBLE! It seemed to be mostly just a frame work in which Steve Carrell could do his improv. And that is what he does best, but it just didn't work here. The script was hard to follow, the story was non-sensical, and scenes were random and lacked direction. Also, much of the action was extremely contrived and poorly thought out. It was a good effort, but as Max says, they missed it by THAT MUCH! I am shocked to see how many glowing reviews there are for this stinker here on the IMDb. Obviously, the movie producers are getting people to write lots of positive reviews on their movies and fill up the entries on the IMDb. If you read the positive reviews and compare them to the negative reviews, it is pretty clear which ones are genuine reviews from normal users.<br /><br />This movie was full of problems and jokes that just didn't work. I loved Steve Carrell in Anchor Man, and I like his comedy and style. But I will tell you that I never once laughed while I was watching this movie. Yes, I had a couple of light moments, a couple of chuckles, but no real laughs. Nothing that struck me at all.<br /><br />Spoiler Alert! One ridiculous scene was when Max had his hands binded on the airplane and he goes to the bathroom to try to escape. He uses his special Swiss Army knife...but instead of just using THE BLADE OF THE KNIFE, he tries to SHOOT the binding with his miniature crossbow. And as the crossbow miss-fires and shoots little arrows into him over and over again (almost putting out his EYE), Max doesn't give up or try the blade instead...no, he just keeps shooting himself with the crossbow. What was he really expecting to do with that crossbow? It seemed to be THE WORST option on the knife to try to remove the bindings. It just made absolutely no sense.<br /><br />That is a good example of the typical circumstances in the scenes that made up this movie. They were ridiculous, poorly thought out, poorly motivated, and made of pure nonsense. And that was truly distracting.<br /><br />As I said, this movie was a big let-down, and I recommend you avoid it. A note to the IMDb: You should do something about these phony reviews that people are leaving. It degrades the authenticity of the site.

...but of course I was wrong.<br /><br />Now, I never expected to like the first movie. I'm not sure what's up with Disney's marketing group, but it seems that every trailer they make for an animated film ends up turning me off as too childish, or silly, or stupid, and yet the movies themselves are usually anything but. And no movie looked worse to me in the trailers than The Emperor's New Groove, which is why I was quite surprised to actually find myself quite enjoying that film when I finally broke down and saw it. I entered with zero expectations and came out pleasantly entertained.<br /><br />Despite Disney's track record with direct-to-video sequels, I had nonetheless hoped for a better experience with Kronk here... but in the end I was nothing but disappointed (and unfortunately not exactly surprised that I felt that way). There's almost no humor targeted towards adults. The original songs are uninspired and sickly cute. The animation, while not bad, still doesn't come close to Emperor (which was no Lion King to start with).<br /><br />The main plot, as such, is astoundingly "minor" and is comprised mainly of a sequence of mini-plot flashbacks - in fact the while thing felt more like a sequence of pilot episodes for a Saturday morning cartoon series than a well conceived single entity.<br /><br />David Spade gets about four lines throughout the entire movie and there isn't exactly a lot of John Goodman either, so overall we're just left with far too much of Patrick Warburton's Kronk - who was entertaining as a secondary character in the first movie but is completely inappropriate as the main lead here.<br /><br />Although kids might find it somewhat fun, the only thing Kronk's New Groove managed to do for me is make me want to go back and watch the far superior original.

You know you're in trouble when John Cassavetes is operating at half-speed instead of full-throttle in a movie, and "The Incubus" is a dreadful, worst-case scenario of a great actor going through the motions to pay the bills. Actually, observing the hammy script and John Hough's 'baroque' art direction, one can hardly blame him. The movie has something to do with a series of rape-murders going on in a small town, with a lot of supernatural hokum mixed in. Somehow, the direction manages to suck tension and interest out of every scene, and Cassavetes seems visibly P.O.'ed at times. The Incubus itself, which doesn't show up until the last scene, is a well-done creation, but it's not worth waiting for.<br /><br />1/10

I'll keep this short; thanks to Greg for helping me to put this succinctly: Captivity is about a guy who drugs a girl's drink, imprisons and tortures her, then poses as a captive to have sex with her. That is the single twist and punchline of the film. It's torture as slow motion date rape. And, it's not even a good movie. It's not so bad it's good; it's just bad.<br /><br />It should also be mentioned that among critics, there is a "spoiler code" that they dare not break, even though some were tempted to on this one because it is so vile. Why NO ONE had the cojones to step up and say, "this is garbage, and this is why," is beyond me.<br /><br />Don't give your money to these poop-peddlers.

I bought the DVD of Before Sunset and saw it for the first time a week ago. Having saw it twice, I couldn't help but missing Before Sunrise, not because the sequel was not as great, but I felt that these two movies completed each other like no other sequels ever did, every time I finished watching one of them, I feel the need and yearning to see the other. So, I ended up spending the weeks watching both of them repeatedly, I will be quite embarrassed to mention how many times exactly. The most remarkable thing about Before Sunrise is how you feel the development of the feelings of their characters towards each other. It sounds so simple, the growing of the chemistry, I think other romantic films might think that they succeed to track the development, but to me - who doesn't believe in Nora Ephron - Before Sunrise is the first film to really gives the viewers chance to feel it. When I saw it for the first time, about 8 year ago when I was 20, I already liked it. But, I didn't rate it as a "great film", it still seemed to me like another thinking persons' feel good movie, Linklater was too smart to make it more realistic, it was 10 minutes too long, the characters was too well fabricated, I thought I liked it because it was like a dream and because I enjoyed their conversations, etc. etc.. But now, thanks to Before Sunset, I feel that's more to Before Sunrise than what I felt for it before. I saw the elements more clearly: Jesse, Celine, Vienna, their conversations, everything. How each of them are separated element by itself, and they have a chance to mix, the story is just a frame of time, I am no longer feel manipulated. And the freedom that every scene has, as well as its refusal to be overly efficient, how blind I was that those qualities didn't strike me as exceptional when I first saw it! Now, 8 year have passed, the more movies I've seen, the more I realize that many movies are just collections of ordered scenes that only exist for the sake of its ending, even movies like Pulp Fiction or Linklaters's own Slackers included. The Jesse and Celine tale avoid that, maybe Before Sunset is a better example in this case, but Before Sunrise is also one of few films that its ending is just a consequence of time, not a destination, every single scene has its own life. I don't know whether Linklater or anyone else had a sequel in mind when they made Before Sunrise, but to me, one of the most amazing things about these sequels are how these two films visually contrast each other. Before Sunrise which I think employs more static angels and brighter color schemes, seems to try to capture the smallest atoms of liveliness surrounding Jesse and Celine, the world is always full of hope whether or not the characters feel it. Meanwhile, I enter the vision of boredom as Jesse stuck talking to the journalists in Before Sunset, and Celine's first smile from behind the shelves are the most heartbreaking smile I've seen in a beginning of a film, and the many moving shots after that takes me to a place I don't know with a sadness in me, no matter how beautiful Paris is, and no matter how happy I am that they meet again. I'm sorry that I go on this long with my limited English, Before Sunrise is already an extraordinary film without me pouring my scattered thoughts, and it gets even better with an equally great sequel following it.

This series, while idealized and fictionalized, has the quirkiness, sultriness, and good-heartedness that does come from living on an island.<br /><br />I lived in an out of the way part of Hawaii for a few years and found some hilarious, quirky, and fun people in some remote (non-tourist) areas.<br /><br />Every time I see the reruns of this series, I fondly compare my memories of experiences in out-of-the-way parts of Hawaii with the memories portrayed and fictionalized in Key West.<br /><br />This series is not reality television. I hate reality television.<br /><br />It is from the era when people still wrote creative TV shows. Give me a "young writer" who takes their inspiration from the "angels in the spray, wizards in the palm trees and elves in the seashells" any day.

It is amazing what you can see if you wake at 2 am and turn on the telly. I didn't know they showed films like this. I immediately thought of Roger Corman, who reused locations for movies or used other films locations for his own movies.<br /><br />The makes of this film could just move the camera angles and add some time and they would have an XXX film.<br /><br />There was no story, just minimum dialog that led to stripping and sex. I bet there wasn't 100 words in the whole film, but there sure was a lot of very large busts and hot lesbian action. There was male/female action too, but it was only about 25% of the movie.<br /><br />Another interesting thing came to mind in watching this film that may interest those who are buying hi def DVDs. Sony refused to license Betamax to adult film makers and adult films came out on VHS. You can guess what happened to beta max as the adult film industry makes millions of videos. Sony has again refused to license Blu-ray to the adult film industry and they have just signed a deal with Toshiba. You can guess which high def system will disappear.

One of the commenter's is wrong. This is not the only Pat Patterson film and he didn't die two years after this was made. He shot a film called the "Electric Chair" in Pineville, NC. He shot this a few years after Doctor Gore. Patterson died in the late 70's. I know this because he used my house and he left a cat there!! It sucked also. This was a big deal when the movie came out. No independent horror films were being made in NC. This movie didn't help matters. Patterson used to do gore effects for H. G. Lewis. He was also good at magic. His gore scenes in Body shop were actually well done. The film was shot in a building that also housed a 7/11. You can actually see the tops of the walls in some scenes. The budget was less that $20,000 and the script looked like a child wrote it. Only Patterson could understand it. Still...it's entertainment and it's a classic.

The '80's were the best of times and worst of times for James Karin, he starred in one of the best cult horror-comedies with "Return of the Living Dead" and a year later he acts in this piece of.... this bad movie. A sequel to Hardbodies (but not really), has a group of fairly unlikeable characters attempting to make a movie in Greece. Through design or sheer laziness the line between the film and the 'film within a film' is not only blurred, but throughly non-existent from scene to scene (which would be confusing if I were just interested in anything happening in the movie in the first place. Unfunny would be too generous a term.<br /><br />Eye Candy: Nana, Fabiana Udenio, and many numerous extras get topless; Brenda Bakke shows some T&A<br /><br />My Grade: F<br /><br />DVD Extras: Just trailers for "Hardbodies", "American High School", "Strike", "Virgin Territory" (comes in a double-feature DVD with the first film, for the masochistic)

Recap: Full moon. A creature, a huge werewolf, is on the hunt. Not for flesh, not for blood (not that it seem to mind to take a bite on the way though), but for a mate. He is on the hunt for a girl. Not any girl though. The Girl. The girl that is pure (and also a werewolf, although she doesn't know it yet). Three, well check that, two cops (after the first scene) and an old bag lady is all that can stop it, or even knows that the thing killing and eating a lot of folks around full moon is a werewolf. This particular powerful werewolf, Darkwolf, is closing in on the girl. If he gets her, mankind is doomed. Now the cops has to find the girl, convince her not only that there is someone, a werewolf nonetheless, that wants to rape her, and perhaps kill her, but that she is a werewolf herself. And then they got to stop him...<br /><br />Comments: This is one for the boys, the teenage boys. A lot of scenes with semi-nude girls more or less important for the plot. Mostly less. Well I guess you need something to fill some time because the plot is (expectedly) thin. And unfortunately there is little besides the girls to help the plot from breaking. One usually turns to two main themes. Nudity. Check. And then special effects. Hmm... Well there are some things that you might call effects. They're not very special though. In fact, to be blunt, they are very bad. The movie seems to be suffering of a lack of funds. They couldn't afford clothes for some of the girls ;), and the effects are cheap. Some of the transformations between werewolf and human form, obviously done by computer, are really bad. You might overlook such things. But the Darkwolf in itself is very crude too, and you never get to see any killings. Just some mutilated corpses afterwards. And there is surprisingly little blood about, in a movie that honestly should be drenched in blood.<br /><br />I'm not sure what to say about actors and characters. Most of the times they do well, but unfortunately there are lapses were the characters (or actors) just looses it. A few of these lapses could be connected with the problems mentioned above. Like the poor effects, or the poor budget(?). That could explain why there is precious little shooting, even if the characters are armed like a small army and the target is in plain sight (and not moving). But hey, when you're in real danger, there nothing that will save your life like a good one-liner...<br /><br />Unfortunately that can't explain moments when the Cop, Steve, the only one who knows how to maybe deal with the problem, the werewolf that is, runs away, when the only things he can be sure of, is that the werewolf is coming for the girl, who is just beside him now, and that he cannot let it have her. But sure, it let the makers stretch the ending a little more...<br /><br />But I wouldn't mind seeing none of the lead actors/actresses get another try in another movie.<br /><br />Well. To give a small conclusion: Not a movie that I recommend.<br /><br />3/10

The movie appeals to public due to charisma of Ben Stiller and notoriety of J. Aniston. It seems that we have here a recipe for a successful title, but there's nothing successful in this movie.<br /><br />Polly is very well played by Aniston, no doubt. This is the kind of character which suits her perfectly. <br /><br />Bem Stiller is the same troublesome guy like in " Meet the parents", but in this movie the comic scenes are few compared to the title mentioned above.<br /><br />The script is very poor with nothing special at all. With this two well payed actors the things could get a lot better - but what can they do when there is such a poor story and script.<br /><br />4 out of 10.

As I sat in the theater almost crying to myself in dismay over the atrocity Ron Howard and Tom Hanks call the Da Vinci Code, I could not see the light at the end of the tunnel that is Angels and Demons.<br /><br />Hanks and Company are back for the Sequel-Prequel Angels and Demons, and they have learned their lesson.<br /><br />Acting wise everyone is much better. Aylet Zurer is very good as Vittoria Vetra, and better than the girl who played Sophie Neveau. Tom Hanks is very good as always, he is better in this though, because he works harder at giving the movie the feeling that it is a thriller. I think Ewan McGregor does the best job of any of the actors. He might even deserve a nomination come March, but doubtful. He had me convinced right until the very end. He's Dynamic and faithful, but rational, and realizes that the Church needs to put their past behind them. The minor actors also do very good jobs.<br /><br />Technically and Visually the movie is much improved. The Cinematography is much...much better, and the Visual Effects are superb. The final explosion sequence at the end is excellent. Howard does a masterful job, taking you through a tour of Rome.<br /><br />Pacing wise, Ron Howard does an amazing job this time around at keeping the story moving, and not boring us with a history lesson deemed at denouncing Christianity. The movie also makes you feel like more is at stake. In our feeble minds discovering whether or not Jesus had children, is not as high up on the list compared to a cataclysmic explosion killing thousands including the Roman Catholic Church. Part of the reason I think the story is so fast paced is due to the excellent score. I cannot say enough about the score. It was epic at times, like something from Lord of the Rings, but then sometimes it felt like a Bourne Movie, which is a nice mix.<br /><br />My only complaint about this movie is that it is ridiculously far fetched. The chances of the Carmelengo being someone of Ewan McGregors age are highly improbable, and the chances of a Cardinal with an adopted son getting elected Pope are even more ridiculous. Not to mention the whole Antimatter thing, which has yet to be created, and Dan Brown wrote the book in 2003...<br /><br />Overall Angels and Demons is much tighter knitt, faster paced, more exciting, and more important movie than the Da Vinci Code. This is must see thriller for anyone who loves history and mystery combined into one.

Why does this have such a low rating? I really don't get it... Is it because of the bad acting? The bad dialogue? Well, who cares about these things in cheesy low-budget horror movies? Seriously, the acting and the dialogue isn't important in those movies. People who hate movies only because of bad acting and bad dialogue shouldn't be allowed to rate cheesy low-budget movies. Those movies shouldn't be taken seriously. Period.<br /><br />Anyway, time to talk about the movie, right? Well, I loved it! I bought it because I expected a gorefest, but it's not a gorefest and the gore is pretty bad (most of the time it's just animal guts placed on the body of the actors and that's lame), but I didn't really care because the movie is hilarious! The characters are hilarious, the acting is hilarious (bad acting is a GOOD thing in cheesy low-budget horror movies), the dialogue is hilarious (bad dialogue is a GOOD thing in cheesy low-budget horror movies), the zombie rapist with a huge dick is hilarious, the flying demon baby is hilarious and I could go on and on and on, but I don't want to say too much... BUT I have to mention that there's a scene in which a girl masturbates a sex doll like it's alive lol! Oh and the zombie rapist falls in love with the sex doll lol!<br /><br />Best lines in the movie:<br /><br />Detective Manners: *sniffs coke* Detective Sloane: What the *beep* are you doing, Manners? What the hell did you snort? What the hell is that? Detective Manners: It's nothing man, it's... Ehh... Cold medicine...<br /><br />Detective Manners: *injects heroin in his arm* Detective Sloane: What the *beep* are you doing, Manners? Are you *beep* insane? Detective Manners: It's cold medicine.<br /><br />Detective Manners: *repeatedly kicks a random guy in the face* Detective Sloane: What the hell's going on, Manners? What are you doing? Detective Manners: This maniac was rambling about demons and then he started smashing his head on the rock! He just started smashing his head on the rock! I think he's on PCP or something!<br /><br />LOL!

This movie caught me by surprise. For years I have avoided many of Harold Lloyd's sound pictures (as well as those of Keaton) because they have a generally well-deserved reputation for being lousy compared to the silent films because the basic formula has been lost. However, when I saw this film I was pleasantly surprised to find I actually liked it,...once I accepted it really was not a "Harold Lloyd" film (despite him starring in it). This is because although it is nothing like the style of his earlier films, it IS highly original and Lloyd isn't bad playing a totally different type of character.<br /><br />As I mentioned above, the formula of the old films is almost completely missing here. Lloyd does not do the old familiar stunt work, the romance is quite unlike his early screen romances, and the plot is just plain weird! Instead of the usual roles, he is the son of a Chinese missionary who returns to America for the first time since he was a small boy. Because of this, though he looks like an American (except for his white suit and explorer's helmet), he thinks and acts a lot like someone who is Chinese. In many ways, he's very naive about America and is like an innocent among wolves. Early on, he meets a man who turns out to be a local party boss. This boss ALWAYS produces a losing candidate for the mayoral race--because he is bought and paid for by the corrupt mayor to produce a "token" candidate who has NO CHANCE of winning. Well, the old geezer who they traditionally run for office just died and he decides to run the naive Lloyd--he hasn't a prayer of winning! Well, the unthinkable happens and Lloyd wins!!! This, and Lloyd's decision to clean up the town greatly upsets the old political machine and they stop at nothing to destroy honest Lloyd. Just when it appears Lloyd is headed to jail on a trumped up corruption charge, he creates a scheme that is 100% impossible and very illegal to get signed confessions from the crooks. However, despite this, it is incredibly funny and a great ending. So, my advice is at the end, just suspend disbelief and enjoy.<br /><br />An important note: This movie is definitely NOT politically correct. The word "Chink" is used repeatedly. I found it offensive but considering the times, I ignored it as you should too. If, however, you are someone who CAN'T and like being angry, I suggest you never watch movies anyway--as you are bound to become offended again and again.

What can you say about a grainy, poorly filmed 16mm stag film, where the best and most attractive performer is a German Shepherd? Nothing that would be positive. Avoid this travesty at all costs. In any case, it would be difficult to find, since bestiality remains a taboo and illegal subject in the USA. I strongly suggest IMDb to re-visit their weighting formula for establishing ratings, since an 8.8 rating for this piece of fecal matter is absurd! I am, by no means, a prude and have spent many hours enjoying the classic porn movies of the 70's & 80's; but this is inferior product even by the looser standards of the (then illegal) stag loop.

I was also disappointed with this movie. For starters, the things that happen to him don't seem too terrible to me (Sorry male chauvinist PoV). As is pointedly said by one of the lady captors: "Most men would _pay_ to be in your position". To which he replies "But this is not _my_ choice". OK, OK, fair point, so how bad was it really? Please let us know. But now the kicker: He does not let _anyone_ know, until after the movie-end (unseen). Not his girlfriend, not is mentor, not the police, not anyone. In stead, he comes up with the brilliant plan of f*ck*ng every girl he knows, so he may recognize the tattoo (or something) of one of his captors. I thought he'd just had enough unpleasant sex during the 12 days of his captivity? Isn't it time to take a little break from all that? For me, his, to put it mildly, ill advised actions broke the "suspension of disbelief" of the movie. I took out a book while watching the last half hour out of the corner of my eye.

i've just read the most recent remarks about this movie and i would like to respond. you're probably not familiar with the original story of rap group N.W.A. which dates back to the beginning in 1988, in 1989 ice cube left the band to go solo and ultimately in 1991, the band breaking up when Dr.dre left. which led to a lot of beef starting with the departure of ice cube and dr.dre in 1991. this story was somewhat based on that.<br /><br />further more this movie was a 90 minute laughing spree, the way they explained the bootie juice song to be a political statement was hilarious. not to mention the "love song" tasty was hooking up. and when vanilla sherbert got his ass kicked, just like the record company executive is also hilarious and having they're managers getting shot every time too.<br /><br />people who didn't enjoy this movie probably didn't get it or were complete idiots, my opinion

This small John Ford western with no 'stars' but a cast of character actors is one of his masterpieces. It has a documentary-like feel to it as it traces the journey West of a party of Mormons and it may be the most authentic looking of all Ford's films, (it's on par with "The Sun Shines Bright" which he made a couple of years later).<br /><br />There is a plot of sorts, (a group of bank robbers join the wagon train at one point), but the film's dramatic highlights are almost incidental. The splendid performances of Ford's stock company, (Ben Johnson, Harry Carey Jr, Ward Bond, Jane Darwell etc), adds considerably to the film's authenticity while the nearest the film gets to a full-bodied star performance is Joanne Dru's Denver. Dru was a much finer actress than she was ever given credit for as were Bond and Johnson, who at least was finally awarded with the recognition of an Oscar for his work in "The Last Picture Show". As he said himself, 'It couldn't have happened to a nicer fella'. Add Bert Glennon's superb location photography and you have a genuine piece of Americana that couldn't have some from anyone other than Ford. This is a film that truly honors America's pioneers and is full of sentiment and feeling.

Very slow, dull, enigmatic film. MAybe the kind of film Jean-Luc Godard would have made had he been Italian. Certainly conveys how tedious, repetitious, joyless and empty a person's life can be, but I don't usually go to the cinema to find that out! The plot (such as it is) doesn't convince. Why a gorgeous hotel receptionist (an exception to the dullness of the film) would be the slightest bit interested in a moody, chain-smoking, silent loner who speaks in 'deep' aphorisms baffles me. Very difficult to feel any sympathy with the main character. One feels like shaking him by the throat and telling him to 'snap out of it!'. His brother is a much more human character. The ending is inconclusive and puzzling. Everyone in the cinema (when I saw the film) went out muttering about how they nearly fell asleep. Of course, it shouldn't have to be a Hollywood Bruce Willis-style 'shhot-em-up' and 'crash-bang' fiesta, but a little bit of energy and action would have made it a lot more thrilling. One of the best Italian films ever?! Pleease...An art-house, curiosity at best.

Roy Rogers and company try to bring "Sintown" back to life - it's a ghost town which may go boom if silver mining is successful. Andy Devine (as "Cookie") slapsticks around. Jane Frazee (as Carol) loses a piece of her bitches to Mr. Rogers' sharp leer. Foy Willing and the Riders of the Purple Sage stand-in (or, is that sing-in?) for the A.W.O.L. Bob Nolan and the Sons of the Pioneers. James Finlayson (from the Laurel and Hardy films) adds to the "slapstick" look of "Grand Canyon Trail". A loose floor board delivers the winning comedy performance. Mr. Devine's mule kicks its heels. There are energetic human performances, too - but, the material isn't Grand. <br /><br />** Grand Canyon Trail (1948) William Witney ~ Roy Rogers, Jane Frazee, Andy Devine

This movie pretty much sucked. I'm in the Army and the soldiers depicted in this movie are horrible. If your in the Military and you see this movie you'll laugh and be upset the entire movie because of the way they acted as a squad. It was ridiculous. They acted like a bunch of normal people with Army uniforms on not knowing what to do. It was a pretty gory movie I'd have to say the least. There was a couple scenes where they try to make you jump. I'd recommend seeing it if you are bored and want to see a violent, gory movie. It will be a better movie also if your not in the Military. I also would have to say I liked the first one better than this one.

The film tells you to be aware and conscientious. It also destroys any and all things, the Bible claims to be true. To people like me the first episode was interesting and the second was disastrous. It has been called "blasphemy", and it is, if you are a believer. It is sad to hear, that many people think of it as a good sequel to the Bible. However, the film shows you a lot of things and subjects, that can be interpreted as a filmic version of the "Revelation". Some of us think, that such things are not to be abused. One good thing about the film is, that it strongly encourages ethical awareness and makes you consider your actions twice. The director just seems to forget, that some people act that way already solely based on the fact, that they believe and love as prescribed in the Bible... Why attempt to change that, unless you be the Devil yourself?

There were some scary scenes, which I've always liked more than straight out gore, but otherwise this movie was rather weak. THere were too many questions left unanswered, and when they tried to explain anything in the movie, it was still rather unclear. After watching this movie I still seemed lost in a lot of ways. It sort of reminded me of Silent Hill a few years back. That movie was also unsatisfying, but still better than this because it did try to work and the story did actually make sense. This one, not so much.<br /><br />The acting for the most part in the Abandoned was decent, but the movie dragged on an on, and never really gave any type of satisfying conclusion. Like I said above, there were some creepy scenes, but otherwise, this movie was a mess. Sorry, I can't recommend it.

I am glad to see most other people here don't think much of this movie, either. It has some big names in the cast, but that's it. There is nothing else to recommend, save ogling a few pretty women which you can do in a thousand films.<br /><br />The story involves nothing but unlikable, self-centered, chain-smoking, "hip" characters that national film critics all seem to like....and most of the public can't stand. <br /><br />The Oklahoma accents are so fake they are laughable, the southern racist stereotypes are right from Liberal Hollywood 101 and the story is depressing.

That's what my friend Brian said about this movie after about an hour of it. He wasn't able to keep from dozing off. I had been ranting about how execrable it was and finally I relented and played it, having run out of adjectives for "boring". <br /><br />Imagine if you will, the pinnacle of hack-work. Something so uninspired, so impossibly dreadful, that all you want to do after viewing it is sit alone in the dark and not speak to anybody. Some people labor under the illusion that this movie is watchable. It is not, not under any form of narcotic or brain damage. I would ONLY recommend this to someone in order to help them understand how truly unbearable it is. Don't believe me? Gather 'round. <br /><br />Granted, as a nation, we in America don't always portray Middle Eastern peoples in a tasteful manner. But how about a kid in a sheik outfit bowing in salaam-fashion to a stack of Castrol motor oil bottles? You'll find that here. GET IT? THE ARAB WORSHIPS OIL. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. Having the kid fly planes into a skyscraper would've been more appropriate. Who in their right mind would think that was a funny joke? It's not even close to "cleverly offensive". It just sucks and makes you want to punch whomever got paid to write that bit in the face. <br /><br />In the middle of the film, a five-man singing group called the "Landmines" takes the stage at an officers' ball. Okay- are you ready? The joke is THEY SING TERRIBLY AND OFF-KEY. Why did I write that in caps also? Because the joke is POUND, POUND, POUNDED INTO YOUR HEAD with a marathon of HORRENDOUS sight gags. They start off mediocre enough; glasses cracking, punch tumblers shattering... then there is, I am 100% serious, a two-frame stop-motion sequence of A WOMAN'S SHOES COMING OFF. You read that correctly- the music was so bad, in one frame, the woman's feet have shoes on. In the very next- the shoes are off!!! Get it, because the music was so bad, her shoes came off! What the F???? <br /><br />Then there is an endless montage of stock footage to drive home the point that the SINGING IS BAD. If any human being actually suffered through this scene in the theater without running like hell, I would be astonished. This movie is honestly like a practical joke to see how fast people would bolt out the doors. Robert Downey Sr. directs comedy the way his son commands respect by staying drug-free. Badly. Other things to watch out for:<br /><br />1. The popular music shoehorned in wherever possible. Every time Liceman appears, a really inappropriate Iggy Pop song plays. Plus all the actors do their best to act like it got really chilly for some reason.<br /><br />2. Barbara Bach's criminally awful accent. She sounds like she's trying to talk like a baby while rolling a marble around on her tongue. There is no nudity, and there are several scenes where the boys all moan and writhe from a glimpse of her cleavage, like they're in a community school acting class and they've been directed to act like aroused retarded people. <br /><br />3. Liceman feeds his revolting dog a condom. Remember; when this movie came out throwing in "abortion" and "condom" was seen as "edgy". <br /><br />4. Tom Poston plays a mincing, boy-hungry pedophile, back when Hollywood thought "pedophile" and "homosexual" were one in the same. Flat-out embarrassing. <br /><br />5. Watch the ending. Nothing is wrong with your VCR. That is actually the ending. Tell me that doesn't make you want to explode everyone who's ever made any movie, ever. <br /><br />Watch this at your own risk. Up The Academy has been known to actually make other movies, like The Jerk or Blazing Saddles, less funny simply by placing the videotape near them.

I am a big Gone With The Wind nut but I was disappointed that both Gone With The Wind the movie and Scarlett the mini series are so different from the books. Gone With The Wind left so many things out in the movie that were in the book and they did the same with Scarlett. Both were good movies, but I really liked both books better. There were so many characters left out of Scarlett, and the ages of some characters didn't seem to match up with the book. The time lines don't match up either. Scarlett realizes she is pregnant on the ship to Ireland in the book, but she realizes it when she is throwing up while in Savahanna. Also Sally is made out to be an ugly monkey like woman in the book and the movie casted Jean Smart to play her, who is obviously not an ugly woman. Over all, Scarlett is a good movie, and it helps anyone who was disappointed in the way Gone With The Wind ended, to see what might have happened if Margaret Mitchell had lived to write a sequel herself.

This film is one of the worst adaptations of Pride and Prejudice ever filmed and if Jane Austen were alive, she would demand that her name be removed from the film. Austen's novel is only superficially a story of the development of true love between Elizabeth Bennet and Fitzwilliam Darcy. It is also a commentary on the class structure of Regency Britain. This film focuses only on the love story, thereby disappointing viewers who hoped it would do justice to the novel.<br /><br />There are numerous problems with the historical accuracy of the film. In the film, the dance at which Darcy snubs Elizabeth is not the refined dancing done by the gentry, to which the Bennet, Lucas, Bingley, and Darcy families belong, but is rather the dancing of the lower classes. The gentry would not have been dancing as if they were at a peasant barn dance. There are costume and hair problems, too. The custom of the period required married women to wear white cloth hats to cover their hair and for women to wear bonnets when outdoors. Women of the Regency period were not so liberated as to forego the bonnet requirements in public. The worst historical inaccuracy is the early morning meeting of Elizabeth (in her nightgown and coat) and Mr. Darcy (sans cravat and vest) at which they admit their love for each other. This is an unforgivable liberty with the novel. No respectable young woman or gentleman would venture out of doors in such a state of undress or seek to meet someone of the opposite sex at such an early hour. <br /><br />But the worst thing of all with this film is the mangling of Austen's dialogue and the atrocious modern dialogue. Austen's dialogue needs no assistance from a writer who thinks he/she can write like Austen. The writer of the non-Austen dialogue not only lacks Austen's talent but also has no feel for Austen's style. The juxtaposition of the two styles is jarring.<br /><br />As for the acting, the best is done by Judi Dench, who clearly understands the imperiousness of the aristocracy. Brenda Blethyn takes some liberties in making Mrs. Bennet less awful than Austen's portrayal. Her portrayal is interesting and seems to work. Donald Sutherland is miscast. His affected British accent is terrible and he portrays Mr. Bennet too much as a father of the 20th century and not a father of the late 18th century. Matthew MacFadeyn's portrayal of Darcy is flat. I can't imagine anyone falling in love with his Mr. Darcy. Keira Knightly is a pretty Elizabeth, but her portrayal of Elizabeth Bennet is far too modern. Knightly focuses on the Elizabeth's forthrightness, but her portrayal completely lacks an understanding of the social mores and conventions of the time. She would have done well to actually read the novel before attempting to portray Elizabeth and to do research on the behavior of women of the period.<br /><br />If one is making a period movie, one must be true to the period. This film needed an historical adviser who actually knows something about the Regency period. It also needed a writer who has a better appreciation and understanding of Austen's text. I can only hope Emma Thompson decides to do a film of Pride and Prejudice in the near future to erase this abomination from our minds.<br /><br />The best thing that can be said about this film is that it contains many pretty scenes of the English countryside. Chatsworth is well used as Pemberly (as it was in the 1995 BBC adaptation). But pretty scenery and pretty actors cannot save this film. True fans of Austen will rush home to watch their DVDs of the far superior 1995 BBC production with Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth or to read Austen's text in order to wipe this version from their minds.

While filming an 80's horror movie called 'Hot Blooded', the director is brutally murdered and the leading lady is scarred as she survives the attack and manages to kill murderer. After all of this, the production is abandoned and the stock reels are left to gather dust. So a group of filmmakers decide to pick up where the film left off even though they're warned by people to keep away from the film, as the last person who was interested in the flick turned up dead in the cinema while watching the film. From this it's labelled as a cursed production. Not taking these warnings seriously the crew goes ahead with the production and they get the original star of the movie to return from Hollywood to reprise her role, but not as the daughter but the mother. But again the murders start occurring with the cast and crew getting butchered by an unknown figure dressed up as the film's killer.<br /><br />Look what 'Scream' started! Hey, I enjoy those films, but mostly everything else that followed on afterwards were annoying and pointless excuses. During this stage the sub-genre came back with vengeance, but it wasn't much of a good thing as they were mostly unsuccessful and unoriginal attempts, where they followed the derivative pattern of the Scream franchise. 'Cut' which is an independent Australian take on the textbook slasher genre is purely shonky garbage that lacks basically everything and shamelessly knocks off every other slasher flick. But you know what, I found it a cheesy delight. Yeah, It's gawd awful and highly forgettable, but it's a bit of ala good cheap fun while it lasted. Although I did hate it when I originally came across it, but the second time around I knew what I was getting myself into and it worked better for it. It was just like helping myself to a nice slice cheesecake again, but this time it wasn't so sweet.<br /><br />The film came out around the same time as 'Scream 3' and 'Urban Legends: The Final Cut' did, which all three follow the same structure of using a movie within a movie. 'Scream 3' is obviously the strongest of the three, but I would actually watch this trash over Urban Legends: The Final Cut. Though, it did seem more of a throwback to the 80's slashers than that of one of Scream's bastard offspring. Pretty much the film is given b-grade treatment and that shows up in the script and performances. The dialog is truly unimaginative and hardly comes up with any surprises and suspense. While, the performances are pure mockery and Molly Ringwald takes the crown for it. She plays the wash-up actress returning to finish the cursed flick and I had good fun with her laughably ridiculous send-up performance. She provides the bite here and nails it down perfectly. The rest were mostly recognizable Australian TV stars (that's if you're an Australian) with a ravishing Jessica Napier leading the cast with the likes of Stephen Curry and Frank Roberts. Also pop singer (and supposed actress) Kylie Minogue makes a cameo appearance in the opening just to be hacked up! Nice. These teens mostly followed the formula of horny and dim-witted kids that have nothing better to do but to be killed. Sometimes it feels like they just waiting in queue, because they have no real substance to be there.<br /><br />The plot starts off rather interestingly, then heads into a mystery phase where red herrings pop up, but then it makes a sudden u-turn where it becomes a somewhat satire on the horror genre. Simply it's rather choppy and when it comes to the explanation for all of this madness I was kind of left thinking… oh my. This when it tries to twist back onto itself in a clever manner, but sadly it falls along way. But don't you just love an opening ending. Also it sports some pop culture references and a self referential, tongue-in-cheek approach. Predictability makes its way in rather early and the jokes can become over-stated at times, but it knows that by poking fun at itself quite a bit. The atmosphere looses a bit of edge because of the humour taking away the bleakness, but still the isolated grand old mansion where they are filming has some neat touches that added 'some' spookiness. The cinema scene is done rather nicely too.<br /><br />Now, now we know we want gore and nudity when watching this type of flick, but sadly there's no nudity to be found and the gore is pretty standard, if lacking but it's more then decent for such low-budget flick. There are one or two creative deaths, but the rest are systematic. The killer wasn't bad but when he spoke it kind of hurt it I thought, well the smart-ass attitude didn't sit well with me. Another notes of the production which were dire ranged from the cut-away editing, out-of-place soundtrack and Kimble Rendall's direction lacked execution and was pretty careless, but these contributing factors pull together to add some sort of sheer entertainment to all of this badness.<br /><br />The imagination matches the budget that's for sure, but heck this lousy slasher wasn't trying to be anything else. Pure schlock that's slightly amusing!

The One is a very aptly name show, mostly because it comes close to being the only network shows on in prime time that barely more than one person is watching.<br /><br />When I first heard of The One, I thought to myself "Weee!! Another sing-song show! We don't have enough of those!" and then proceeded to strap on my helmet and run about my home hitting my head on blunt objects and sharp corners. Because in all honesty, the constant, year round pain and suffering inflicted by having only one or two "talent" based reality shows running just isn't enough. We needed another one. And not just any one - "THE" One. The one with slightly less attractive contestants with slightly less talent. The one with slightly less of a point, though it's hard to imagine a scenario in which that's possible. The one with pointless footage of the contestants when they're not performing included. Because I care what Johnny Sings-a-lot does in his off hours! I really do! Now, you may be thinking "Hey! On the entire continent of North America less than 4 million people watched the first episode. Doesn't that mean this show sucks?" Well, to that I say less than 4 million people in North America have syphilis, so sometimes low numbers bring good news now don't they?. Think about it.<br /><br />In the end, The One may be horribly unoriginal, a show that even the airing network couldn't be bothered to promote because they too realize how absolutely worthless it is, but it's still not syphilis! Yay!

I just finished "Dark Chamber" aka "Under Surveillance" and I'm stunned. Stunned, not by the film, but by some of the rave reviews I perused which influenced my watching it. The story was so ravaged by plot-holes and the majority of the acting so flat, categorizing it as a comedy seems appropriate. Seriously, I found myself shaking my head and laughing in bewilderment as I endured this movie.<br /><br />Justin leaves the confines of living at home with a pain killer-addicted mom to go live with his cop father despite Mom's warnings that Dad is no good. When a young woman is found murdered, Justin becomes suspicious of the tenants who reside in the adjacent apartments. With the help of a couple pals, he installs covert cameras to keep tabs on these folks. As the truth begins to unravel, Justin uncovers an unexpected secret.<br /><br />One positive point is that Felissa Rose is HOT! I would have generously slapped an extra star or two on here had she peeled down a bit, but no such luck. It would have been the film's potential saving grace. Eric Conley played Justin very adeptly, I thought, and I wouldn't be surprised whatsoever to see more of him in the future. <br /><br />The general premise of the film, although plagued by clichés, might possibly have worked had it not been for the ridiculously hollow "performances" of key cast members, most notably Alexandra Eitel (Kayla) and David H. Rigg (Justin's father). The horror! (pardon the pun).<br /><br />I have nothing against low-budget films. Indeed, I believe independent film is our only hope for decent film making in the days to come. I'll cut low-budget films quite a bit of slack when it comes to special effects, lighting, even musical score and the overall picture quality. I don't give allowances, however, for stick figure acting and a swiss cheese lover's script. There are a vast number of competently-made low budget films out there. Sadly, this isn't one of them. I can't help but suspect that at least a few of the reviewers who have praised "Dark Chamber" here are in some way affiliated with its production.

I rented domino on a whim, not even knowing it was inspired by a true story, and even though it's the least likely and true biopic you'll probably see. i found it to be rather awesome.<br /><br />With Richard Kelly writing he crams together a mass of plots and narratives into 2 hours of pure entertainment. And once you've seen it more than once you get it and appreciate it. <br /><br />Domino is a model turned bounty hunter who leaves the perfect Hollywood life to pursue a not so subtle or perfect career. It has an edgy acid trip style provided by director Tony Scott. And with fast paced music and editing, it provides the visual flare to keep your attention, with slick performances and unexpected comedy, the movie is well made and enjoyable and should have reached a wider audience. <br /><br />I suggest it to anyone who wants to think and be entertained at the same time for 2 hours.

This is a gory mess and pretty convincing. Corbin Bernson is very much in command of this movie with his slick portrayal of the loony control freak eponymous practitioner. Linda Hoffman plays his cheating wife and she is very easy on the eye - unfortunately for her, the little "tryst" with the pool guy brings severe punishment in a way the good doctor knows best - shame about that pretty smile! The last half hour of the movie is devoted to Bernson's character losing it completely and the spotlight falls on a young actress called Virginya Keehne. An extremely talented performer, she hogs the limelight from the moment the braces come off. Nice legs, too!

So forgive the *really* lame game-play scene, cardboard background and studio like stadium. For this part I should have give the movie 5 instead of 7, but read on...<br /><br />From the premise to plot there is a lot similarities with "The Replacements". Some say this movie rip off "The Replacements", while some say this script wrote before it. <br /><br />Both movies require some sort of "suspension of disbelief on the basic premise, and this is especially difficult for "Second String" since it has NFL license team and all the history behind it. Food poison excuse may sound too lame for some people, and not to mention in "Second String" Bills has to overcome big scores again and again, with the limit budget in shooting the game play scene, this make it look even bad. <br /><br />In "Replacements", the premise and the league is fictional yet you know it happen in real life. I believe it is easier to accept fictional story and setting with real event ("OH yeah, this happen before!", rather than real setting/background with fictional scenario ("There is no way Bill can win a Superbowl!"; Some of the scene were actually shoot in pre season game of Raven games, real stadium, real audience and some NFL match alike shooting angle.<br /><br />But let say both movies came out on the same day, and we erase the budget factor (thus forgive the game play action scene): Overall, I like "Second String" over "Replacements", not by much, but I like this more. <br /><br />It has "relatively better" character development. In "Replacements", Keanu character is too "out sync with the world", and all he care is maybe, get a girl? In Second String you see the struggle of the QB from getting the job back, and deal with his past with coach. Or the fumble guy problem. This "hold the ball all day long" solution of course is not new, but we see progression in fixing it.<br /><br />How about those trick play? I think it is "relatively realistic" than "Replacements". The "Dan Marino" like fake knee pass, flea-flicker, wild cat full back rush, all real, except sometimes this look a bit too easy. But for me it is better than "Replacement"'s center catch and rushing for 50 yards call, or how a 60 yards field goal look too easy. OH BTW, I am glad they didn't force the TE kicker made his shot....<br /><br />Of course ---if you objectively review this movie over other football movies all there, this could easily be a 5 out of 10 movie. But some say this is the worse football movie? Try "The Comebacks".

Lana Turner proved that she could really dance up a storm in this 1940 charmer about the ultimate sacrifice that her sister (Joan Blondell) makes for her.<br /><br />When both sisters come to New York, they follow Blondell's beau, a wonderful George Murphy, in this film. <br /><br />As fate would have it, the director of the show is impressed with Turner but sees nothing ahead for Blondell except a job as the cigarette-girl. Not only does Blondell miss stardom, boyfriend, Murphy (Eddie) falls for Turner as well. So as not to hurt her sister, Turner is ready to marry the producer of the show, a wealthy womanizer who has wed 4 times.<br /><br />The story concludes as best as possible with Blondell taking a fast exit back to Nebraska. Look for Paul Ford, as a gossip columnist in the film. He is hard to recognize due to the date of the film and the fact that he is much thinner. The film leaves you with the question of whether Ford and Blondell could ever get together.<br /><br />Blondell, as the devoted sister, sacrifices both career and love, for her sister. This film is sentimental and might have worked better if it had been shot in Technicolor.<br /><br />Few realize that George Murphy, the future Republican senator from California, was quite a song and dance man in his day.

While traveling with a team of misses for the dispute of the Miss Galaxy, the airplane piloted by Maximus Powers (Eric Roberts) and Mike Saunders (Charlie Schlatter) crashes in an isolated, where lays Noah's Ark protected by the Jurassic Pork. While the group fight to survive, alien apes plot to use the ark to destroy the human race and dominate planet Earth.<br /><br />I like parodies, but "Miss Castaway" is an offense to human brains. The awful story and the special effects are very, but really very bad. There are spoofs with "Lost", "Castaway", "Jurassic Park", "Sixth Sense", "Titanic", "Planet of the Apes", "Raiders of the Lost Ark", "Congo", "MIB", "Perfect Storm", "Austin Powers", "Jaws", "Mission Impossible", "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", "Star Wars" and "Hulk", but the problem is that most of them are very silly and not funny. In the end, the trailer is better than the film. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Missão Quase Impossível" ("Mission Almost Impossible")

I think they really let the quality of the DVD production get away from them. I rented this DVD from 2 movie stores and the second time I finally got it to play on the 3rd DVD player I tried.<br /><br />Anyone else have this issue? It's really hard to give the film an un-biased review after going through such a hassle to play it. For one, I've never seen a Finnish horror film before so I was sort of bummed that the movie was done in English. Also since it's never made clear what is wrong with Sarah, she just came off as retarded and therefore I really just hoped someone would shoot her in the face and make all the horrific happenings go away.

I'm doing a thesis on blurring the boundaries: the female cross dresser and am using Tipping the Velvet the book as my main text, any comments on gender and sexual identity, gender and sexual confusion, gender as a performance, gender as a fiction, gender imagery, cross-dressing as an erotic fantasy and as revolution, the effect of the male costume etc etc would be much appreciated! But a bit off the point has anyone seen Sergio Toledo's 1987 film Vera? Its about a young lesbian possibly transsexual cross dresser..I'm dying to see it because I think it'd be really helpful...Does anyone know where I might get a copy of it? I've tried amazon and a few other sites but no luck...

"Saratoga Trunk" is a 1945 film starring Ingrid Bergman and Gary Cooper. It's based on a 1941 book by the great Edna Ferber. Subconsciously she may have had Gone with the Wind on the brain; parts of the story reminded me of GWTW.<br /><br />Set in the 1890s, Clio Dulaine is an illegitimate child who returns from New Orleans from France with a mulatto servant (Flora Robson) and a dwarf servant, Cupidon (Jerry Austin). She has given herself a Countess title and claims to be a widow. Her mother killed her father by accident, and his family shunned her. Clio takes over the old homestead with the idea of embarrassing her half-sister and the wife of her father, which she does by calling great attention to herself. Her plan is to marry someone very wealthy who can give her the security and respectability she craves. Then she spots Clint Maroon (Cooper), a Texas gambler, and falls for him. The two have a volatile relationship - and he doesn't have any money, so she can't marry him - so he leaves for Saratoga Springs. Eventually the Dulaine family has enough, and their attorney gives her $10,000 to get out of town. She does. She goes to Saratoga Springs and goes after the owner of the railroad, Bart von Steed. But Clint is always around.<br /><br />Bergman is beautiful in dark hair and wearing the period costumes, and Cooper is drop-dead gorgeous with that incredible 300-watt smile of his. How she could resist him is beyond me. And the love scenes - whoa, what chemistry! The supporting cast is excellent, Robson and Cupidon creating interesting characters, and Florence Bates giving an excellent performance as a socially prominent woman who takes Clio under her wing, knowing she's a big fake.<br /><br />The film runs a little long, and some of the acting may seem old-fashioned today, but it's an absorbing story filled with atmosphere and vivid performances. The ending won't come as any surprise. It's a fun journey, though.

Creepy & lascivious wolf. The young "Red" is wearing full make-up, and extremely short shorts & robe. Got about 20 minutes through and realized it could be a pedophile's dream come true. The "up-beat" music sounds a lot like something I'd hear at a strip club. I actually think this movie is a sick joke - it's not a family movie. Gross, glad I was watching this with my daughter, I don't want her to think it's normal for families to view quasi kiddie porn together. Very bad, Very sad it's sold as a family film, Joey Fatone will probably be embarrassed he was in it. And what's with advertising it as a "special effects spectacular"??? The effects do look low budget, gawd awful.

I watched this film few times and all i can say that this is low budget rubbish and that it does not have anything to do with a real history facts. Actors performances is very poor but it is result of limited acting possibilities. Anyone who watched this film now probably think of Hitler as some crazy skinny lunatic who running with a gun like some Chicago gangster. I can only to say that there is much better films about Hitler and Germany in those years and that Rise of evil is very much under average. I can recommend German film Downfall in which you can see brilliant performance of Switzerland actor Bruno Ganz in a roll of Adolf Hitler.

Successful films on metaphysical subjects are rare, but Fata Morgana is a good case. You can chalk up the large subject to the ambitions of youth, but Herzog does an amazingly good job. The movie's point is to show human beings, and even the world, from a non-human point of view.<br /><br />The movie is in three parts: Creation, Paradise, and The Golden Age. The imagery of each is in counterpoint to the voice-over. Although the text of `The Creation' (from the Popol Vuh, a Mayan myth) refers to the primordial wasteland, the scene goes no further in illustrating the myth. It dwells on the waste, and on various specimens of destruction (fire, smoke, wrecked vehicles). The images from `Paradise' are anything but that, and `The Golden Age' is darkly comic – the highest culture is the strange roadside musical act.<br /><br />The Popol Vuh suggests that mankind is the central object of creation, but the movie does everything it can to undo this notion. Its mythological framework has no referent in human historical time. There are no human characters to speak of. When a boy stands with a dog in an extended shot, the initial suggestion is of the boy's point of view; by the end it is much more the dog's. Likewise the lizard is a stronger character than the human who introduces it, and the turtle's partner barely looks human with his big flippers.<br /><br />Animal stories and nature documentaries always anthropomorphize, but Fata Morgana has none of that. Certainly the dunes look like a female body, but the simile cuts both ways. Presumably only humans can distinguish easily between their creation and nature, and here airplanes and factories are presented alongside mountains, lakes, and waterfalls. People and civilization are all part of a broader natural landscape.<br /><br />In 1979 Herzog put a new twist on the idea when he remade Nosferatu from the vampire's point of view.

I would consider myself a fan of Dean Koontz; having read a number of his novels and liked them all, but unfortunately I never got around to reading Watchers so I'm left with no choice but to rate this film on it's own merits rather than comparing it to the book that I haven't read. I went into this expecting something awful, and while I didn't exactly get a brilliant horror film; I am lead to believe that it's fans of the book that are rating it down because as a film in it's own right, Watchers is an entertaining and somewhat original little horror movie. The plot obviously takes some influence from Predator and begins with an explosion at a research lab. It's not long before a rancher is killed by some strange beast and the boyfriend of the dead man's daughter has picked up an ultra-intelligent runaway dog. A secret Government agency is soon on the case, as the murders continue. The boy continues to be fascinated by the dog's intelligence, but it somehow ties in with the murders and the agency is soon on his tail too.<br /><br />The script for this film was originally written by Paul Haggis, who later disowned it. I don't know why – the writing here is nowhere near as ridiculous as his 2004 hit Crash! Anyway, the main reason this film works is undoubtedly the dog, who aside from being rather cute, is also the best actor in the film. Corey Haim, hot off the success of The Lost Boys is the human lead and actually has a rather good chemistry with the dog, although it is a little bit ridiculous seeing him talk to it most of the way through the film. The plot is rather convoluted and as such the film is more than a little bit messy; but the ridiculousness of it all pulls it through during the more awkward moments. Michael Ironside also appears in the film and does well as the 'bad cop' side of the Government agents. The monster is, of course, one of the most interesting things about the film and the way it goes around killing people is always entertaining and gory; although unfortunately we don't get to see a lot of it and when we finally do it's rather disappointing - obviously the filmmakers had seen Bigfoot and the Hendersons! Still, this is the sort of film that can be easily enjoyed despite the numerous problems and I'd recommend to any undiscerning viewer of eighties horror.

Misguided, miscast, murky, interminable lunacy given the high-gloss MGM A-budget treatment. Kate Hepburn plays a bride who comes to suspect her rich, handsome husband (Robert Taylor)is not the dreamboat she married but a psychotic killer. MGM's attempt at a Hitchcockian thriller is doomed from the start by a turgid, muddled, ludicrous script, and the idiotic casting of Hepburn as a jeopardized woman fearing for her life (who could ever imagine Hepburn afraid of anything?) Louis B. Mayer forgot to tell Vincent Minnelli he was directing a thriller, not a musical. Taylor is embarrassing. Only Robert Mitchum, also cast-against-type as a good guy, retains his dignity in a quiet, low-keyed performance. Karl Freund's ravishing cinematography creates images of eerie beauty--and was wasted on the wrong film. End result: Metro's "Parnell" of the 1940s.

I have a question for the writers and producers of "Prozac Nation": What is the root cause and what is the solution to the widespread problem of personal depression in America? In the moving performance of Christina Ricci as Liz Wurtzel, the film portrays a young woman with unlimited potential as a Harvard student and as a writer. But this is not a story of success, only one of self-destruction as we watch Liz bring misery into the lives everyone who comes in contact with her. The film examines divorce, family dysfunction, drugs, alcohol, and prescription medication as possible reasons for Liz's unhappiness. But none of those superficial explanations are satisfactory.<br /><br />At some point in the film, it would have been helpful to suggest that Liz needs to take responsibility for her life and her problems. No light was shed on what the film alleged to be a runaway problem in "The United States of Depression." In the story, Liz had a caring therapist (Anne Heche), a caring roommate (Michele Williams), a caring boyfriend (Jason Biggs), and a troubled but caring parent (Jessica Lange). In a key scene in the film, Liz is lying in a hospital bed watching the break-up of the space shuttle Challenger. Instead of equating Challenger with Liz's life, the film should have used the image as a starting point for her healing and recovery.<br /><br />This film reminded me of a generic made-for-cable "victim" film on the Lifetime network. An excellent cast was wasted, especially in the earnest performance of Christina Ricci. The real-life Elizabeth Wurtzel obviously found within herself the resources to cope with her depression and become a successful author. It is unfortunate that the film could not offer us even the slightest glimpse into her courageous spirit.

I wouldn't say this totally sucked, but if it wasn't for Netflix I wouldn't even have this in my house. Steve Martin's eccentric president of a chain of health food stores falls flat. He's just not funny. He's another in a LONG slew of SNL rejects that can only find work whoring themselves to the next SNL movie. The birthing coach with the Elmer Fudd lisp is about as funny as it is original. Amy Poehler simply goes through the same motions she would for a 7 minute SNL skit which is about as funny as SNL lately. The only thing going for this movie is that Tina Fey is easy on the eyes. The ending was predictable as soon as you heard her character couldn't get pregnant. The subject matter could have opened up to other comedic attempts, but it seems to simple simmer along, not really entertaining or creating laughs.

My son Adam (5 years old) is a big Scooby Doo fan. He like this film a lot. He particularly liked when the Loch Ness monster tried to attack Shaggy and Scooby. The vote score is his choice and reflects his love of the characters.<br /><br />Having seen the "Vampire Rock" film first, this, not surprisingly, was very similar as they repeat a well worn basic plot in a different setting.<br /><br />Few adults will come across this without having their own memories of the TV cartoon series and even fewer will watch it without children. You either like this or love it. I loved Scooby Doo for half an hour as a kid, I am happy my son loves it, I can just about put up with it now.

I chose "Dead Creatures" because I thought it was a zombies movie just like "28 days" or so... but not at all. It isn't even a horror movie. Nothing happens, except for a group of women that seem to have been infected by a strange virus that make her to eat human flesh in order to survive. <br /><br />That plot gives rise to a series of disgusting scenes of cannibalism...<br /><br />Very VERY BAD MOVIE.<br /><br />*My rate: 2/10<br /><br />------------------<br /><br />------------------

It gets really bad. The only half-way redeeming quality is the effects from the thousands of bullets used during the film. There are context errors everywhere. The acting is horrible, save Kirk. The story is as holey as the grail, and the belief that the movie is a video game in itself just kills the movie, if it wasn't already a corpse. So all in all it's a waste of your life. I would have given this a zero had that been an option on the rating scale.

Perhaps not the absolute greatest entry in the Hammer House of Horror series, but it surely wins the award for most inventively titled episode! "The House that Bled to Death"… I could yell out this title all day without ever getting tired of it! And besides the wondrous title, this short movie also benefices from a solidly written screenplay and a handful of genuinely suspenseful moments. It might require an extra viewing before you fully understand the peculiar end-twist, but it's definitely an original idea for a horror short. The story opens with images of an elderly couple drinking tea in their middle-class house. The husband sadistically kills his wife and several years later the "cursed" house is still for sale. A young couple and their cherubic daughter move in and start to restore it, but mysterious events occur and affect especially the young Sophie. Her beloved cat is killed an even her birthday party gets ruined when one of the house's pipes suddenly sprays blood all over the guests (a particularly chilling sequence, this one!). Is the old house really haunted? Or maybe the seemly helpful neighbors cause all the horror? The answers to these questions are provided in the original and fairly unpredictable climax and there's even room for a real shock at the very end. The tension is masterfully built up and the titular house is filled with eerie scenery, like the pair of rusty machetes used by the husband to slay his wife. Little warning though, the sequence with the cat is hard to watch when you're an animal lover. In conclusion, another winner for Hammer's short-running TV series!

Check out the two octogenarians who review Leatherheads. These guys are old-school Hollywood and a hit on YouTube. They always give an insightful and fun review. They have movie comparisons that are really interesting and they have a banter back and forth that is endlessly entertaining. They know movies, collectively they have been in the biz for practically a century. Lorenzo is a well-known screenwriter and Marcia is a famous producer. All of their insight on movies always leaves you with something to think about. See what they think about Clooney's latest...<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-W7evBEArs

Now this is a bad movie if I've ever seen one. In one of film's greatest years, 1999, Detroit Rock City contends with Runaway Bride and Wild Wild West for the bottom spot in a barrel of junkies. The plot is masterful. Four scrawny high school youngsters finally have their chance at seeing the hard rock theatrics of KISS for…the third year in a row. So when their tickets are toiled by an ultra-religious, chain-smoking mom, the pals scramble themselves in getting to Detroit, and I'm sure you can figure out the rest.<br /><br />Well, not exactly; the movie does go to extreme measures in explaining how the four band members (no, not Gene, Paul, Ace and Peter) go about getting these tickets: losing your virginity in a confessional; saving a smoked-out bimbo and your mom's Volvo (from the Soprano's Steve Schirripa, nonetheless); preventing a robbery in the midst of botching one for a 12-year-old's debt; and of course, stripping down to your bare essentials for MC Ron Jeremy after shuttling a full blender with bourbon-leftovers. Sounds funny, doesn't it? Perhaps Detroit Rock City does have a point with all this tomfoolery in how extreme sometimes these fans can go. And we do understand this movie is a comedy; it is supposed to be filled with slapstick. But does Detroit Rock City aim to the proper audience? It is rated R, meaning the only way prepubescent adolescents-the audience as I see it, to which many will eventually hail this one a classic-will voyeur is through illegal terms.<br /><br />Detroit Rock City also fails at giving itself the late-1970's touch. The camera's texture quality is way too clear and way too bright, missing the necessary flair from films like This is Spinal Tap and Sid & Nancy. This would've allowed audiences to feel `more at home' with the times. Simply costuming kids into pre-90's grunge-wear and settling others into `disco infernos' does not do the trick. Environment does mean something you know; I doubt Detroit looked this glamorous in '78. If there's anything positive coming from this movie it's the kick-ass soundtrack of hard late-70 to early-80's rock. Van Halen, AC/DC, you name it, it's all here. Of course we can't forget KISS, the band aptly subjected throughout.<br /><br />What the film noticeably fails to manage are questions concerning why the Knights of Satin's Service (it's really just KISS) were so frowned upon by moms around the nation. Sure, the loud rock and devilish makeup might be a part of that; encouragements for youth to explore themselves and have a good time might be fair reasons as well. But, what is KISS saying in the music we hear throughout the film towards this highly rebellious group? What separates these anthems of `rock[ing] and roll[ing] all night and partying everyday' from the rest of the music? Most likely, these questions will remain in a music communication class and not in the films that should answer them, simply because it is KISS and they rock and we must do everything in our God-forgiven power to see them.<br /><br />1.5/5 stars

I went into the movie expecting a little action mixed with a strong story line. I understand that changes between written works and movies must be made...for many reasons.<br /><br />The changing of the relationship between the scientists ( they were father - daughter in the book) The Director of CERN was eliminated thus causing the scene between the Carmelengo and the Director to be changed to the Carmelengo and the head of the Swiss Guard in the Pope's office.<br /><br />Ron Howard made sure to get his dad inserted as a Cardinal with a hayseed accent but missed all the symbolism. Both Lagdon and the Carmelengo ascended to the heavens in the helicopter with Hanks character landing in the river and the priest landing upon the chapel in what was described as a Christ-like image.<br /><br />At some point this film needs to be remade by a director who is up to the job

A fantastic film featuring great Aussie talent. Director Mark Lamprell dealt with the potentially sob-inducing subject matter in a way which was humorous and refreshing. Definitely the highlight of the 2000 Brisbane International Film Festival. Australian film veteran, Sam Neill was, as always, fabulous in the role of Frank's uni professor and new talent Matt Newton gave a performance which will have people saying, " you know, Bert Newton, Matt's dad!" Get out and see this movie!!!

As a Southern Baptist, it pains me that I must give a below average rating to an overtly Christian movie. There certainly aren't so many that I want to discourage film-makers from a genre that's woefully under-exploited. Still, I must honestly say that "Love's Abiding Joy" is a typically low budget, low key, self-consciously Christian film. The plot is predictable, the acting mediocre (I'm being kind), and the editing atrocious. As a TV movie it might have been slightly above average, but as a feature film it leaves much to be desired. Keep trying guys. You've got to have a movie about about real Christians inside you somewhere. Might I suggest you turn to G. K. Chesterton or C. S. Lewis for some inspiration?

A quite easy to watch tale of 2 thieves, with that love/hate type relationship between them. Chrisopher Walken stars and is very good as the silent rogue with a scam bigger than he's letting on.

Othello is set to burn the eyes of the viewers of this film. The bad depiction of Shakespeare's characters, and the terrible rendition of the love that Desi & John had, made this movie the horrendous filth that it is. By far, Othello, directed by Jeffery Saks, is beyond mediocre and atrocious. <br /><br />The movie Othello is a pitiful drama about the love between John and Desi. Their faithfulness to one another will be tested by the man's friend. In the opening scene of the film, it is clearly shown that the love between John and Desdemona is inseparable beyond belief. Moments later, Ben Jago, John's friend pops out into the screen scaring the viewers and showing them right away how much of a liar and power hungry person he is. <br /><br />By far, this movie was much more horrid than the Shakespeare novel itself. With that being said, it does have a miniscule amount of good parts. For example, the love that was shown between John and Desi, was depicted very well and it looked that the couple was so inseparable; just as it was explained in the book. Although the love between them was shown exceptionally well, it still did not show the jealously that Othello had between Cass and Desi as well as it should. <br /><br />Love, jealously, deceitfulness, this movie is based on all three of the main topics that were in the Shakespeare novel. The novel however, really explains how all of this came together much better than the movie could. For example, the conclusion of this story ends much more differently in the book than in the film. Much more detail is also put into the novel. This is why this film is such a disappointment, trust me, those who have read it will find it disappointing as well. <br /><br />In conclusion, this film was by far, the most horrendous depiction of a novel that has ever been put out by mankind. By avoiding to see this film, not only will viewers save themselves an hour two of their lives, but also save themselves an eye or two from the distasteful face of Ben Jago popping out at them.

I was "turned on" to this movie by my flight instructor and now I wonder how the heck it was out there for nearly five years before I finally discovered it. If you have any love of flying at all, especially an attachment to the planes of WWII, this is an absolute must see, vastly superior to the pathetic "Pearl Harbor" and up there in rivalry with the famed "Battle of Britain" filmed more than thirty years ago. There are moments when you feel as if you are flying wingman, literally dodging the shell casings of your leader as you roll in on a Me 109 or He 111. <br /><br />As an historian this film deeply touched me as well for it is about the plight endured by tens of thousands of gallant Poles, Hungarians, Slovaks and Czechs who in 1939-1940 fled their homelands, made it to England, fought with utmost bravery for the survival of western civilization, and then were so callously abandoned by "us" after the war when they were arrested by the communists upon their return to their native lands. I have stood atop Monte Cassino in Italy and was moved to tears by the cemetery for the Polish troops that stormed that mountain that British and Americans could not take. I have traveled as well to Prague (the most beautiful of cities) and studied their history. Their story of abandonment, I believe, should be a lesson to us even today about obligations to gallant allies. <br /><br />But back to the film. If you love flying, see this. If you are interested in the aircraft of WWII most definitely see it. Without doubt the most brutal, direct, and frightfully swift air combat scenes ever replicated for film. And yes, if you even are seeking a touching romance, there is that as well in heartbreaking detail.<br /><br />Bill Forstchen Professor of History Co-owner of a WWII replica "warbird" P-51 Mustang "Gloria Ann"

Okay people, I have to agree with almost everyone else's reviews here. The characters. Are. Stupid. They're ALL stereotypical, and yet have nice clothes and are always skinny.<br /><br />Don't even get me started on Jamie Lynn's role as ZOEY. Zoey is a pretty, popular, tan, blonde young teen who everyone just LOVES! She has a "rebellious", great, personality that everyone agrees with no matter how dumb or extreme it is. Most annoying of all: her voice is so darn bubbly and obnoxious. "OMG!"<br /><br />Take for example the first episode. The moment she steps onto the huge PCA campus, everyone seems to love her. The boys want to ask her out, the girls want to be her friend, etc. Thinking she's all that, the episode plays out with Zoey always being the center of attention; she is the so-called best player of the unofficial girls basketball team, confident, and has everyone pity her when she weakly gets hit in the face. Oh boo-hoo.<br /><br />My favorite character by far is this whole series is a girl that appears much later into the show, Lauren or something, who is the ONLY person ever introduced in the show to hate Zoey.<br /><br />And Zoey doesn't even seem to be very loyal to her friends sometimes. In one episodes she even calls her friend a freak without EVER apologizing and doesn't show the least bit regret in doing so.<br /><br />Zoey is ALWAYS the best:<br /><br />-Desiging professional T-shirts and backpacks (which become a big hit)<br /><br />-coming up with VERY elaborate schemes BY HERSELF to teach a single person a lesson. <br /><br />-Flawless grades <br /><br />-Taking the blame for stuff that wasn't even related to her just so everyone else could be happy.<br /><br />-Coming up with a commercial that was so good it was put on TV. The list goes on and on...<br /><br />Ugh. She has no acting talent. She's always the perfect person. She acts snotty and rebellious and preppy and...UGH! Can't stand her.<br /><br />Not only that, but everyone in the show always has great clothes. EVEN THE NERD! Her wardrobe is better than mine, and mine is pretty freaking decent.<br /><br />No one cares if everyone at PCA loves you, Zoey, and would do anything for you, even if it meant giving their right arm.<br /><br />BUT regardless of these cardboard characters, the plots are creative. Not everyday things. They're interesting and amusing. The humor is usually good-natured and fun, but the characters are so paper flat that it's hard to enjoy it.<br /><br />This show would be really good if Dan Schnieder put a bit more time thinking of the type of characters he wanted, because they are so typical, so boring that's it's lame and stupid.<br /><br />Point: No one's the least bit overweight, everyone has stylish clothes, Zoey is the definition of Mary-sue, the story lines are well-thought out, and the humor is laughable. But again, I want to emphasize that the characters taint the show. Watch the show if you must, but don't say I didn't warn you if your eyes start to bleed.

I just came back from Hong Kong on my summer vacation and saw the Legend of ZU. I thought it kicked a*s! It was so creative and unique. It's the Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon with a lot less drama. Even if some thought there was too much special FX(yeah right!), you can't complain about the cast. Zhang Ziyi and Cecilia Cheung are so fine!!! The Legend of ZU.....kicks a*s!!!!!!!!

this movie was so gay like its a mom and son cat that have sex, they also get scared of little kitty cats. they get set on fire by them. the mom cat alien thing kills a guy by stabbing him in the back with an ear of corn? they are bullet proof. invisible. and what not. the star of the movie, Clovis, is the cops cat, Clovis leads the cops to find the mom alien, and after the mom kills the cops, Clovis kills the mom by eating her head then she catches on fire. this movie sucks. it was way way more funny than it was scary, it wasn't even scaryt at all. the girl hits the alien on the head with a camera, it knoks him out. she then goes and hugs her. the then grabs her and begins to rape her. once again, Clovis comes to the rescue

I only saw this recently but had been aware of it for a number of years and have always been intrigued by its title. It now belongs to me as one of my very favourite films. It is hard to describe the incredible subject matter the Maysles discovered but everything in it works wonderfully. It has so many memorable images and moments where you feel you are encroaching on a very private world. I fell in love with this film and with the characters in it. It is as though the filmmakers have cast a spell of the audience and drawn us into the strange world of the eccentric Beales, a true aristocratic family. It has a tangible atmosphere and I found myself wishing I could be there away from it all, cooking my corn on the cob at my bedside table. It has an air of sadness that permeates throughout. A fall from greatness for this once esteemed family. The money had gone but their airs and graces remained, as well as their beauty. It drew me in from the first frame and long after the film finished I found myself wondering about their fate. Wondering that if I took a walk along East Hampton beach I might still hear Old Edie's voice in the night and see the silhouette of Little Edie dancing in the window behind the thick hanging creeper. Unforgettable.

This is a dry and sterile feature filming on one of most interesting events in WWII and in history of warfare behind the front line. Bad drama composition is worst about this film as plot on killing Hitler suppose to be pretty dramatic event. There is no character development at all and idea that Tom Cruise suppose to play a high rank commander that questions his deepest inner thoughts on patriotism and treason is completely insane. I believe that Mister Bin would play it better. Generally speaking, film pretty much looks as a cheep copy of good German TV movie "Stauffenberg" from 2004, but can't get close to that film regarding any movie aspect whatsoever. However, movie obviously gets its financial goal with pop-corn audience that cherishes Hollywood fast-mood blood and shallow art values.