Datasets:

srivatsavaasista

/

textgenerator-ds-mini

like 0

Well, the artyfartyrati of Cannes may have liked this film but not me I am afraid. If you like the type of film where shots linger for so long that you wonder whether the actor has fallen asleep or the cameraman gone for lunch then it may be for you. A large part of it is like this with short sojourns into the realm of unpleasantness. I did not find it shocking nor disturbing as some other reviewers have - simply a little distasteful and pointless. The only reason I did not give this one star is that the acting is commendable ans the film is fairly well shot. The plot, however, has little to recommend. A large part of the film just shows a grumpy woman teaching or listening to piano, which might appeal to some people. But lest you think this is harmless enough be prepared for some snatches of pornography and sexual violence just to wake you up with a bad taste in your mouth. Not recommended.

Seeing this film brought back to me memories of 9/11. The first thing I remember of that morning was seeing TV pictures of an airplane flying into a large building, and my immediate thoughts "Must be a preview for a new Tom Clancy film".<br /><br />This was not a Tom Clancy film. This was certainly not a British version of "The Sum Of All Fears". The typical Tom Clancy film or novel has a relatively small cast, a linear plot, and usually some sort of resolution. This film had neither. Sure, what I saw directly on screen was a small cast, a plot, and a vague resolution, but, like 9/11, the point was that reality was so much larger and more complex.<br /><br />I work in systems planning, and the reality of the disaster preparation exercise, and the disaster itself, is painfully obvious. It's impossible to prepare for a disaster like this, nor will it be any more possible to deal with this when it happens.<br /><br />From the argument between the police (Not enough is being done to prepare) and the politicians (Giving everybody on the tube a gasmask would cause panic), to the constant loudspeaker announcements (You are in no danger to your health, but don't go home before we decontaminate you), and (Don't eat, drink, or smoke before we decontaminate you), I was on edge during the entire film. Not the slightest urge to channel surf.<br /><br />This film was 90 minutes in length. It could have been twice that, and still not shown all the possible details. Instead, it left enough unsaid to allow each of us to imagine the details, each of us in our own way. That made it so much more real to me, than any Tom Clancy film.<br /><br />I lived in London once, and just off the Edgeware Road. And I took the train from Waterloo station many times. As I watched Dirty War, I kept telling myself that this is only fiction. Right now.<br /><br />Allah and Jehovah willing, this film will remain fiction, and sometime in 20 or 30 years, my nephews may watch this film and remember the early 21st Century, and the panic we felt too much. Hopefully to the same degree as I feel currently, when viewing memorabilia of the Cold War with the Evil Communist Regime of the mid-20th Century, and remember "Drop and cover" exercises in school.

If you liked Paddy Chayevsky's "Network" you'll probably like this black comedy as well, as it's another brilliant Chayevsky script, a wonderful satire on big-city hospitals and a perfect vehicle for Geo. C. Scott. He plays a burned-out chief of medicine on the most chaotic day he or his hospital have ever seen. His personal crisis is coming to a head and his hospital's falling down around him, as local residents demonstrate against the hospital and patients and doctors are dying at an alarming rate, thanks to a biblically-inspired and murderous saboteur. The latter, who theatrically declares himself the "Fool for Christ," "Parakleet of Kaborka," "Wrath of the Lamb," and "Angel of the Bottomless Pit," bops doctors on the head, administers lethal injections and swaps patients' identities, causing treatments and operations to be performed on the wrong persons.<br /><br />This film makes you uncomfortable, as deadly mistakes like these do happen (hopefully not so many, not so often and not in one place) and at the same time makes you laugh at the priceless character portraits. One is Richard Dysart ("L.A. Law") as Dr. Wellbeck, a sort of celebrity surgeon who spends far more time worrying about his investments and publicly-traded stock than about his patients, who suffer lethally from his vast indifference and neglect. There's Diana Rigg as free-spirited, hippie-ish Barbara Drummond, who seduces the beleaguered chief of medicine (Scott) and tries to get him to run away with her. Then there's the deluded murderer, who happens to be Barbara's father and who "functions well enough" back at the Indian reservation where he lives with his daughter and even runs a clinic, but who's pushed to madness merely by being placed back in civilization. The strongest portrait by far is Scott's Dr. Bock, who bares his soul as former boy genius, failed father and husband, brilliant doctor and responsible administrator, who constantly dreams of suicide but must bear up under the demands of his job. Scott is exceptional in this demanding role.<br /><br />Until the final scenes one doesn't know if Bock will leave the hospital behind for Barbara's Indian reservation and a quieter, simpler life, whether her murderous father will be caught or whether the protesting, rioting locals will take over and bring the hospital to its knees. Watching the crazed killer at work, one suspects Chayevsky is telling us our lunatic society makes him do these things, as we're told he's a different person away from cities and people.<br /><br />As my own father was the chief administrator of a number of large hospitals over the years, I had some idea of the demands of his job and the huge responsibility he shouldered. This story makes that responsibility the linchpin on which Scott's crisis turns. This is both a funny and scary film, with the actors up to the considerable demands of Chayevsky's script. It's also a film I get more out of each time I watch it.

remember back when this movie was made by robert downey senior. a very good entertaining black awareness feature, which, was an underground hit in california-los angeles, and new york at the time. a hippy loved classic where, changes which occur in the business world are striking, refreshing and interesting comedy.non compliant, not like basic society at the time of 1969 now watched, is still very good,but today's life in america totally diferent from 69. good for the baby boomers.

A cut above from the usual straight to video actioneer, Airborne has enough in the tank to keep it going for the full 90 minutes, although you can't help but think of how low former '80's comedy golden boy Steve Guttenburg has stooped to be in such a cheap production (and playing a hard man too!). The plot is simple, the baddies have stolen a deadly virus and Guttenburg and the rest of his goodie pals are sent to retrieve it, Not bad of its kind but not in the same league (obviously) as the films it is compared too on the cover such as AIR FORCE ONE and CON AIR. The cast is good though, with Sean Bean reprising his Brit.-bad guy character which we have had a glimpse of in such box office smashes as GOLDENEYE and PATRIOT GAMES.

SPOILER WARNING<br /><br />I got this dino-documentarie on DVD at Christmas 2004. I had longed to see it and was by no means disappointed. The score is memorable ( my<br /><br />favourites were the "Sauropod" theme song and the "Winters Coming" song ). The effects were dazzling, you could almost believe they were there. You actually learn something too ; Stegosaurs MAY have been able to pump their plates with blood. Female T-Rexes MIGHT have gone on a killing spree before laying their eggs. I know there's a lot of people who thought this was based too much on speculation, but there will always be questions that we can only guess at. And there is a lot of hard-core, undeniable FACT as well. We KNOW that some dinosaurs travelled in herds, we KNOW that Diplodocus swallowed stones to grind up vegetation in their stomaches. Despite this "speculation" the series did extremely well. So well in fact, that it spawned a followup, a prequel and several specials. If you're a dino-fan, then this IS for you. It makes Jurassic Park look small and weedy.

A female ex-cop who was drummed out of the force for recklessness (and who could probably beat Chuck Norris in a fight) hires herself out as a private bodyguard; her first client is a worthless playboy type. It takes half the movie for her to get kicked off the force in the first place. Lots of great fight choreography but the plot is strictly by the numbers, and the acting is as wooden as the dialogue. Give this one a miss.

I thought that Mukhsin has been wonderfully written. Its not just about entertainment. There's tonnes of subtle messages that i think Yasmin was trying to bring across. And yes, it might be confusing to some of you(especially if you didn't watch Sepet and/or Gubra for 76 times).<br /><br />I bet u noticed how they use characters from the two movies before right? Its really ironic how the characters relate. Like the bossy neighbour is that prostitute from Gubra. And the chick at the snooker pad turns out to be the religious and wife of the pious man in the future. <br /><br />And i absolutely love the voice-overs. Its crude yet awakeningly fresh. Like, when they took a shot of the Rumah Tumpangan Gamin signboard, then there was suddenly Mukhsin's voice saying 'Bismillahhirrahmannirrahim..' (the scene when he climbed the tree).<br /><br />It captured Malaysian's attitude(and in some mild way, sniggering at how pathetic it is) portrayed in the character. For example, even the kids can be really sharp tongued(complete with the shrill annoying voice) and simply bad mouth ppl all movie long. And how you can be such a busybody and talk about ppl, when ur own life isn't sorted out. <br /><br />All i can say is, this movie totally reached my expectation if not exceeded it. <br /><br />It kept me glued to the screen, i couldn't even take my eyes off it. Not even to make out in the cinema. Ha ha.

The film starts to slowly when we got to the cinema we thought it looked quite good but after about 5 mins we were all bored out of our minds and wondering what kind of film we had come to see, i don't like this film and wouldn't recommend it to anyone, the best part of the night was when the alarm and lights came back on because the project broke down because we thought we could all go home. this has to be one of the worst films i have ever seen we were all bored out of or minds and most of the people in the cinema actually RAN out of the doors at the end because it was so rubbish. i am surprised that no one walked out earlier than that. if you go and see it make sure you something to keep you busy, better still Don't go and see it at all.

Although I lived in Australia in 1975, I moved overseas not long after, fed up with constant industrial unrest, the general worship of mediocrity - unless one is a sportsman! - and the complacency of so many Australians who chose to ignore the breakneck pace of change taking place in countries to their north. <br /><br />Consequently I missed The Dismissal, along with many other Australian-made TV dramas of the '80s and '90s, such as the superb Janus and Phoenix series, which I have since seen, along with Wildside.<br /><br />To me the filmed story of The Dismissal is fair and, as far as I am aware, accurate. However, as to public "outrage" it only shows one side of the picture, not how families were riven by the controversy. I know, as my two brothers would not speak to me for months afterward. <br /><br />But the commentary is, in my view, very one-sided throughout. The inescapable fact is that, notwithstanding fiery expressions of rage from a substantial proportion of the community, the Australian electorate chose - and chose decisively - in favour of Fraser, as they did again two years later. <br /><br />This apart, a historically accurate and superbly well acted docudrama.

I have to admit I have a particular penchant for the humor and story telling style of British movies, though not all of course, succeed.<br /><br />This film made me think, and left me in the end with a quiet smile on my face. Its about character development and relationships, truth and lies, and whether love is sometimes simply not enough. Some very nicely understated acting from all the participants, especially the two leads, Tom Wilkinson and Emily Watson.<br /><br />There was a lot of fuss made about Gosford Park, but with this piece I feel Fellowes has actually produced a better movie, though it has not been a mainstream release.<br /><br />An intelligent mature story about real people who are undeniably flawed, but also capable of acts of genuine graciousness.

I can barely find the words to express how utterly utterly awful this film is. I was sold on the promise of action, with Segal and stealth aircraft, which normally make for an entertaining action movie. I can honestly say I'd rather gouge my eyes out with a cocktail stick than have to see this film again. The acting was so awful that it was almost funny. The story was insanely weak, with plot holes so cavernously wide you could fly an F117 through them. The script was so poor, if I found out that a 10 year old wrote it I shouldn't be in the least surprised. The direction and production is so amateur, I wouldn't even hire these people to shoot my worst enemies wedding video. Utter Utter drivel. Those responsible for making this movie have cheapened the art, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Steven Segal should never ever show his face in public again, I can't imagine what made him agree to star in this, the worst film I have seen in my entire life.

So one person says, "This movie is a beautiful, delicate exploration of West German life after World War II." And the other says, "Former Nazis living in bombed out buildings, and the movie is 'beautiful, delicate'?" And the first sits there nodding, takes another sip of coffee. "I can't explain. Just see it."

I watched this on an 8 hour flight and (presumably because of the pressure and the altitude) I actually found it mildly entertaining (emphasis on the "mild").<br /><br />The actual idea behind the film was brilliant: a woman dies, her fiancé falls in love with someone else, she decided to make sure they don't get together, but eventually she lets them do it. Sadly the actual film wasn't as good. OK, there were a few laughs and the actors all worked well. But from the beginning the plot was about as predictable as the destination of the flight I was on. I think the whole gay-but-not-gay friend part of the story could have been worked a lot better. The talking parrot was a nice idea but to be honest: it wasn't really very funny.<br /><br />In summary the film was more interesting than staring at the seat in front of me, but it was a close call.

I'm a Black man living in a predominantly Black city. That being said, I have some major misgivings about Tyler Perry's work. I realize that some people out there feel the need to praise him, because he's Black and trying to portray a positive image about the culture. But, I honestly do believe that, were Perry White, this film would have had the NAACP, Al Sharpton, and Jessie Jackson all over his ass.<br /><br />I have been forced to watch this movie one whole hell of a lot recently and each repeated viewing makes my blood boil. The characters are poorly written and acted. The jokes are so bad, I have to actually be told something is supposed to be funny. I'm just going to break this big pile of sh-t down.<br /><br />Madea=suck. The character may have had some appeal, but it doesn't anymore. When the only thing she ever seems to do is smack around children and threaten adults with violence she is less than useless. She is unnecessary.<br /><br />The situation with the wife beating fiancé was horsesh-t. If a woman was so scared to death of her husband, why would she try to run away when he's sleeping in bed. Wouldn't it have made more sense for her to leave when he was at work. At any rate, the characters in this arc were so annoying and overbearing that I hoped he would throw her off the balcony and was royally ticked when he didn't.<br /><br />Then there are the two lovebirds. A bus driver asks a woman out by harassing her while he's making his rounds. I couldn't believe it. I really couldn't believe when she agreed to go out with him even more. But, what takes the cake is that a grown man was reduced to tossing pebbles at a window and passing notes like a ten year old by a castrating mega bitch. I don't use this term lightly, but that woman only had two modes. Morose victim and psycho momma. No matter which of these two faces she showed, however, there was one constant. The bus driver wasn't going to get any. He even married her without sampling the goods--WTF! <br /><br />Then there's the family reunion scene. Here we've got the mother load which includes implied incestual taboos, grinding for the sake of grinding, shirtless, overly musclebound, b-ball, plus the great taste of Maya Angelou. When those babes dragged their butts outside and called a meeting, was I wrong to wish that the oldest of them was claimed by a heart attack. All this crap is going on at the reunion, in laughably easy to separate groups, and then they ring a bell. When they do, everyone drops what they're doing and heads on over for a stern talking too, just like a pack of Pavlov's doggies--WTF!! <br /><br />Then you have the final five minutes of the film. In it we see the abusive fiancé get manhandled by his longtime victim and all around bad actress. There is an impromptu wedding where Black people are dressed like angels and are hanging from the ceiling--WTF!!! The only reason to watch it this far, besides testing your threshold for pain, is the hope that the second villain of this story gets her ass handed to her as well. Guess what, it doesn't happen. Instead, Perry takes the testicularly challenged way out and plays it safe, ending the movie on a tone of forgiveness--WTF!! <br /><br />I'm pretty sure that, if given a day , I could probably write a doctoral dissertation on all the ways this movie sucks. Don't even get me started on the rest of Tyler Perry's films. I'm just going to say this. In my opinion, as a Black guy, D.W. Griffith's legacy lives on. The irony is that it is doing so through a Black man who will be praised for doing what Birth of a Nation did, selling us down the river. I only wish Perry's films were dudes so I could kick them in the nuts. Thanks a lot, dude!! What are you going to follow this up with in 2009, a comedy about the raping and savage beating of slaves in Colonial America?

I can see the guys doing the budget preparation for this flick. "Well lets see now, we spend 50% getting Dirk Benidict, cause Battle Star Galactic and the A-Team were cool. The we spend 40% making a Demon Costume, never mind that the Demon is supposed to be incorporeal in the script. And we spend the rest making the movie." This was pretty bad and VERY cliche.... Have a loved one present when watching (or bring a good book)

Not only was this the most expensive Canadian film ever shot in BC, but easily the worst, never seeing the light of day. The director is not even Canadian, but British, and boy does it show. We are all made out to be a bunch of over-sexed dope fiends and morons. The spirit of what it means to be Canadian is absent, and this is supposed to be the reason we fund this bunk. Of course the British character is normal. The rest are a crop of sitcom stereotype - can you say "Norm!!"? The cinematography ranges from pretty postcard images to murky indoor silhouettes. The actors always seem to be fidgetting. Are they as bored as the viewer, or is this the directors idea of cinema? Avoid this mess and check out some of Bruce Mcdonalds films. A true Canadian boy with something original to say cinematically. You won't be compelled to walk out on HIS films after 10 minutes.

I thought this movie seemed like a case study in how not to make a movie for the most part. Since I am a filmmaker, I give it a 2 for consistency.<br /><br />The problems remain from beginning to end with the plot being extremely predictable using bits and pieces of most, if not all, previous successful war stories. The computer generated graphics were too much like viewing a video game at points and there seemed to be no attempt by the director to add some realistic quality to the story. I was interested in the budget to get an idea of what he had to work with, but did not find that information.<br /><br />It seemed like this project pushed the limits of a low budget movie too far resulting in a production that drags the viewer along with the story without their imagination being engaged. The actors weren't bad, but the plot needs more innovation.

A gritty presentation of the decay of family values and human dignity in the wake of Soviet communism, Vasili Pichul's 1988 film Little Vera is a landmark film of modern Russian cinema. Pichul's brutal drama marks a strong departure from the images of sanitized idealism promoted in Soviet times (as in Aleksandrov's Circus), brashly moving the social chaos of his time into the public spotlight. A contemporary Ukrainian setting further intensifies the effect, first by the immediacy of the film to its time period, second by its utilization of a locale not only struggling for identity in lieu of a Soviet system, but also as a nation distinct from the Russian idiom that had dominated the U.S.S.R.<br /><br />Vera, the film's title character and protagonist, is a rebellious adolescent girl with a "dysfunctional" family including a hard-drinking father and a mother care-worn. Rejecting her would-be beau Andrei, Vera begins a destructive (and primarily sexual) relationship with a college student named Sergei. Despite her parents' dislike for the lazy Sergei, and despite Sergei's rude contempt for her parents, he moves into their cramped apartment. Tensions escalate until Vera's father drunkenly stabs Sergei. Vera must decide if she will stay loyal to her intolerable family by testifying her father acted in self-defense, or continue to support and defend the ever-detached Sergei. <br /><br />Unbearable in almost every imaginable way, Little Vera masterfully captures and communicates the inescapable void left in social life after the collapse of communism. The sexual aggressiveness of the film (it was the first film to show explicit sex) combined with the unrelenting presentation of social reality (a marked distinction from the socialist realism demanded by Stalin) effectively confronted the conditions of former-Soviet life. Most interesting, however, was public reception. While many wrote hate mail to the director and star, the film was wildly popular. Here the double-edged nature of "film as social criticism" emerges: if done correctly, the film will make the audience uncomfortable. Because no easy solution presents itself, some viewers will hate the film and filmmakers for "bringing up" the issue. Many films come to mind as somewhat comparable in this regard: Larry Clark's Kids, Harmony Korine's Gummo, even popular movie's such as John Hughes' Breakfast Club. <br /><br />I recommend this film to those viewers for whom the prospect of nearly two hours excruciating domestic conflict and social miasma is not overly daunting. The film is absolutely beautiful, and incredibly challenging. Despite the difficulties of watching the film, some moments within it are profoundly beautiful. Of course, the socio-historic and cultural significance of the film cannot be overlooked, and in fact operate as an even more assertive reason for watching this film.

This movie embodies the soul of modern "elite" foodculture, even though the movie is 17 years old. The standing principle in the movie is: Food is more than just nourishing matter. It is also a powerful symbol and a medium for culture itself. The main characters literally get drunk on the finest wine and food, become inspired by idealistic thoughts and culture, as they let go of their puritanism and passion-denying table manners. Karen Blixens shortstory makes use of the difference between North Europe and South Europe, to point out their inherently different approaches to food. As the strict and and rather dull scandinavians get infused with "Eros" from south, the party gets going. So what are you waiting for? Go watch it.....again!

In 1943, a group of RAF Officers, including Eric Wiiliams, decide to escape from a POW camp using a Gymnastic Vaulting Horse in the courtyard. In 1950, it was decided to film his account, and it kick-started a peculiar British Film Genre- the Military Prison Camp story that reached its apogee in Danger Within (1959).<br /><br />The Wooden Horse is one of the quietest films I have ever watched. There are no great dramatic moments, but a steady storyline eventually builds to a climax that has more tension because the story doesn't give way for unlikely drama, jump cuts or jacked up (somethings about to happen!) music. It is utterly of its time and works beautifully.<br /><br />Leo Glenn, Anthony Steel and David Tomlinson lead a curiously low key cast of extras and (I suspect) non-actors. Without exception, all are constantly mono-tonal and quiet. They keep emotion out of their roles. As so many were, until recently, ex-service, I suspect they recreated their war time roles as 'Officers and Gentlemen'.<br /><br />This unemotional approach does not detract from any dramatic tension. On the contrary, unlike most Wartime Escape Films, the story doesn't end at the barbed wire: and that fact alone keeps me glued to the end.

i don't really know where to start here.just imagine a movie that is so bad in every way from the acting to the props to the story that it makes you angry. This is one of the worst movies that i have ever seen and that is saying a lot because i have seen some bad ones. when i saw this movie i knew it was a blade knock off, but i thought that hey its got kung fu and vampires, a combination that i thought could not fail. That is until i popped this into my DVD player. How Ron hall managed to mess up something as cool as vampires and martial arts is beyond me. first the acting. i didn't expect to much here to begin with because its an action movie and a B one at that, but the acting here is so bad i couldn't help but be bothered by it. expressions and vocal tones were way out of place, there was absolutely no emotion in almost the entire film and when there was it was so laughable it thought i was watching Mad TV.for example that girly man scream Derek lets out when he has to kill master kao who should have never been born in the first place. all in all I've seen better acting at elementary school plays.then there is the action. not even sub par compared to the things that have been done in action cinema as of late. but still the action was not a total let down as Ron hall does seem to posses some martial arts skills. but even the skill he does have is over shadowed by the stupid things he does, for instance the part of the movie where he starts spinning and then the camera changes. i almost ripped a pillow in half.and the fight scene where his prison buddy fights off vampires by swinging his arms at them. WOW.OR how about the part in the jail where Derek all of a sudden knows magic and can preform chants that make tap water holy water. and as far as the props go. the guns look like walmart toys, the teeth were stolen from Halloween costumes, and words cant describe how bad the CG graphics are. i could go on for hours about all the things wrong with this movie and trust me this is just the tip of the iceberg. its only getting a 2 because it made me laugh. even though i was laughing at how badly the movie was done, a laugh is a laugh. i would say steer clear of vampire assassin unless you want to laugh at a horrible movie or are planning on getting tortured for long periods of time and want to practice

This movie surprised me. Some things were "clicheish" and some technological elements reminded me of the movie "Enemy of the State" starring Will Smith. But for the most part very entertaining- good mix with Jamie Foxx and comedian Mike Epps and the 2 wannabe thugs Julio and Ramundo (providing some comic relief). This is a movie you can watch over again-say... some Wednesday night when nothing else is on. I gave it a 9 for entertainment value.

The jazz soundtrack makes this seem like a Clint Eastwood movie.<br /><br />In fact the whole thing strikes me as Burt doing Clint. The story is good and the movie is full of one liners that I carry with me to this day. (Reynolds to bad guy: I'm gonna pull the chain on you pal, because you're f'n up my town. And you wanna know the worst part? You're from outta state!)<br /><br />Highlights: The Technics 1500B reel to reel is nice set dressing for audiophiles!<br /><br />Charles Durning coming unglued while listening to wiretap tapes of prostitutes having (sort of) phone sex. (You'd have to see it, trust me, it's hilarious.)<br /><br />Brian Keith plays against type as a tough guy. (And does it well!)<br /><br />Bernie Casie's preoccupation with Zen.<br /><br />Rachel Ward. WOW! (Where'd she go?)<br /><br />Doc Severinsen and the Tonight Show band play their rears off as usual. (Joe William's guests on vocals. Manhattan Transfer re-recorded "Route 66".) The soundtrack lends class to the whole affair.<br /><br />Need I say more? It might be Reynold's best film ever. <br /><br />(Yeah, he plays himself, as usual, but it works!)<br /><br />Enjoy!

Seriously, I'm all for gooey romantic comedies and will get sucked into Miss Congeniality as easily as Goodfellas...but this movie? It doesn't make any sense!!!! And I'm not even talking about the willing suspension of disbelief kind of not making sense. Why does her family live in England? Or, at the very least, why doesn't she have a British accent? She's sure cozy with her dad and he's surprisingly forgiving of her not being around for the last two years. (On that subject, no one ever makes much of a deal about her being away for so long). And what was with the goofy outfits at the bachelorette party? I'm not even going to get into the fact that the escort she paid for falls in love with her--that could've been overcome by better movie-making. I'm just saying that the characters, the setting, and the plot aren't fleshed out enough to make an even somewhat cohesive story. Oh, and the worst part, in my opinion, is the filmmaker's consistent use of the most unflattering angles on Deborah Messing's nose--I'd have sued the filmmakers if I were her! I mean, honestly, I'm all for women being who they are, but why, in seven loyal years of Will and Grace viewing, have I not ever noticed how incredibly odd her nose is? Oh! Because those producers are kind to her! This movie, like my other least favorite movie ever, Armageddon, is the fault of the filmmakers, not the actors. I can see both Messing and McDermott in these roles with a better writer, director, and producer.<br /><br />This easily gets my vote as one of the worst movies I've ever wasted time on. I'm just glad a friend loaned me her DVD, so all I wasted was time. If there were a way to make this review ZERO stars, I'd do it.

I've seen this film in avant-premiere at Imagina Festival in Monaco.<br /><br />I saw the first trailer four years ago, and from this moment, I was waiting to see the final result. I haven't been disappointed.<br /><br />It is a full 3d movie with a high contrasted black and white render. Clearly inspired by some comic books, such as the ones from F. Miller. In this optic, it goes one step further than the excellent "Sin City" adaptation from R. Rodriguez. This time, (almost) no Grey or any middle color, but a graphic style never seen before in a realistic animated film.(can't wait for scanner darkly)<br /><br />The massive use of Motion Capture gives a lot of life and credibility to the characters and we forget really soon the technical aspect to concentrate on more classic elements, such as direction or plot. The direction stays sober and controlled despite the infinite possibilities of the medium, and that is a really good surprise.<br /><br />The futuristic story (Paris 2053) makes it a classic sci-fiction movie and maintain the viewer interested till the end. Despite a classic base plot (an investigation that goes far beyond initial expectations)the atmosphere and some interesting recurring themes (genetics, absolute power of certain firms...)gives this movie a great interest.<br /><br />Despite it is an animated film, this one is obviously not made for children. You won't find here any funny pet or any stupid family moral, only the cold reality. It is far closer to a good film noir.<br /><br />I found that the setting is one of the best aspect of the film: we still feel the well known Paris, but it is morphed by a fine touch of futurism.<br /><br />Nevertheless, I regret a few mistakes. The montage is sometimes a bit flat, one or two very cliché slow motion effects and some poor dialogs. Even though the technical is excellent, it shows its limits in some romantic sequences (a bit like "final fantasy" did). Those little things makes it a 7/10.<br /><br />Altogether, it is a successful artistic challenge that you have to watch if you can. The director, Christian Volckman, knows how not to fall into potential traps (luckyly, they didn't ask John Woo to do the job!).<br /><br />To conclude, it is a film with blasting visuals, an intelligent story and a wonderful art direction. Watch it if you can!<br /><br />Please excuse me for the spelling mistakes.

You know how everyone jokes about the acting in porno movies? Well if you've always found the plot line of a porn to captivate your interest, then this movie is for you. It truly was like a porn without the sex. Or if that analogy is not to your liking, imagine you and your drunk roommate found a movie camera abandoned on a park bench. This is the movie that you would make. -Horrible acting -bad camera work -Music done on a casio keyboard This movie has it all, and more. For those who are masochists in the crowd, this is a premiere piece for your collection. <br /><br />All I can figure is that the only people to submit reviews for this dripping pile of movie, were people who 'starred' in it. <br /><br />Their movie career is over before it started.

For the sake of propaganda during World War II, Sherlock Holmes was moved into the then-present. One of the results is "Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon," starring a top Holmes, Basil Rathbone, along with Nigel Bruce, Lionel Atwill, Dennis Hoey and Kaaren Verne. It is Holmes' assignment to deliver a scientist, Dr. Franz Tobel (William Post Jr.) and his weapon design to the British government before the Germans can get him. Once the man reaches England, however, his troubles are just beginning. Can Holmes decode the message Dr. Tobel left before falling into the hands of the vicious Moriarity, save the weapon and possibly the scientist too? This is an effective Holmes story, set in the atmosphere of Switzerland and blackout England. The series worked just fine in the present day. It was not without its problems, but those problems had nothing to do with the time period. Whose idea was it to make Watson an idiot? Nigel Bruce's characterization - aided and abetted by the scripts - has always been the false note. I much prefer the characterization of Edward Hardwicke in the Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes series - there, he's attractive, intelligent and a believable companion for Holmes. In the Rathbone series, Holmes is often condescending and treats Watson like the bumbling fool that he is. However, in this particular film, Watson has a chance to be quite helpful in several parts.<br /><br />I admit to being a complete sap for Rathbone's recitation from Richard II - "...this blessed plot, this earth, this England" - I can't imagine how much it meant to the Brits watching the film in 1942. Sherlock Holmes really served his purpose.

Homeward Bound is a beautiful film. Y'know the part where Shadow falls down the ditch... thingy, I *cried*, considering I was only six, I cried! it takes a lot to make me cry! The dogs and the cat are excellently trained. A nice family movie, *not* for completely hardened non-fluffy people or animal-haters but could for soft-as-crap a.k.a. people like me.<br /><br />A good film overall, 10/10!

Arthur is middle aged rich 'kid' who drinks like a fish. Arthur does what he feels like and says whatever comes into his mind. He likes to boast about his riches and knows that he is a spoiled brat. He spends money on people he don't know and finds everything funny. Arthur must marry a high class girl to inherit a big fortune but he falls in love with a poor waitress Liza Minnelli (she looks really weird).<br /><br />This is a damn funny film. I watched this film because a very famous Indian film 'Sharabee' is based on the character of Arthur. Although 'Sharabee' is definitely inspired by 'Arthur' I think they are two different films. 'Arthur' is just fun. Its very corny at times. There are so many fantastic one liners in the film. Its not a laugh riot but it has some fantastic moments. My favorite scene is when Arthur meets his fiancé's father and he keeps talking about the 'moose'. Duddley Moore sure has some comic timing. He is very good with words and body language. I loved the scene where he talks standing to a seated couple in the hotel about a 'small' country and he keeps talking to husband and wife in two different directions. John Gielgud got an Oscar for this film. I don't know that actor. I don't think he did a great job but may be if I watched more of his work I may agree in future. Movie has some flat patches but not very long ones. looking forward to watch the sequel.

A small pleasure in life is walking down the old movies aisle at the rental store, and picking stuff just because I haven't seen it. A large pleasure is occasionally taking that movie home and finding a small treasure like this playing on my screen.<br /><br />Long before Elia Kazan turned himself into a brand cranking out only notable movies (not good ones), he made this better than average drama. Watching it you begin to notice how many decent, good or nicely observed scenes have accumulated. Contrast that with his later films where the drama is writ large... preferably large, and unsubtle, and scandalous. Kazan was eventually more of a calculating promoter than a director. (um. No thanks) <br /><br />His future excesses are hinted at here only in the plot. The plague is coming! But here's an atypical Richard Widmark playing a family man in 1951 and avoiding most of the excesses of that trope; here's an almost watchable Barabra bel Geddes, with her bathos turned way down (well, for her); they're a couple and they share some nicely-written scenes about big crises and smaller ones. Here's an expertly directed comic interrogation with a chatty ships-crew; here's a beautiful moment as a chase begins at an angular warehouse and a flock of birds shoots overhead punctuating the moment. These are the small-scale successes a movie can offer in which a viewer can actually recognize life; something Hollywood, in its greed, now studiously avoids. These are the moments that make me go to the movies and enjoy them. It's a personable, human-scaled film, not the grotesque, overscaled production that he and others (David Lean) will later popularize, whose legacy is still felt in crap as varied as Pirates of the Caribean and Moulin Rouge.<br /><br />I just watched it twice and I'll be damned if I could tell you what Jack Palance is seeking in the final scenes, but it doesn't seem that important to me as a viewer. This reminds me of both No Way Out a Poitier noir with Widmark as the villain, and Naked City, which you should really get your hands on.

This movie was horrible. If it had never been made the world would be a better place. Come on, a flying wagon? What were they thinking? This was a sub-par movie with a horrible hook, and I would like a written apology from the studio that produced this, along with some cookies to help repay me for the time I wasted on this crap fest that I can never get back. If you payed to see this movie, I am truly sorry because I watched it on TV on a Sunday afternoon when I had nothing better to do and it pretty much ruined my whole week. A flying freaking WAGON?!?! And that's supposed to make up for having a horrible mother who cares more about her own screwed up needs than her children? No wonder they don't have enough sense to tell someone he is beating them, their mother teaches them nothing but that what she wants comes before everything else. Absolutely horrible.

The Truth and Reconciliation process in South Africa is a vital and probably unique human experiment. This movie does an excellent job of revealing the complexity of the task and the incredible challenges facing South Africa. I believe every one should see this movie as I think few people outside of South Africa understand its past and what is being attempted in the Truth and Reconciliation process. Almost every country has some part of its own history which is still a source of continuing hatred and bitterness. We all need to understand ways of dealing with the past. What's happening in South Africa should guide us all. I found it credible, moving and at times upsetting. There were no outstanding acting performances but this added to the strength of the narrative. Once again the BBC has been instrumental in taking a complex topic and turning out a top class movie.

It's hard to tell if this ham-brained B-movie adventure is a spoof, a homage or just plain bungled, but it doesn't work whichever way you look at it. Based on Michael Crichton's so-so novel, it's a nutty mixture of lost cities, giant hippos, monster monkeys, naff visual effects and corny dialogue. The first thing that scuppers this tosh is the gorilla that can communicate in sign language, and needless to say the film doesn't get any better from that point on. Making all this old rope somewhat worthwhile are Tim Curry, turning in a feverish slice of ham and sporting a bizarre accent that defies identification, and Ernie Hudson, who also seems to know that this is all a load of old rubbish.

I give "Flashdance" a lowest rating of 1 out of 10 because it's nothing more than a series of music videos with a movie short surrounding the music videos, in order to clock in as a feature length film. Since when does that count as film? Jennifer Beals plays Alex Owens, an aspiring 18-year-old dancer, who, incomprehensibly, has a job as a welder in a Pittsburgh steel factory. Not a line of work most older women find their way into, much less 18-year-olds fresh out of high school. Meanwhile, at night she works as an exotic dancer, who never actually takes off her clothes, in a greasy spoon bar called Mawby's. Yet looking at the well choreographed and well polished dance routines the girls do every night at Mawby's, you would think they were working at the best casino on the Las Vegas Strip.<br /><br />Alex ends up having a predictable romance with her boss, Nick Hurley (Michael Nouri), who is about twice her age. After resisting Nick's advances, because going out with the boss isn't a good idea, she wastes no time in going all the way with him after their first date. Alex and Nick make no effort to hide their relationship on the job, which makes no sense given how it is likely to look to Alex's co-workers.<br /><br />When Beals isn't being doubled for the many dance sequences in the movie, her character spends most her time throwing temper tantrums. Alex's dream is to get an invitation only audition at the prestigious Pittsburgh Conservatory of Dance. Inexplicably, when her boss/boyfriend helps her get the audition she's been dreaming of, she's throws one her tantrums. She angrily tells Nick she isn't doing the audition because of his intervention, and then gets out of his car in the middle of a busy tunnel. This is just one scene that leaves you wondering what the hell the makers were thinking when they were making this.<br /><br />Of course, Alex does eventually get her audition at the Conservatory. She puts on a dance routine before the Conservatory board that is so ridiculous that you would think it was in a movie marketed to the MTV generation. Oh yeah, it is a dance routine in a movie marketed to the MTV generation.<br /><br />I don't think I can judge whether or not Beals can actually act well on the basis of what I saw in "Flashdance". This is because the character she is forced to play is so poorly written, that I don't think it is a fair litmus test of her acting abilities.<br /><br />You have to hand it to the makers of "Flashdance" though. This movie is proof that the poorest film making can be covered up by a slick marketing campaign. In this case a best selling and award winning soundtrack and music videos for said soundtrack in heavy rotation on MTV. If they had devoted more of their energy to the writing of the script, then they might have been able to come up with a plot and a story with characters that I cared about. Instead what we get are stock characters put in ridiculous scenes any viewer with a functioning brain can't take seriously. A truly forgettable "film".

I personally hated this movie because it was predictable, the characters were stereotypical ,and the whole idea was a rip off of "The Cutting Edge", and "Cadet Kelly". <br /><br />The main character is a snotty girl who gets shipped of to a place where she doesn't belong. The whole place hates her, and to make things worse there is a hot guy that seemingly doesn't like her ( well duh the whole damn school can't stand you). Amazingly she finds a way to fit in and make everyone to like her plus, gets the guy to fall head over heels in love with her. Then comes the choice, where she must choose between figure skating and hockey. She chooses hockey then she goes to the figure skating nationals,and gets to be on the Olympic team. No real surprise there.<br /><br />This whole movie was so damn predictable You knew what was going to happen before you even saw it. This was so awful I nearly puked, and by the time I was finished watching it, I had an awful headache and the urge to shoot myself for watching such crap. Don't watch this unless you are under ten, or actually like crappy tween movies.

Batman Returns is a really dark movie, that shows the Caped Crusader fighting against the Penguin and the sexy Catwoman (I'll get to them later). Michael Keaton acts well as Bruce Wayne, showing he is a good actor. Tim BUrton directs this picture well, and the locations of the movie are impressive. The villains: Danny deVito is menacing as the Penguin. A cruel, yet disturbed man, that had a really hard childhood. But, Michelle Pfeiffer steals the picture. She is the BEST Catwoman ever! She is threatening, and extremely sexy. There's a scene where she kisses Batman the cat way that just heats the movie up. The action scenes are good too, and the ending is dramatic and tragic, probably the best ending of a Batman movie. Tim Burton shows he can manage a Batman movie really well (he already demonstrated this with the first Batman) and also gives Batman a darker nature. So much like him.

IT IS A PIECE OF CRAP! not funny at all. during the whole movie nothing ever happens. i almost fell asleep, which in my case happens only if a movie is rally bad. (that is why it didn't get 1 (awful) out of 10 but 2).don't be fooled, like i was, by first review. a waste of money and your time! spend it on other stuff. at this point i'm finished with my review but i have to fill in at least ten lines of text so i will go on.... (ctrl+c, ctrl+v) :))) IT IS A PIECE OF CRAP! not funny at all. during the whole movie nothing ever happens. i almost fell asleep, which in my case happens only if a movie is rally bad. (that is why it didn't get 1 (awful) out of 10 but 2).don't be fooled, like i was, by first review. a waste of money and your time! spend it on other stuff. IT IS A PIECE OF CRAP! not funny at all. during the whole movie nothing ever happens. i almost fell asleep, which in my case happens only if a movie is rally bad. (that is why it didn't get 1 (awful) out of 10 but 2).don't be fooled, like i was, by first review. a waste of money and your time! spend it on other stuff.

Actor Herman José plays the role of a football of a soccer entrepreneur that acquires the pass of two African players and tries to sell them for very little money to the rival club of the Benfica (club of its heart),FC Porto, therefore these players did not play well, and it wanted that the FC Port was wronged with this. But what happens is that these two players after all are good and FC Porto sell them for much money to a foreign club, making a good business. The film, for a small country as Portugal, without great antecedents in great films, is a very good and funny comedy, showing all the rivalry that exists between North/South of Portugal (FC Porto/Benfica). Highly recommended

When I first saw this I thought it was a joke. All I could think was "You get the 8MM camera, I'll get my little brother's monster toys, we'll make a movie!" Why would anyone in a modern time like 2001 make a sci-fi movie like this, it looks like it was made in the early 80's. With actors that are as wooden as a cigar store indian, a script that was written by the director's 4-year-old son, a camera that was stolen from a burning pawn shop, poverty-row special effects, and to top it off, a director that thought making this crap would make them famous. The end result wasn't spectacular, complete with scrappy dialogue and continuity. From Venus must have been fun to make and I'm sure everyone involved had a blast with their silly little movie.<br /><br />A 2 out of 10 for a valiant, hopeless effort.<br /><br />

I believe John Houston's "The Dead" is a true classic. Not only was it Houston's final film, he is quoted as saying "all I know about film making is in this film." The story, closely adapted from "Dubliners" by James Joyce, is a great ensemble piece featuring sterling performances by Angelica Houston, John's daughter, and a cast of English and Irish actors who bring the story to life. This is a film that should be part of any serious collection, not only because it is visually elegant, but because the story is timeless and very appealing. The film is not hurried, nor is it charged with action. Rather, the story unfolds from within the characters, who bring light and meaning to the dialog. The end of the film is stunning, poetic, and haunting. I recommend "The Dead" without reservation as one of the finest films ever made.

This sequel is quite awful to be honest. I'm a fan of kung-fu movies and this is by far the worst I've seen. Bride with White Hair 1 was actually quite good and this is a huge disappointment. BWWH 1 was brilliant in some ways with an unique odd-ball evil bad guy.<br /><br />The couple from the first movie played a small role in this movie. Instead the movie revolves around a bunch of uninteresting characters trying to seek revenge on their fallen clans. But there's no antagonist in this movie so the revenge is mute.<br /><br />The worst part to this movie is the kung-fu or lack there of. They literally had a street style knife fight. The character at the end refused to fight because there was lack of choreography.

I have read each and every one of Baroness Orczy's Scarlet Pimpernel books. Counting this one, I have seen 3 pimpernel movies. The one with Jane Seymour and Anthony Andrews i preferred greatly to this. It goes out of its way for violence and action, occasionally completely violating the spirit of the book. I don't expect movies to stick directly to plots, i gave up being that idealistic long ago, but if an excellent movie of a book has already been made, don't remake it with a tv movie that includes excellent actors and nice costumes, but a barely decent script. Sticking with the 80's version....Rahne

This is one of those movies where I was rooting for whoever could end the movie the quickest. I wanted to see the cops kill Keaton AND Garcia just to get it over with. Basically, this is the deal--Two cops have to die and a third has to get horrible burns on his face for Garcia's son to get a bone marrow transplant from convicted killer Keaton. Is it worth it? No!

The story is very trustworthy and powerful. The technical side of the movie is quite fine.. even the directing of it. The main problem is with the castings, that turned that movie into almost another local and regular cliché with a great lack of impact and even greater lack of impression. Beside the small role of the father, Rafael (played impressively by Asi Dayan), all other actors were unfortunately not in their best. The role of the elder Blind girl, played by Taly Sharon, was fresh but without any intensity as the leading role. therefore the figure she acted had become mild and low profile. There were moments and episodes that looked more like a rehearsal then a real movie. But after all it's a good point to begin from and to make big improvements in the future.

This movie has to be one of the most boring and stupid movies that Perrugorria have done. <br /><br />It looks like a commercial from beginning to end. The ¨director¨spent the whole time on a tripod, it doesn't have pace, rhythm. It's illogical. what a mess. You can tell what's gonna happen since the first 15 minutes, and the ending...Wow<br /><br />------spoiler-------<br /><br />Jesus Christ, how the hell Perrugorria got shot? Are you serious? Worst scene of someone getting shot ever!<br /><br />------end of spoiler-----<br /><br />Bad directing, bad script, bad acting...Really bad overall. I wouldn't recommend this movie at all. It's a waste of money and time.

This movie is a horrible distortion of lies and exaggerations that were put together by the most shameless lunatics to ever work on a TV movie. The story is wrong and a complete lie. There is nothing in this movie that accurately portrays Senator McCarthy. It's just a horrible scam and it amazes me that anyone associated with this production ever got another job in the industry. The marxist-leninists who wrote this trash did so in order to attack a man who has been vindicated by history and their fear that anyone would dare to destroy communism. Unfortunately for these communist nut jobs, Ronald Reagan took over where McCarthy left off and they couldn't stop him, thus the end of the Soviet Union and its' cohorts.<br /><br />Never, ever watch this film if you're looking for truth regarding Sen. McCarthy. Read Ann Coulter's book, "Treason" for a better look at the truth about Sen. McCarthy.<br /><br />It will also help if you read about what really happened to Senator McCarthy by reading http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1996/vo12no18/vo12no18_mccarthy.htm

Flatliners has all the ingredients of a good Joel Schumacher film - intelligent, youthful characters, stunning cinematography, a gripping story, and excellent performances. It's escapist fun but it's done very well and resonates with a positive spiritual message despite the unnerving precedings.<br /><br />Schumacher has a knack for spotting talented young actors, and all of the main five here have gone on to greater things (see the cast list). Their believable performances help to raise this movie well above average. Kiefer Sutherland shines in his egotistical med-student role.<br /><br />The cinematography really stimulates the right side of the brain, which is what I love about Schumacher; his use of light and location create images that stick. A disturbing nightmarish atmosphere is created which unsettles you while you watch the film and haunts you when you go to bed - reminded me of The Lost Boys.<br /><br />This is a film that takes an awesome premise - curious students want to find out what's after death, and successfully follows it through into a scary, gripping tale of redemption. One of Schumacher's best; highly recommended.

I never dreamed when I started watching this DVD that I would be totally mesmerized by it within minutes. The story was completely absorbing and entertaining. The acting was superb. The biggest surprise of all was how I would be so completely enchanted by the love these two young women radiated across the screen. Their initial physical encounter for me was by far the most tender, romantic, delightful, vicariously enthralling love scenes I have ever witnessed on film. I literally stopped breathing. I could not believe the chemistry between the two actresses. With no nudity or graphic sex, they conveyed more passion and titillation than any American production could ever hope to evince. Bravo to the author, the screenwriter, the director and the cast.

At least with the teenage geek gets the girl films, the guy is usually unpopular with girls. In the 40 Year Old Virgin he is replaced with a 40 year old guy who is popular with women but somehow has remained a virgin. But then you are not supposed to engage your brain with this film or did I miss the bit about him being comatose for 20 years?<br /><br />One of a series of films where 40 somethings act like teenagers and women for some reason find this a sufficiently attractive quality that they want a serious relationship with them. I find it hard to understand how a country that has produced such excellent TV comedies seems to think it has to rely on crude and shallow characters for laughs. They've done the gross out movies. They've done the let's act like all Americans have a mental age of 15. Where will they go next? <br /><br />This film is crass and crude entertainment with nothing to recommend it.

Just saw Coronado... Around here the only line they came up with to sell it is "from the FX team behind Independence Day". I think that says a great deal. No talk about writers, directors, actors...<br /><br />It's a cute little adventure story set in a banana republic in Mid America, but the storyline is thin.<br /><br />All the way through the movie I kept thinking about how much this movie looks like the cut-scenes from some action computer war game. Although the FXs are nice, they all too often are visible. Much like the cut scenes in CGs style like Command'n'Conquer.<br /><br />You almost instantly know that that particular truck, backdrop, bridge, castle, or jet fighter never existed. The look is smooth and nice, but not up to the standard we have come to expect of Action Adventures today. The movie is lacking a lot of obvious on-location filming.<br /><br />The acting, storyline is below average and the FXs are nice but not up to feature film standard. I am not surprised this thing went straight to video/DVD.<br /><br />

Full House was and still is a great show. It's a good show for people of all ages and is also a good family show. There really aren't any shows like it anymore. The kids are very cute and even though it's a bit cheesy, it's still good, especially for anyone who watched it when they were a kid. I would love to see the cast interviewed now. Anyone that would like to see interviews of the cast, kind of like a where are they now type thing for the special features of the DVD, should go to the Petition spot website and sign a petition titled Full House Reunion on DVD as there is a petition for this in hopes that the cast may want to do it. Yay for Full House!

This movie is breath-taking and mind-blowing. But I think maybe it can only be appreciated by die-hard RPG funs. It is like a game. One problem is the plot is too game-like and just has too many twists. The twists are excessive. Jude Law gives a very good performance. I really like him in this movie, just as Jerome in Gattaca and Gigglo Joe in A.I.

Jim Carrey shines in this beautiful movie. This is now one of my favorite movies. I read all about the making and I thought it was incredible how the did it. I can't wait till this comes out on DVD. I saw this in theaters so many times, I can't even count how times I've seen it.

This is an excellent documentary about Amália Rodrigues. I enjoyed it very much; it's very well put together and very informative. If you want to know who is Amália Rodrigues. I highly recommend you see this film, "The Art Of Amália Rodrigues".<br /><br />

This is another one of those movies that could have been great. The basic premise is good - immortal cat people who kill to live, etc. - sort of a variation on the vampire concept.<br /><br />The thing that makes it all fall apart is the total recklessness of the main characters. Even sociopaths know that you need to keep a low profile if you want to survive - look how long it took to catch the Unibomber, and that was because a family member figured it out.<br /><br />By contrast, the kid (and to a lesser extent, the mom) behave as though they're untouchable. The kid kills without a thought for not leaving evidence or a trail or a living witness. How these people managed to stay alive and undiscovered for a month is unbelievable, let alone decades or centuries.<br /><br />It's really a shame - this could have been so much more if it had been written plausibly, i.e., giving the main characters the level of common sense they would have needed to get by for so long.<br /><br />Other than that, not a bad showing. I loved the bit at the end where every cat in town converges on the house - every time I put out food on the porch and see our cats suddenly rush in from wherever they were before, I think of that scene.

Critters 3 starts on the open road as Clifford (John Calvin) his teenage daughter Annie (Aimee Brooks) & his young son Johnny (the IMDb list two actor's Christian & Josephh Cousins, identical twins perhaps?) are heading back home from a vacation. Suddenly the tyre on their van blows & they have to stop at a public rest area to fix it. While there Annie & Johnny meet a kid named Josh (Leonardo DiCaprio, yes that one) who in turn all run into Charlie McFadden (the films co-producer Don Keith Opper) from the previous two Critter films. Charlie tells them the story of the Critters & the town of Grovers Bend but they don't believe him. Meanwhile back at the van a Critter lays some eggs on it's underside, out of sight from everyone. Once Clifford has fixed the tyre the trio set off for their home, a run down urban tenement block in Los Angeles somewhere complete with Critter eggs along for the ride. Upon arrival the eggs hatch & the Critters head straight inside the tenement block quickly disposing of Frank (Geoffrey Blake), the caretaker. As the night draws on the few remaining residents, a fat woman named Rosalie (Diana Bellamy), a telephone repair woman Marsha (Katherine Cortez), an elderly couple Mr. (Bill Zuckert) & Mrs. Menges (Frances Bay) must come together with Clifford & his kids to fight the Critters. Josh also makes an appearance as his Stepfather (William Dennis Hunt) owns the building. But will the group be able to defeat the Critters & prevent themselves from becoming dinner?<br /><br />Directed Kristine Peterson I thought Critters 3 was an incredibly undistinguished film, but at least she can say she made a film staring Leonardo DiCaprio & not many people can say that! The budget for Critters 3 probably wasn't exactly a fortune as the whole production looks cheap throughout, there are very few characters, very few Critters & I think only 3 ever appear in the same shot at once & it does away with any sort of space angle so there are no expensive spaceship or distant alien planet special effects to pay for. The script by David J. Schow is strictly by-the-numbers & very predictable. A group of humans are stuck in an isolated situation with Critters & have no means of contacting the outside world for help, that plot scenario sounds very familiar right? Well it's same as the previous Critters (1986) & Critters 2: The Main Course (1988) & many other horror films so it should. Critters 3 does nothing with the premise, it never even tries to add anything to an already old, tired & well used storyline. Critters 3 is also very tame for a horror film with only two people actually being killed, the comedy elements are seriously lacking as well with the best joke Critters 3 can mange being a Critter eating some beans & then farting, very funny if your about 5 years old. The characters are mostly standard horror film clichés & quickly became annoying. There is virtually no blood or gore in Critters 3 at all, just a few splashes of blood & disappointingly Critters 3 in fact seems to go out of it's way not to show any violence. The special effects on the Critters are OK but they still look like static, simplistic hand-puppets that have very little movement. The acting isn't that good & Critters 3 happens to be a certain Leonardo DiCaprio's very first feature film, to be fair to the kid he's alright & I wonder if any of the other cast or crew had an idea what he go on to become. Why on Earth does that Charlie guy have to keep popping up in these Critter films? To give Critters 3 some credit it moves along at a good pace & isn't boring, it's generally well made with nice enough production values & it's a bit of harmless fun if your in the right sort of mood & thankfully it only lasts for about 80 odd minutes. Overall Critters 3 is an OK time waster but don't expect anything deep or meaningful. There's nothing really wrong with it as cheap horror film but I couldn't help feeling that I'd seen it all before. An average time-waster that isn't as good as either of the previous two Critter films. Critters 3 ends with a 'to be continued...' as this was filmed back to back with Critters 4 (1991) which unsurprisingly went straight to video, probably to save even more money. Critters 3 is a decent enough way to waste 80 odd minutes if you can watch it on T.V. for free otherwise don't bother.

Just once I'd like to see a version of Beowulf where it appears the screenwriters have at least a passing familiarity with the original poem. Yet again, after watching this Sci Fi presentation, I'm disappointed. <br /><br />I'm not suggesting the writers need to understand and analyze the poem in Old English, but I wish they could at least try to read a translation in modern English and attempt to construct a story based on what actually transpires. The story is exciting enough; why add plot elements that are non-existent and ruin the story? What's wrong with being faithful to the text? <br /><br />Grendel is immune to weapons of any kind; why introduce some super-crossbow that is unbelievable and could not have possibly existed in this time period (as correctly pointed out by the previous reviewer)? The fight with Grendel was Beowulf vs. Grendel. That's it. No one else took part in the battle. The only way Beowulf could have defeated him was by choosing specifically to engage the monster without any weapons, the mistake made by all previous challengers. Yet, in this version, Danes and Geats fight the beast and Beowulf hacks off Grendel's arm with a sword! Again, why couldn't they portray what really happened? Personally, I think a one-on-one grappling match between the two would be much more exciting. <br /><br />Overall, this is a pathetic and abysmal depiction that is faithless to the true tale. Why add in a pact with Hrothgar and Grendel's mother that includes sacrificial offering? Why create extra characters, like Finn, that add nothing to the story? There was no love story in the poem. They couldn't even set the scenes in the appropriate locations (a forest instead of the swamp and no lair under the lake). They fail to notice the metaphor that Grendel's lair signifies – it's supposed to be underground to represent hell. Why not instead center on the symbolism inherent in the epic poem? Even my high school students last year were able to do immensely better when they created a short film based on Beowulf, since they focused on the themes and symbolism underlying the story. If Hollywood could create a film that centers on these elements and is faithful to the plot, then that would be a truly great movie.

This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I didn't go in with high expectations, but as soon as it started I thought it might be o-k. It wasn't. Jim Carrey seemed to try, but he spoke all his lines as though he were some diabolic cartoon character. The other actors all seem to try their best but are kind of wooden. The plot has a good basis, but the melodramatic lines make it dull and kind of stupid. I was laughing during the whole second half of the movie, and after five minutes of that I got tired of that. Most plot 'twists' you could see from several miles off. It's just not worth watching. I really wish I hadn't wasted my time with it.

The Dentist is a really good thriller. And pretty disturbing. I think we can all agree that the chances of running into a psycho dentist are much bigger than running into monsters, vampires or zombies. That's exactly why this movie is so scary. During this film, you'll probably think about your own dentist a few times. Whether he's capable of doing such things...You better pray his wife doesn't cheat on him. That's what the story is all about. A respected dentist in LA snaps when he finds out his wife is cheating on him with the pool-boy. ( That must be the greatest profession in the world, by the way. Poolboys always take advantage of the housewives when the husband is at his work) From then on our dentist, Dr. Feinstone, can only thing about taking revenge. He can't concentrate on his patients anymore and a couple of them get hurt. Things aren't made easier for our dentist when he's chased by an annoying tax-controller, a curious cop and a suspicious staff member of his. At one point, Dr. Feinstone can't take it anymore. Now he's not only after his wife but after everyone who comes near him.. The dentist is written and directed by Brian Yuzna and co-written by Stuart Gordon. You can take that as a recommendation to itself. These 2 persons already gave us a few great horror movies ( and personal favorites of mine ) like Re-Animator, From Beyond and Society. With the Dentist, they succeed once more to bring an entertaining and very chilling thriller. This film came right on time actually. The decade hadn't brought us many great horror films so far. I'm not at all saying this IS a masterpiece, but it's a nice change. Corbin Bensen is great as the dentist obsessed by hygiene. I remember him mostly as a comedy or drama actor, but he can sure handle a psychotic character. The rest of the cast does good work too. The woman who plays Feinstone's wife is really attractive. Also, it was great to see Ken Foree acting again. The actor from my all time favorite movie Dawn of the Dead plays the cop in this film. Yuzna casted him in From Beyond too, 15 years ago and I thank him for that. I don't recommend this movie to everyone (if you have a weak stomach, I'll advise you to skip it) but if you do watch it, you'll enjoy it very much. You'll be disgusted...but that's an extra reason, I think. It's been a while since I was really freaked out by watching a film. It's a great topic to handle in the genre and Yuzna does it in a great way. Too bad this film was followed by a completely unnecessary sequel. My humble opinion on the Dentist ... 8/10

This movie had potential to be a good little high school thriller. Instead, we got a bore fest about a whiny, spoiled brat babysitting. The problem was there were too many unnecessary things. A fight with the boyfriend, random friends coming over to be killed. It was obvious they were just killing time. The main character was bland and uninteresting. Camilla Bell had no emotion during this movie. She was just there. Another problem was the fact that the killer was not a threat. The children survive, so it's obvious they are going to let Jill survive. The only reason this got a four was because the last ten minutes (when the killer FINALLY comes out) is actually exciting.<br /><br />4/10

Hooper is Not Funny, Not Fasted paced, Not romantic and Non informative. There is no real drama. You would think that a movie about the world's greatest stuntman would have some drama, there was an attempt but it didn't seem real. No Character study, no lessons learned, it did not even look like the actors were having any real fun, they were just trying to act like they were having fun. There is no reason to watch unless you like to look at Burt and want get an occasional glimpse of Sally. Prancer the horse was beautiful and did what he was supposed to do. In fact Prancer was the best actor in this movie. Smoky and the Bandit was such a fun movie that I was ready to like Hooper. This movie turned out to be a real disappointment and waste of time

The only words you need fear more than Joe Don Baker if your thinking of watching a film are Greydon Clark , and if they are both there , run for your life . However this is a very funny film because they actually take themselves seriously ! It starts out bad and goes downhill from there , repeated scenes , the Good The Bad and The Ugly like shootout will have you rolling on the floor with laughter .Yes , he's the best deputy sheriff in Texas , tracking a mafia hit-man to Malta as only he can . He makes his own rules , does things his own way , all the while wearing cowboy boots and sidearms cowboy style . You want to see a bad but funny film ? Go ahead on , its your move !

The moral of this show is that bad eating habits give people bad hair, bad taste in clothes, bad posture, bad jobs, and on and on. They are obviously miserable and loathe themselves. However, if they learn to eat broccoli, they will be wealthy, successful, and attractive. <br /><br />TLC ought to be ashamed of themselves for this blatant exploitation of parental fears and guilt. If nutrition is really that important, they should be able to develop a show using honest and truthful methods. If they really believed in their computer simulations, I'd like to see them do a double-blind test by finding some 40-year-olds, finding out what their eating and exercise habits were as children, and age-progressing the kids' photos. Then compare to the real things. Hey, that sounds like a project for Mythbusters! Discovery Channel--are you listening?<br /><br />TLC must stand for Tabloid Lies and Cons.

I watched it with my mom and we were like...<br /><br />What the hell? We didn't get it at all. I may have this wrong, but a chair had something to do with the death of this woman's father. That movie was terrible! This is not a movie for those who love a good suspense movie. Bad suspense movie! *shakes cane at movie* I'm never seeing it again. And I'm a big fan of lifetime movies, too! They kinda need to quit trying to make movies outta books. It's driving me crazy!!!<br /><br />And Whit was butt-ugly and yet, she loves him more than Hugh, who was a TINY bit nicer-looking.<br /><br />My rating: 1/10

If you are looking for a modern film version of Buster Crabbe or Johnny Weismuller's overcoming the machinations of unscrupulous, white safari guides or cunning, black tribesmen, while saving the animal kingdom, this is NOT the movie for you. This is a recounting of the Tarzan "legend" from its beginning in intelligent, adult terms. It is beautifully filmed and faithful to the Edgar Rice Burroughs stories.<br /><br />Tarzan is no action hero, but a man torn between two worlds - the natural and the civilized. In a stunning performance, Christopher Lambert portrays this angst with absolute realism. If he slips up just once the cat will be out of the bag: the audience (especially the adult audience targeted by the film) will laugh, and the film will completely lose its grip. It will plummet into the cheesy depths. But Lambert never lets that happen. (Forget what you may think of him in other movies; when I saw this film at the theater on its original release, I thought he deserved an academy award.)<br /><br />The supporting cast is uniformly excellent, as other commentators have noted. I disagree with most of them in that I didn't find anything wrong with Andie McDowell's performance. I wouldn't have nominated her for an academy award - the role is undemanding - but she is completely up to it, such as it is. I don't know why her voice was overdubbed, either.<br /><br />The cinematography of the African segment of the tale is absolutely beautiful. It captures both the beauty of the African wilderness and the exotic expectation it holds in the collective imagination of those who have never been there. The scenery is lush and exotic, and the colors are vivid.<br /><br />But this is also a "period" film, and the cinematography also magnificently depicts Victorian England - the countryside, the city and the interiors. The costumes are outstanding. The soundtrack is beautiful without being overwhelming or obtrusive.<br /><br />There are some disturbing scenes - especially for animal lovers - but no more disturbing than a few scenes in Dances with Wolves. This is an excellent film about the conflict between civilization and nature, personified in the young Lord Greystoke, convincingly portrayed by Christopher Lambert.

Basic meaning of the story is a reality. Cruel true reality. Situations are very funny. You have to laugh when you see, how people can be stupid, obstinate and crazy. The best description will be, if you watch it on your own.

The sequel that no one asked for to the movie no one wanted. There are obviously too many flaws with this movie to name here, so I'll just concentrate on the acting. Miles O'Keefe would have been better suited to play the spritely Asian sidekick Thong, mainly because he would then have no dialogue. Lisa Foster delivers her lines displaying one emotion, dullness. Charles Borremel brings life to his part by pausing every five words. And finally the flamboyant, John Saxon-type guy......no comment is needed.<br /><br />See "Conan the Barbarian" if you need to, but don't waste your time with this low-budget loser.

I didn't know if i would laugh or cry seeing this. Only addicted fans of danni filth could have a taste for this. This is supposed to be a horror movie but there's only filth in this. The most cool scene is the car accident, with real special effects from the best of hollywood. Avoid this movie at all costs. See this only for studies of how bad can be a movie................

This is a great show despite many negative user reviews. The aim of this show is to entertain you by making you laugh. Two guys compete against each other to get a girl's phone number. Simple. The fun in this show is watching the two males try to accomplish their goal. <br /><br />Some appear to hate the show for various reasons, but I think, they misunderstood this as an "educational" show on how to pick up chicks. Well it is not, it is a comedy show, and the whole point of it is to make you laugh, not teach you anything. If you didn't like the show, because it doesn't teach you anything, don't watch it. If you don't like the whole clubbing thing, don't watch it. If you don't like socializing don't watch it. This show is a comical show. If you down by watching others pick up girls, well its not making you laugh, so don't watch it. If you are so disappointed in yourself after watching this show and realizing that you don't have the ability to "pick-up" girls, there is no reason to hate the show, simply don't watch it!

What a dog of a movie. Noni Hazelhurst's performance is quite good, but it sits amidst a jungle of abhorrent scriptwriting, mediocre direction and wooden acting from the bulk of the cast. Many of the characters are woefully miscast, particularly the ever overrated Colin Friels.<br /><br />Very little works in this pretentious garbage. Much of the "character development" is done through a silly, angst-ridden voice over and frequently completely contradicts the behaviour of characters on-screen. In fact, it's hard to even figure out who the voice overs are talking about because they describe such different characters to who we see on screen! How are we meant to know Colin Friels (Javo) is meant to be an erratic, violent and unreliable junkie? One of these silly voice overs tells us. For crying out loud, the nature of his character is half the point of the movie and the only thing that lets us know is a flippin' voice over! The real killer is the characters. Everything about them. Their clothes are perfectly maintained and look fresh from the rack, despite the fact we are constantly reminded they are meant to be artsy paupers. They are all absurdly well-spoken for "junkies". None seem to have any real comprehension of life on the skids or on smack and yet this is meant to be the case with most of them.<br /><br />Monkey Grip deserves no more attention than a weekday TV movie matinée. Crud like this, perfectly well shot and technically presented, but a cliché-driven angsty drama that shoots so wide of being plausible and meanders about for hours without really going anywhere. At least Noni gets down to her birthday suit at every given opportunity. There's no other sane reason to endure this junk.

Lackawana Blues An impressive HBO movie about a beautiful woman that made her house a home for several characters.Touching,alive,entrancing-a great mix of sound and story- based on a true story featuring an All-Star cast.A time capsule about .....<br /><br />you get the point and no I am not on the payola for the HBO crew- I would throw around more superlatives but I am about to go out . The extras on the DVD include a deleted scene,a featurette and commentary.The funniest part about the featurette was "star" lighting they used when interviewing exec producer Halle Berry..<br /><br />OK seriously - good times A

I had high hopes for this movie, because I enjoyed the book so much. However, I don't think I would have understood the premise of the movie if I hadn't already read the book. The movie is a noble attempt to show the despair of people trying to break the bonds of overpowering government rule, but the book portrays the suffering much more thoroughly. The corrupt government officials have comfortable, almost luxurious lives, while the common people struggle to obtain the bare necessities for survival. Perhaps most people feel this way toward their leaders and rulers regardless of whether or not they are actually oppressed or repressed. Orwell's dystopia seems as if it could exist in many places in our modern world. It has been several years since I've read the book, but one hears references to Big Brother, the Thought Police, and Newspeak frequently in the media and casual conversation. Probably many people using these terms don't realize where the terms came from. I strongly recommend that you read the book.

I had such high hopes for this film because I loved the original so much. It seems that Disney, however, is trying to perfect the art of crappy straight-to-DVD sequels. They deserve a razzie. Several, in fact. I thought the idea had merit, but the music was absolutely awful and the story wasn't much better. What happened to the great music Disney used to have in their films. Mary Poppins, Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King...even Hercules and The Hunchback of Notre Dame. They've made so many great movies over the years that it's really sad that they've sunk to point of making sequels that aren't even good enough to put in theatres.<br /><br />I hope this movie is not an indication of things to come for the Walt Disney Corporation.

Just before dawn is an underrated horror film from the early eighties. I haven't seen it in years but it had a great impact when I watched it, quite original for its day, the only problem is that it has not been released on video or dvd for years. If you like horror I urge you to check this little gem out!!

Call me stupid, but I absolutely loved the 2001 horror movie, Valentine. It was so well-made, well-written, well-acted, well-directed, etc! Everything about it was wonderful! There were parts that were relatively routine (Lily's death), very funny (www.Bleed-Me-Dry.com), completely horrifying and creepy (Paige's death), and just plain heartbreaking (the first scene). I think the entire cast did a great job, especially the three leads: David Boreanaz, Denise Richards (both of whom I met, and got autographs from, during the filming of this movie - VERY nice people!), and Marley Shelton.<br /><br />I am very sick of people calling this movie "another Scream clone". This movie is, in no way, a Scream clone. In fact, this film runs rings around Scream. It actually makes SENSE! Scream was also NOT the only movie to feature a masked killer in it. Excuse me, but it looks like Scream was also a clone too (ahem..., Friday the 13th, Halloween, and many other scary movies also featured masked killers). I also think that the novelty of the cupid-masked killer is brilliant. It's so strange to see a sweet, cupid face doing all of these horrible things. Another novelty (the nose bleeding) makes way for a fantastic ending! The ending gives me chills every time I see it!!!!! So, even if you didn't like it the first time, watch Valentine again and give it another chance!<br /><br />PS- Keep an eye out for my new website (WWW.LOVE-HURTS.ORG)! Coming soon...

Eight teen convicts are brought to the abandoned Blackwell Hotel to clean it out as community service. They soon discover that it's the residence of a hulking psychopath (Kane) who has a thing for pulling out and collecting eyeballs. It doesn't help that the guard watching over them (Steven Vidler) has had a previous run-in with the beast four years earlier. <br /><br />A guilty pleasure of mine are slasher films. Most of them are poorly directed and acted but they still hold some appeal and entertainment value. See No Evil is a good example of this. It features atrocious writing and acting but the death scenes are pretty good and the movie proves to be entertaining. The premise sounds like a mixture between Friday the 13th, Saw 2 and Halloween: Resurrection. I really liked the idea but it didn't work out too well. It was really just a bunch of clichés and everything was predictable. Screenwriter Dan Madigan just focused on the death scenes and nothing else apparently. The death scenes themselves are pretty good and gruesome. Director Gregory Dark did a good job with them and he came up with some creative kills. <br /><br />The acting is pretty bland and unremarkable. This is because all of the characters are one dimensional and we don't know much about them. It was hard to feel for these people because they were pretty unlikable. Kane is surprisingly mediocre. I was expecting his on screen presence to be scarier but he didn't do that good of a job. A second rate Jason Voorhees, if you will. The rest of the actors are relatively unknown and this film will probably neither help nor hurt their careers. <br /><br />While the death scenes are gory, they aren't necessary scary. There's really no suspense just some gory death scenes. Because of this, the movie doesn't hold much of a repeat value. Also, if you don't like slasher films then don't waste your time with this one. It will do little to change your opinion. In the end, See No Evil is a decent slasher film but it is generic and forgettable so it's not exactly worth watching. Rating 6/10

Have I ever seen a film more shockingly inept? I can think of plenty that equal this one, but none which manage to outdo it. The cast are all horrible stereotypes lumbered with flat dialogue. I am ashamed for all of the people involved in making this. Each one wears an expression of fear not generated by the plot, but by the realisation that this project could easily nix their career. Even the many charms of Ms. Diaz don't provide an adequate reason to subject yourself to this. Avoid, it's obviously a style of film that Americans haven't really got a grasp of. Watch the final result if you must, and you'll see what I'm talking about, but DON'T say I didn't warn you...

A powerful movie that has recovered much of its meaning in this second half of 2007 after the new desperate movements of the Burmese people against their tyrants. I felt a complex mix of feelings about the people there, something like compassion and admiration at the same time, together with a bit of rage because I feel that no one, neither the countries of the world, nor themselves, is doing anything effective to end this shame. I think these feelings became directly from the movie, and that they were intended when it was made, so it is a successful movie. The desire for peace, the quest for enlightenment, the respect for life sometimes leads to subjugation. In fact it is the Buddhist Burmese culture who has left the doors wide opens to their dictators. But, how can you feel angry about these poor people?

This film was so disappointing. From the blurb that made me decide to see Phantom Love (why is it called this?)I had expected something arty and thoughtful with beautiful imagery. It did have some interesting images but these often seemed random and made no sense. In fact they seemed like they were inserted to fill in time. In the end the effect was listless.<br /><br />I believe the film was meant to be atmospheric, but it just wasn't. The lack of a coherent plot did not help matters. You might say it was mysterious, but I think it was just incoherent with no atmosphere.<br /><br />The main character seemed to be disturbed but the plot did not draw me in enough to care about her situation. Without looking at the cast list I would not have known that you see the main character as a child. The film has very little context for the time, place or character. I am not a prude but the sex scenes (there were several) seemed pointless and confused me further, I recognised Lulu but I was not sure if it was the same man, different men, a lover, her husband or was she a prostitute. It was only when I saw the credits that I discovered the hairy back was meant to belong to her lover. This film did manage to make what should have been shocking (dream sequences involving Lulu's mother) seem a bit boring.<br /><br />The nail filing actually made more sense, as it did give some indication of Lulu's emotional state. I will not fault the actors as I don't they had a lot to work on.<br /><br />I do not know if the lack of context or flow in the film was because of ineptitude or because it was pretentious but the end result was dull.<br /><br />I can't be bothered talking about it anymore.

Adapting plays into cinema is often a bad idea because they're two different mediums . Do you think it's a great idea to make ZULU into a stage play ? Imagine it where two valiant redcoats sit in a tent gasping " Blimey there's thousands of them out there " Great movie and a bad stage play <br /><br />In order for a stage play to make great cinema there's two essentials needed <br /><br />1) A fine cast that creates on screen chemistry <br /><br />2 ) Great dialogue <br /><br />On paper Cher and Chazz Palminterri would be a good casting choice but not in these roles . The story revolves around a hit-man played by Palminterri breaking into a house to kill a wife played by Cher with most of the action taking place inside the house . I was unable to take these two characters seriously though perhaps it was the fault of the script which can't decide whether it was trying to be serious or funny . Since the story is very static it's of the utmost importance that the dialogue shines and once again because of the bizarre tone of the screenplay it embarrasses more than anything else with much of the conversation revolving around sex acts . if you want to see a great translation of a stage play transferred to the silver screen give FAITHFUL a miss and watch 12 ANGRY MEN instead

When you see Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi as co-stars, you expect to find a well done horror movie, but this was actually quite different, representing as it did what I would describe as an early effort at science fiction. Karloff and Lugosi both play scientists (Rukh and Benet respectively) - competitors to an extent, until Rukh wins Benet over with a demonstration that proves his great theory. The science here was - to say the least - a bit rough around the edges (thus science fiction, with the emphasis on the fiction) but somehow Rukh harnesses some sort of ray from Andromeda that allows him to look at the earth "several thousand million years ago." In that pre historic time, a huge meteorite slammed into Africa, leaving deposits of a substance the scientists call "Radium X" - which can heal and destroy. A large portion of the movie is set rather tediously in Africa, on a search for the meteorite deposits, which Rukh eventually finds and harnesses to create a great weapon, unfortunately infecting himself with some sort of disease that makes him a great weapon as well.<br /><br />Karloff and Lugosi were both pretty good here. Lugosi pulls off a role in which he's the good guy pretty well, although I frankly found him a bit unconvincing - especially during the scenes set in Africa. The story also plodded along a bit, and while it held my attention it didn't captivate me. Given that this is really a sci-fi rather than a horror flick, and that sci-fi was in its very early stages, I suppose the movie needs to be cut a bit of slack. It was OK - nothing more, but also nothing less than that. 4/10

In a lot of ways this film defines the essence of everything I love about cinema, in terms of capturing those strange, elusive moments of unguarded truth. In other ways, it is undeniably an amateurish, unfocused result of junkies self-indulgently fooling around with a camera. Ultimately it comes out somewhere between pure brilliance and unwatchability (thankfully much more so the former than the latter). Part of me wants to reward it solely for it's absolute innovativeness and moments of pure sublimity, but at the same time I can't completely ignore the occasionally downright awful "acting" and overtly bad production values. At first the editing seems overwhelmingly sloppy and needlessly distracting (or maybe just wrongheadedly "innovative"), but after a while I got used to it, which is, in the end, the true sign of whether a film succeeds on it's own terms or not. I guess that answer basically sums up my all-around feelings for the film. That is, despite it's in-ignorable flaws, on a whole it does work very well. And, if nothing else, a film like this really shows how false and contrived the faux-documentary, shaky-cam style can sometimes be when it so obviously applied purely for effect (such as in films like the otherwise admirable Roger Dodger). Here the aesthetics are plainly derived from the necessities of the filming situation, and are not just used arbitrarily to make it look "cool".

this was a fabulous adaptation of Jane Eyre. the only problem i had with it was that i didn't like Zelah Clarke. i thought she was too old and made Jane seem much to timid. in the book Jane seemed like a much stronger character. i was really annoyed by this portrayal of her. the part where it's the morning after Rochester asks her to marry him and she runs up to him and hugs him always makes me laugh. i think they made a bad choice in casting her. but Dalton was absolutely wonderful as Rochester. he makes this version of Jane Eyre worth seeing. another thing that made this version not quite 100% was the quality of film. i know it was made in the eighties for TV. if it had been a feature film, and better quality, it would have been perfect. my main complaint however, is that Zelah Clarke was definitely too old.

Moon Child is the story of two brothers and a friend trying to make it in a futuristic, economically-unstable Japan. After a cunning disaster gone wrong, someone new enters young Sho's life, a special friend by the name of Kei. Years later they have grown rather close, and have found ways to combine both their talents into one unstoppable team. During another escapade, they encounter a new friend and his mute sister who become part of their band of friends. Before long disaster again strikes and the group falls apart. Alliances turn to enemies and their worlds are all turned upside down. Regrets and hopelessness claim some while power and success take others. Tragedy claims still others. Truths are revealed and lives are forever changed. <br /><br />And you will never see a more beautiful sunrise.<br /><br />This movie is a gripping tale of undying friendships, webs of relationships, and a team that not even death can keep apart for too long. Moon child combines sci-fi, drama, and action with the perfect cast and talent to create the most sensationally moving movie of the time, and great for most audiences. It minimizes the everyday romances and puts more emphasis on the important values we can all relate to such as friendships, loyalty, and believing in yourself. Nothing could possibly compare. I personally have never seen anything quite like it, and I don't suspect I ever will again.<br /><br />It appeals to the wider population in many ways and is a must see for all.

i was hoping this was going to be good as a fan of timothy dalton's james bond and although it wasn't his deserved '3rd bond outing' it was a laugh. Belushi brought some good humour to his part and dalton hammed it up nicely, but was probably underused. his part was liked a camped up version of jack nicholson in a few good men. the other brit in it was a bit shocking, but overal it was a laugh.

where do we go from here? that is the overriding question of this film. And make no mistake, 'mainly ETC.', the 2003 effort from director john jansen, asks far more questions than it answers, but none so poignantly or so powerfully as this one.<br /><br />much of the the film plays like a running conversation between you and your college drinking buddies, and I'm sure many of the questions raised by the main characters you'll recognize from your own evenings of drunken debauchery. however, one of the many beauties of this film is that we are rarely given an answer. Questions are raised – everything from the mundane to the profound – but jansen skillfully forces his audience to examine and answer these questions ourselves, with little to no help from the characters.<br /><br />side 1 opens with an increasingly complex and beautifully orchestrated arrangement of non-linear segments to introduce us to the main characters. We meet them on the morning of april 8, 1994 – the day kurt cobain committed suicide. And it is the death of cobain, and the journey to his wake two days later in seattle, that serve as the backdrop for the film. In exploring cobain's life, music, and death, the characters attempt - with varying degrees of success - to understand and come to terms with their own lives.<br /><br />there are some aspects of the film that are what you might expect from a low-budget indie film: the performances range from decidedly mediocre to outstanding, with the strongest performances coming from jessica scott (holly) and noel wood (daniel); some of the dialogue is admittedly a bit stiff, but never completely strays into the unreal; and there are some minor sound problems, particularly once we get on the road, that make it difficult at times to follow the action on screen.<br /><br />but despite its shortcomings, 'mainly ETC.' is a solid, deeply affecting piece of cinema. amid moments of haunting poignancy, laugh-out-loud humor, and intimate turmoil, jansen deftly weaves all of the character threads together and illuminates their own struggles while at the same time making them accessible and engaging for us. and because we can see reflections of ourselves in one or more of these characters, we can identify with the questions and issues they're struggling with, and we're able to look back and remember where we were on that day in 1994 when for many people the world changed.<br /><br />while jansen takes credit for the writing, editing, and direction of the film, kudos must be given to his photography as well. With an uncanny eye and amazing ability to capture and draw us into each of the characters' worlds, jansen managed to produce shot after shot after shot that stuck with me long after the credits rolled.<br /><br />And no review of this film would be complete without a nod to the amazing soundtrack. the music in this film is used to amazing effect; at times subtly underscoring the action, at other times taking center stage, but never getting in the way or deteriorating into kitschy music video. the soundtrack plays like the ultimate greatest hits, though i suspect that label would probably not sit very well with the director.<br /><br />the new double DVD archive edition offers some deleted scenes, trailers, music videos, and a cobain documentary. the deleted scenes offer some insight into the making of the film through alternate opening and closing sequences, and it's certainly a treat to have the rare and beautiful Raining Kind video. the cobain documentary is fine, if a bit worse for wear, and certainly more extensive documentaries are available for the hardcore fans. conspicuously absent is a director commentary, and i can't help but wonder if jansen has plans to re-release this at some point with that tasty tidbit attached.<br /><br />suffice to say that the next time you're looking for a strong piece of work from a talented filmmaker, I recommend you get on board.

THIS IS BY FAR MY MOST FAVOURITE MOVIE IN THE WORLD!!!!! I enjoyed it when I was 4 and I still enjoy it at 16!! Its an absolute masterpiece! No video collection is complete without it!!! I enjoy every second of it and not only does the film have some great special affects but its sends a great message to the youngsters of the audience which may sound sheesy but in actual fact the movie is done very COOLY in actual fact! Although Michael Jackson has been in afew movies now, people still dont see him as an actor. In reality he's the most talented actor I know! He's so talented! He's incredible!!! MOONWALKER IS A MUST SEE!!!!!!

This movie was so awful that I can't even describe it. I was amazed that I even sat through this pile of trash. I couldn't believe that a movie like this was even thought of. It was a about a serial killer that clucks like a chicken. He doesn't just cluck a couple of times, he clucks non-stop through out the whole movie. He even flaps his arms like a chicken which is even stupider than anything I have ever seen. I couldn't believe this came out in 1990. I thought it came out in the early '80's or something. Then the daughter isn't very smart either because she was protecting the geek or man chicken. The end just gets worse and is the worse ending I have ever seen. This movie is just chicken s**t. I was laughing more than I was scared and I strongly suggest going out and getting a bucket of fried chicken instead of seeing this movie.

Why would a person go back to a person, who kicks them in the teeth, not once, not twice, but over and over again.<br /><br />This film teaches us that in order to find love we must accept abuse (not just forgive it, but fully accept it). Gosh! No wonder my first relationship only lasted ten years. I obviously wasn't embracing my inner masochist.<br /><br />As Bucatinsky's writing debut, there are many wonderful aspects to this film; however, in order to justify the reunion of Eli and Tom, more character development would have been helpful. We are never acquainted with Eli's masochism, in fact, we are led to believe that he is not a masochist, although Tom's psycho-emotional sadism is highly evident.

Outlandish premise that rates low on plausibility and unfortunately also struggles feebly to raise laughs or interest. Only Hawn's well-known charm allows it to skate by on very thin ice. Goldie's gotta be a contender for an actress who's done so much in her career with very little quality material at her disposal...<br /><br />

When I first watched this, we borrowed it from our local library about a year ago and watched it about 3 times. We've just watched it again and I liked it MORE than I did the last time I'd watched it!! :) :()<br /><br />The film is mainly about two dogs called Charlie and Itchy (voiced by Dom DeLuise and I love Dom DeLuise!) . Charlie is half a gangster and half a goodie, which I like. Itchy is his sidekick. Charlie is killed by his friend (NOT) and sent to heaven. When Charlie comes back to life, it is the start of an amazing adventure.<br /><br />The five main reasons why I'm absolutely CRAZY about this film: One: I love the characters (except Carface). My favourite three are Charlie, Itchy and a little girl called Anne-Marie who comes slightly later. Two: I love the period of history in which this film is set. It is set during the prohibition in the United States. Three: The Don Bluth animation (as usual) is superb. The backgrounds are good too. Four: There is a strange excitement in this film that keeps me on the edge of my seat. Five: The songs in this are lovely. My favourite song starts with "I need Brazil, the throb, the thrill"...<br /><br />So, watch this lovely film when you can, you won't be disappointed! :) ;) :()

A by-the-numbers exorcism exercise with a disappointing non-allegiance and usage of the term 'blackwater.' The cinematography appears right out of basic cable MOW land which removes any semblance of swampy, murky atmosphere from the proceedings. In addition, there's not nearly enough gore, sex or attractive young things to satiate the majority of the film's targeted viewers. That being said, the lead actress who plays the possessed has a sexy olive-skinned presence. What else needs to be said about this non-winner? Don't rent unless you've got a thing for middle-aged adults bemoaning their past and rants with clichéd priests, shrinks, hispanic stablemen all regretting their past actions.

This game is amazing. Really, you should get it if you don't have it. Although it is ancient now it was amazing when it came out. I believe that this game will always be a classic. It's just as good a Super Mario World or so. When I was young, my friend and I would sit and play this game for hours trying to beat it which we eventually did. It's not nearly as advanced as Super Mario Galaxy, but if you are a fellow Mario fan it is essential. It's fun entertaining and challenging. Everything you could want out of a fantasy game except for good graphics, (well it did come out in 1996.) ROCK ON 4EVA MARIO LUIGI AND YOSHI!!! Nintendo is the best!

What can be said about a movie that makes two hours seem like three weeks? The hero starts out in ninjaville, Japan, goes through an identity crisis (saving a shinobi), makes a voyage to America (saving a slave named Sam) engages in a little wild west action (saving a French/japanese native american named Julie), goes hunting pirate's gold, and then heads back to Japan to fight a war. The film obviously has no clue where it's going at any point in time; I think the director modeled each scene after the last movie he'd watched. If you're going to watch this film, I suggest renting the subtitled so you and your peers can openly discuss how dumb the movie is without speaking over the movie, potentially missing another dumb plot twist.<br /><br />Movies the director was watching during the making of this movie - An American Tail, Fievel Goes West, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, The Goonies, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Kung Fu, Vampire Hunter D, The Ten Commandments.<br /><br />Notes of Interests - Most fear inspiring line of all time. About 90 minutes (or 19 days) into the movie, the lead character has just bested an American villain, and just as one heads to the vcr to end the pain the hero proclaims "Let's go back to Japan", and the agony continues for another week.

From the nepotism capitol of the world comes another junk flick in a fancy wrapper. "CQ" tells a lame, disjointed mess of a story which is little more than a bunch of silly caricatures, a babe, and straight man Davies running around trying to make a stupid sci-fi flick. I can't think of any reason anyone would want to spend time with this ridiculous attempt at film making. (D)

Yeah, I remember this one! Many years since I actually watched it. The story was entirely surreal, but nonetheless great! What anyone who rates and reviews movies ought to bear in mind is what the respective movie aims at. It's the same with "First Kid", which follows a similar pattern. Certain movies - like this one here - just aim at plain and comical nonsense. Such movies can't be rated from the point of view of a hypercritical reviewer. Of course these movies lack quality, lack a sophisticated storyline, very often lack first-class acting, but if they do fulfil their primary premise - that's okay. I don't have this movie here on my list of all-time favorites, but I still thought it was funny, had some very enjoyable sequences and made a good story. Brian Bonsall is a smart actor anyway.

I have always enjoyed the Pokemon movies. Yes, I know, all of them are very corny, mediocre in some certain areas and sure, even though they're aimed at little kids they're too adult in some fields to be able to guard them with the statement,"Hey, lighten up, it's a kids movie," but all that aside, aren't they still good pieces of entertainment? In my opinion, they are so and I enjoy them greatly. This one is just as enjoyable as the previous three, and certainly cuter. It has some really sweet and touching moments since it is the introduction of the lovable, fresh Pokemon Celebi. It's not the best Pokemon movie, but I do enjoy it more than the third installment, even though the third is not bad, and the entire series is just entertaining, harmless, popcorn family fun and should be considered nothing more, nothing less. This film has some high marks of intensity and interest, especially around the climax/ending, as do all the installments, and the characters, while a bit more lackluster than the previous three, I thought, are still likable and humorous. This films is the lowest rated and most criticized of the four feature length adaptions, and it doesn't deserve that.

This isn't a bad movie... but it's the type your girlfriend makes you watch. The story isn't bad .... it just makes the hour and a half seem so long. It's hard for me to trash this movie because I really do like the idea of it but it was just to long and thin on story... too bad. The main character never really seems to change all that much from beginning to end . I mean goes through something "life changing" and he can barely break a smile. I really thought Mac was really good. His weird quirkiness kept the movie from being a complete disaster. Maybe I just don't "get" this film. If anyone can explain it to me I'd love to be informed.

This terrible moovie is fun on many levels - the moost obvious is the lame, fake-looking bird puppet which floats around the cheap sets, without ever flapping it wings (like it was on a string, perhaps?), attacking model trains and toy cars. The "science" is asinine - a masonic atom gun?? And what's up with the enormous amounts of Brylcream in everyone's hair? I guess the 50's were the Slimeball decade! Well, this bird puppet apparently comes from "some god-forsaken anti-matter universe", and it's here to build a nest & lay eggs in New York. Seriously. That they manage to kill the puppet is almost a shame. I give it 1 hoof out of 4 - it's silly and stupid, but moore fun than Armageddon. :=8)