Datasets:

srivatsavaasista

/

textgenerator-ds-mini

like 0

A few years ago I saw this remake of the sixties classic with the Mini Coopers for the first time and I remember liking it a lot. Now, about two years later it was shown on television and I just wanted to know whether I would still like it as much as when I saw it in the cinema. Well, the answer is yes.<br /><br />The movie is about a team of robbers that will do one final job in Venice, Italy. The plan is flawless and the execution perfect. They escape and won't have to work for the rest of their lives. But there is one problem they didn't take into account: Someone within their own ranks doesn't like to split the loot, but wants to keep it all for himself, even when that means he will have to kill the rest of the crew. But all but one survive and they are out for revenge. One year later, in Los Angeles this time, the surviving team members create a smart and devious plan to steal back the gold and get their revenge on the traitor...<br /><br />The story on itself is of course not very original, since this is a remake of the original 1969 movie, but it has plenty of goodies to offer to make you forget about that. This is a typical heist / action movie but it certainly is one of the better ones in its kind. The action is very nice, the landscapes and Venice are real eye-candy, the story is OK and the special effects are stunning. Even the acting is very good, something which you'll not often see in an action movie. I must admit that I really liked what I saw and I give this movie a well deserved 7.5/10.

This film is really, really full of sex. Hot sex. I watched it (of course) on Cinemax; and I liked it of course; those virtual fantasies are played out so much in great style, and I kind of enjoyed the story line. But one must know that when a soft porn film director sets out to make another soft porn film; all he/she wants to do is film good sex scenes. And I got nice sex scenes, full of skin. Yet another reason some people call soft porn Cinemax films "Skinemax."

I've tried to like this film, really. In watching it, all I can think is, "This guy gives me the creeps, I would have gotten a restraining order". It also calls out CODEPENDENCE in capital letters. Was this really the conversation before making the movie? "Let's make a film that puts two chronically depressed, socially inept people into a relationship which deepens their isolation and encourages them to complain about how bad their lives are!" From what I've seen in life is that the last thing on earth we find attractive in a potential mate is constant self-pity. <br /><br />The mood of the movie is distinctly 80-ish; brooding and slow. Don't get me wrong, the film has its moments, just very few of them.

I researched this film a little and discovered a web site that claims it was actually an inside joke about the Post WWII Greenwich Village world of gays and lesbians. With the exception of Stewart and Novak, the warlocks and witches represented that alternative lifestyle. John Van Druten who wrote the stage play was apparently gay and very familiar with this Greenwich Village. I thought this was ironic because I first saw Bell, Book and Candle in the theater when I was in 5th or 6th grade just because my parents took me. It was hard to get me to a movie that didn't include horses, machine guns, or alien monsters and I planned on being bored. But, I remember the moment when Jimmy Stewart embraced Kim Novak on the top of the Flatiron building and flung his hat away while the camera followed it fluttering to the ground. As the glorious George Duning love theme soared, I suddenly got a sense of what it felt like to fall in love. The first stirrings of romantic/sexual love left me dazed as I left the theater. I am sure I'm not the only pre-adolescent boy who was seduced by Kim Novak's startling, direct gaze. It's ironic that a gay parable was able to jump-start heterosexual puberty in so many of us. I am in my late 50's now and re-watched the film yesterday evening and those same feelings stirred as I watched that hat touch down fifty years later . . .

"Tourist Trap" is among my favorite late 70's/early 80's horror flicks. A group of young people are heading somewhere, one pair in the car ahead, & that car has a flat, and our film opens with the young man, Woody, pushing the tire along looking for a service station. He finds a seemingly abandoned place, and yet hears voices and investigates, and ends up with a piece of pipe through his stomach for his efforts. Along comes the rest of the young folks (in a VW Thing) and they pick up Woody's girlfriend, and find this very same place, Slausen's Oasis, or some such thing..and then Mr. Slausen happens along while the girls are enjoying a dip in the stream. Of course, the VW Thing has mysteriously died at that point, so odd Mr. Slausen (Chuck Connors) offers his help. Mr. Slausen has a museum, with lots of wax figures, and he lives in the museum but behind is a big house, where he says Davey lives. And who is Davey? Why, Davey Crockett, he says...but if it were Davey Crockett, they'd all probably be safer. The girls are left alone while Slausen goes to help with fixing the car, but of course curiosity gets the better of one & she goes to investigate, and finds the house full of creepy mannequins and one rather animated one named...Davey. What follows is a rather creepy night of terror as one by one, they're taken prisoner by Davey, who says he's Slausen's brother. One girl (kidnapped earlier) is treated to a plaster facial, which results in her death when it covers up her air supply. At any rate there's somewhat of a twist to this and kind (but weird) Mr. Slausen is not exactly what he appears to be. A good, creepy late 70's horror flick, and lots of mannequins make for a very creepy atmosphere. 7 out of 10.

I have been a fan of the Carpenters for a long time, read the biography, watched the specials, and saw the Karen Carpenter Story. This movie really didn't show the real Karen Carpenter. In the movie she seems to be a shy and a pretty much of loner (except for one girl friend). The real Karen Carpenter was much different. She was outgoing and friendly. She had lots of friends, especially Olive Newton-John. The movie doesn't even show Karen's attempts for a solo album and her meeting Phil Ramone and his wife Itchy "Karen". Itchy knew the real Karen Carpenter in New York. When Karen was in New York, she did see a psychologist, but it was voluntary and once a day and then she would leave to go to her hotel room. Also, Karen was taking pills to increase her thyroid, so she could loss weight, but stop taking them because the psychologist recommended her not too. Also, the Karen's husband in the movie is named Bob Knight, but in real life was named Tom Burris. Also, Karen wasn't divorced from Tom, but only separated. Karen was to sign the divorce papers on the day she died. Also, Agnes found Karen naked in the closet unciousness, unlike in the movie where she was dressed in white. The music was very good. That was the only thing I would recommend on seeing it.

Sandra Bullock paints a believable picture as the troubled detective, though seeing her as a cynical man-eating victim-turned-persecutor requires a leap of faith (or two). The two creepy troubled kids are portrayed adequately by Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt. <br /><br />I do have quite a bit of trouble getting Ben Chaplin into the equation (same problem arose when watching 'The Truth About Cats & Dogs' (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0117979/). I mean, when you put an Englishman into an all-American movie, shouldn't there at least be a reason to put him there? Shouldn't there be some story leading up to the fact that an Englishman is serving as a detective on an American police force? Shouldn't there be some dialog pointing out and explaining that rather obvious fact? Or even some jokes about him being that English? <br /><br />He looks out of place here, as he looked out of place in 'The Truth About Cats & Dogs'. Producers really should take notice, it distracts and annoys the audience (at least me). Nothing wrong with Chaplin's acting, it's just a matter of making an actor who is 'out of place' believable and not putting him somewhere without a good reason or a storyline. <br /><br />The movie itself: well, thrillers, especially those dealing with solving a complicated crime, require some suspension of disbelief. This one's no different; actually, it requires quite a bit more effort than usual. In order to make Bullock smart enough to crack the case despite of all the pressures requiring her to let go of it, some unrealistic assumptions are being made about the evidence, and I'm sure a lot of people who watched it had a few moments of 'Come on, this is highly unlikely under the circumstances' or even 'Hey, you can't brush evidence aside like that to wrap this movie up!'. <br /><br />Like I said: reasonably entertaining and watchable. Just don't use this as required viewing for detective exams. There are no shortcuts there.

When I saw this film in the 1950s, I wanted to be a scientist too. There was something magical and useful in Science. I took a girl - friend along to see it a second time. I don't think she was as impressed as I was! This film was comical yet serious, at a time when synthetic fibres were rather new. Lessons from this film could be applied to issues relating to GM experimentation of today.

I was pretty enthusiastic about seeing this movie when it came out. Commercials for it made it look quirky and I generally like Morgan Freeman and Chris Rock, and the combination of the two seemed like an interesting idea. Sadly, I was terribly disappointed with Nurse Betty.<br /><br />Personally, I've usually found that graphic violence and comedy don't go all that well together, and the only directors that have ever combined the two successfully, in my opinion, are Tarantino and the Coens. There isn't that much violence in Nurse Betty, but what violence is in it made me feel kind of weird when I was supposed to laugh. Of course, for me, part of the problem was also that there didn't seem to be many places where I was being asked to.<br /><br />The film doesn't much work as a drama, either. Renee Zellweger's Betty, the story's protagonist, is clinically insane and impossible to relate to in any real way. I will say Zellweger acts the role quite well, and Freeman, Rock, and Greg Kinnear all do good jobs too. The problem is in the writing; Freeman is the only person that gets to play an interesting character. It's really too bad. 3/10

Before Sunrise has many remarkable things going on, almost too many to fit into one review like this, but it's suffice to say that it's one of the most observant character studies of the nineties, maybe even in all of contemporary cinema, to be observant not about love, per-say, so much as it's about a human connection. How does one fall in love at first sight? No one does, at least that's deep down the consensus that Linklater wants to show with his film. And *yet* there is the possibility of as intense a connection, of a bond that can form in those that are young and with many ideas that can be expressed articulately and with a breadth of cynicism and is somehow very tender and true at the same time. Linklater here gives us the story of Celine and Jessie, a French girl and an American boy who get off the same train heading to Vienna, and on the way there start to talking about things, at first arbitrary, then personal (Jessie seeing death for the first time in his great grandfather). Jessie persuades Celine to go along with him on a night out on the 'town', in Vienna, until his plane the next morning.<br /><br />Before Sunrise gives Jessie and Celine, in the midst of the gorgeous Vienna scenery and locales to go on and on about subjects that have a lot of importance, and in a sense is about the act of having conversations, of what it's like to watch people having one leading into another and another. Here it's often about relationships and commitments, as Jessie and Celine tell stories sometimes somewhat inconsequential, or seemingly so, and another that may tell a lot about their essential qualities. We hear confessions of desires for other loves, or what weren't really loves, of being part of a family or part of an upbringing that may or may not inform how you'll love your life, of what it means to believe or not believe in some religious form, or just to have some connection to any faith and the soul (I loved the bit about the quakers in the church), and sometimes laced with cynicism or skepticism. Jessie may be more responsible for that last part, but what's fascinating about the film is that it's never exactly cynical itself, just commenting upon cynicism that lays in the concerns of men and women at that age of their lives.<br /><br />Meanwhile, it's always great to see Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy in these roles, where they're not incessantly annoying in that 90s Generation-X mode, but are the kinds of people where if not in the central conceit of the film, which isn't a bad one at all but a necessary one, one might think to find walking along the streets of a city somewhere. The conceit is that of an old romantic picture ala Brief Encounter, only here intimacy is expressed in the central characters either between each other, where sweet asides are actually acceptable ("I have to tell you a secret", Jessie says, and then leans in for a kiss, ho-ho), or in the little moments that pop up with other people along the way. I loved the scene with the poet, where it's very cinematic a thing to suddenly find a random romantic bit player in the midst of a romantic picture with such beautiful words at his disposal, or with the palm reader and how the reactions from Jessie and Celine are that we might share, but really are seeing them do it first-hand. All the while Hawke and Delpy embody the roles interestingly- we can see how neuroses are being formed already for their adult lives- as it may lead off into the future...<br /><br />Featuring splendid cinematography and a script with an ear for natural wit and a true sense of what it means to have a moment of happiness, however self-contained, as it may lead into something more. Who's to say you can't suddenly be attached to someone, if only for less than 24 hours, and be that much more attached than a married couple? This is perhaps Linklater's thesis, but there's more to it than just that. It's a very dense film, and one that will have me calling back to it repeatedly. One scene especially, which is both cheesy and brilliant is when the two of them are talking 'on the phone' in front of each other mimicking their expositions might go to the other's friend. A+

As I watch this film, it is interesting to see how much it marginalizes Black men. The film spends its time showing how powerless the most visible Black man in it is (save for an heroic moment). For much of the film, the other Black men (and dark-skinned Black women) in the film are way in the background, barely visible.<br /><br />Vanessa Williams' character was strong and sympathetic. The viewer can easily identify and sympathize with her. There are also some fairly visible and three-dimensional support characters who are light-skinned, and some White characters of some warmth and dignity. But 99% of the Black males in this film are nothing but invisible men. Voiceless shadows in the background, of no consequence. Such a horrible flaw, but anything but unusual in the mainstream media.

Contains Major Spoilers, on the off chance you would actually care about the story line.<br /><br />OK, we have storms that destroy a city and a computer hacker who clobbers the power grid.<br /><br />Predictable schlock from the start, and if that weren't enough, the 5 second action bumps between the movie and the commercials kill what little suspense there might have been. For example: will they make it to the airport in time? Things look dim as we go to a commercial…and the action shot before the ad shows them bouncing around inside the plane! Well, I guess they're gonna make it after all…but then again, they had to because they're good guys.<br /><br />The acting wasn't any too impressive (exception and welcome relief: Randy Quaid as Tornado Tommy) , the effects were kinda lame, the bad guys got it, and the good guys came through. The real disaster of this movie was the script, especially the ending. Not only did they wrap things up happily as quickly as a soap opera given 24 hours notice of a cancellation, but they glorified the hacker as well-intentioned. So he caused a bazillion deaths…he meant well. And, of course, an uplifting final TV report about people coming together. Barf. It was everything I expected from the commercials, and I'm glad I wasted my time watching it. It will make great conversation at the lunch table tomorrow.<br /><br />Is CBS insulting us by making this? Sure…but we watched it, didn't we? Did you count many ads there were for home backup generators during this pig?<br /><br />Here's hoping for the next Plan 9 from Outer Space (which gets better with each viewing). This isn't it.<br /><br />1 star.

Before I saw this film, I read the comment of someone who wasn't very fond of it. This I must admit made me apprehensive to dedicate 1 hour and 48 minutes of my life to it, but I'm glad I did. Ryan Gosling is a fantastic actor, I especially loved the Believer. Don Cheadle was also fantastic. The film presented an interesting view on life and death. It was very touching and very sad, yet it kept me interested, which most touching stories cannot do. It is a film that reckless of whether or not you like it, you should see it. It was unique,and I don;t think that anyone will ever be able to duplicate it. All of the young actors did surprisingly well given the subject matter and the emotion that must have gone into it. I was pleasantly surprised.

This movie was recommended to me by a friend. I never saw an ad or a trailer, so I didn't know Clooney was in it and was not bothered by the fact that his role was so small. I thought the whole cast was suitable, and found the film pretty enjoyable, all in all. The opening scene, with the small crew of bandits standing at the side of the road, looking whipped and haggard, caught my attention immediately. It had a way of telling you, "don't go away; this won't be boring", and it really wasn't. It turned out to be an interesting, light-hearted comedy with enough twists and turns to keep you in your seat to the very end, but when the ending did arrive, I felt a little bit cheated....just a little bit. The events kept building up so that you expect them to continue building, but at a point that I can't define, it sort of levels out, making the ending a slight disappointment. I reckon I expected a bigger bang of a climax, but it turned out sort of low-key. If you watch the movie with that in mind and you can live without high dosages of George Clooney, you should find this flick very entertaining and well worth watching. Now I'd like to see the original (Big Deal on Madonna Street), but it's probably a rare find in the United States.

You know you're in trouble when the opening narration basically tells you who survives. It all goes downhill from there. Unnecessary, "Matrix"-influenced bullet-time camera work. Pointless cuts to video game footage. Crusty old sea captains and wacky seamen. Ravers who become skilled combatants in the blink of an eye. Even the zombies are boring.<br /><br />I was hoping for at least a "so bad it's good" zombie movie, but this one is "so bad those involved with its creation should be barred from ever making a movie again".<br /><br />

This could be well have been THE definitive film noir of all time, had not the Columbia Studios cut so much of Orson Welles's original. What we are left with is a flawed, yet brilliant film that showcases the overwhelming talent of Welles as an actor/director and Rita Hayworth as a serious dramatic talent.<br /><br />'The Lady From Shanghai' is film noir at it's most sizzling and confusing. Welles, with an uneven accent, portrays Michael O'Hara, a journeyman Irishman, who, after a fateful encounter with the seductive, dangerous Elsa Bannister (Hayworth, in a GREAT performance)finds himself virtually coerced into accepting a job as a crewman on her and her crippled husband's (Everett Sloane) yacht. Elsa, or 'Rosalie' as Michael likes to call her, plays the innocent, helpless doll very well, ensnaring O'Hara in her web. As the lovers conduct a not-so-secret affair at sea, Arthur Bannister's partner in his law firm, George Grisby (Glenn Anders)comes aboard. He is a weird, untrustworthy figure who offers Michael a unique proposal: He will get $5000 to assist Grisby in the faking of Grisby's death, so it looks murder. The plan is for Michael to get off a technicality, and run off into the sun with Elsa. But things do not go to plan.<br /><br />Hayworth delivers us one of the best femme fatales of all time in a very ambiguous portrayal. At times she seems genuinely vulnerable and child-like, at others brutal, world-weary and hard. Always she is brilliantly beautiful, whether he situation calls for her to be dripping wet in a swimsuit or dressed in black, brandishing a gun. Hayworth is beautifully photographed here, and she is a far-cry from her famous 'Gilda' role. Her then-husband Orson Welles cut off her trademark auburn locks for a dyed blonde crop (angering Columbia boss Harry Cohn). It was a terrific marketing ploy, and he change suits her changed attitude wonderfully. She is not the sympathetic femme fatale that 'Gilda' is, here- instead she is a predatory, black-hearted dame who sees murder as a very useful option.<br /><br />The Welles and Hayworth pairing came at a time when the couple were having extreme difficulties in their marriage. They would divorce after the film was made, so this is also a curiosity for providing some view into the complicated relationship. They are hateful, not romantic, lovers in this, so it's hard to gauge whether or not they had real chemistry on screen. Certainly every encounter is potent and filled with raw sexuality, with Welles as the 'fall guy' (he even admits it himself in the film!) and Rita as the double-crossing babe.<br /><br />Welles character is the typical noir 'drifter' with not much sense. As Welles voice-over proves to use, O'Hara indeed does not use his brain very much 'expect to be thinking of her (Elsa)'. Welles usually played intelligent, charismatic fellows, so his turn here as the dim-witted Michael is unusual and very interesting. Indeed, Welles was an actor of fine talent and he pulls off it well.<br /><br />Everett Sloane is suitably slimy as Hayworth's crippled husband. One wonders why he hires Michael. It is obvious that his wife is interested in him romantically, so why does he invite a 'threat' on board? One interpretation could be that Michael provides the 'service' to his wife that Bannister cannot in his crippled state. There is definitely something to that theory, with a lot of implications toward Elsa's behaviour before she met her husband (was she some sort of prostitute?)and Grisby's knowledge of Bannister's most intimate secrets being hinted at in several scenes.<br /><br />This is a jumbled, convoluted film with a plot that is ultimately flawed. We are more interested in the love triangle than the murder plot, as with most noirs. Welles provides us with many of his usual brilliant cinematic touches, including the justifiably famous 'hall of mirrors' climax. It's a terrific scene, one ending that can almost obliterate the faults earlier on in the movie and lift it into greatness. This fun house scene is visually stunning, with a Dali-like feel to the painted sets (apparently Orson painted them himself). Subtle visual imagery utilized throughout the film by Welles enhances the plot and makes this a thought-provoking experience.<br /><br />The dialogue is scorching and confusing, delivered superbly by Rita's alternately breathy low voice and helpless, high-pitched little-girl voice. Hayworth proves her acting capabilities in this one, and proves that SHE is the ultimate femme fatale of 'noir'. It's a pity (only a slight one , as Rita was a brilliant dancer) that she did so many delightful yet frothy and often forgettable musicals for Columbia in the 40's instead of darkly-themed noir like this. She was a brilliant actress when given the chance to show off her talent.<br /><br />9/10.

Loopy, but shrewd and formidable mob boss Vic (an excellent performance by Richard Dreyfuss) gets released from a mental hospital. Several of Vic's fellow criminal cohorts who include volatile henchman "Brass Balls" Ben London (a gloriously manic and over-the-top hammy portrayal by Gabriel Byrne), the smarmy Jake Parker (a perfectly smug Kyle MacLachlan), and vicious rival "Wacky" Jacky Jackson (a neat turn by Burt Reynolds) all try to bump Vic off. Meanwhile, laid-back and self-assured hit-man Mickey Holliday (nicely played with low-key confidence by Jeff Goldblum) finds himself caught in the middle of all this deadly lunacy. Writer/director Larry Bishop brings a supremely hip, quirky, and original idiosyncratic sensibility to this deliciously dark and deadpan pitch-black comedy about betrayal, loyalty, and ruthless ambition run dangerously amok. The bang-up cast have a field day with the colorfully grotesque rogues' gallery of blithely amoral and treacherous hoodlums: Ellen Barkin as tough, sultry moll Rita Everly, Henry Silva as Vic's reliable right-hand man Sleepy Joe Carisle, Gregory Hines as philosophical smoothie Jules Flamingo, Diane Lane as Vic's sweet, perky mistress Grace, Billy Drago as the slimy Wells, and Christopher Jones as brutish rub-out artist Nicholas Falco. Bishop makes the most of his juicy secondary role as lethal and laconic ace assassin Nick. Popping up in nifty bits are Billy Idol as a blustery thug, Michael J. Pollard as the ill-fated Red, Joey Bishop as mortician Mr. Gottlieb, Rob Reiner as a jolly chauffeur, and Richard Pryor as Jimmy the Gravedigger. Byrne's delightfully insane duet with singer Paul Anka on "My Way" rates as a definite sidesplitting highlight. A tense and amusing climactic Mexican stand-off likewise tickles the funny bone something hysterical. Frank Byers' slick cinematography, the outrageously nutty dialogue, Earl Rose's jazzy cocktail lounge score, and a choice soundtrack of vintage swinging golden oldies all further enhance the engagingly peculiar charm of this immensely entertaining one-of-a-kind curio.

This is the best work i have ever seen on television. The story is compelling--all the more so because it is true. The writers did their homework--the accuracy of events is well documented. The acting is great. This has to be the best role Sam Waterston has ever had. And the black and white cinematography was exceptional. My only regret is that it is not available to buy. A few years ago I contacted someone involved with the production (either with PBS or in England) and was told they had no plans to release it on VHS (at the time). This was a BBC production and ran in the U.S. on American Playhouse. There is such an interest in seeing this--just hard to believe no one can make it available.

"Cover Girl" is the best musical Rita Hayworth ever made. Ms. Hayworth will always be remembered for "Gilda", however, the next movie would be "Cover Girl". The story is great. It is about a dancer who wants to be a cover girl and makes it big in show business. She does it without the help of her talented dancer/director boyfriend (Gene Kelly). Mr. Kelly is given the chance to choreograph the musical numbers. The dances are spectacular. It is fun to see Phil Silvers, a comic, do the musical numbers with Ms. Hayworth and Mr. Kelly. <br /><br />The supporting cast is perfect. Lee Bowman is given a chance to be an interesting third wheel, the other boyfriend.

Yes I have rated this film as one star awful. Yet, it will be in my rotation of Christmas movies henceforth. This truly is so bad it's good. This is another K.Gordon Murray production (read: buys a really cheap/bad Mexican movie, spends zero money getting it dubbed into English and releases it at kiddie matinées in the mid 1960's.) It's a shame I stumbled on this so late in life as I'm sure some "mood enhancers" would make this an even better experience. I'm not going to rehash what so many of the other reviewers have already said, a Christmas movie with Merlin, the Devil, mechanical wind-up reindeer and some of the most pathetic child actors I have ever seen bar none. I plan on running this over the holidays back to back with Kelsey Grammar's "A Christmas Carol". Truly a holiday experience made in Hell. Now if I can only find "To All A Goodnight (aka Slayride)" on DVD I'll have a triple feature that can't be beat. You have to see this movie. It moves so slowly that I defy you not to touch the fast forward button-especially on the two dance routines! This thing reeks like an expensive bleu cheese-guess you have to get past the stink to enjoy the experience. Feliz Navidad amigos!

This is one of those topics I can relate to a little more than most people as I hate noise & have no idea how those in big cities, New York especially how people get any sleep at all! It astounds me that people can stand all the noise out there these days. The basic plot of the film is that it makes for an interesting topic. It's too bad that's about it. Tim Robbbins is decent although except for a couple of scenes (especially with the absolute supermodel looking Margarita Leiveva) he didn't seem to really be altogether there. My biggest hope for this film is that casting agents will see the absolutely stunning & talented actress to boot, Margarita Levieva. She doesn't have a lot to do, but she is supermodel beautiful. Even when they are trying to make her look at more girl next door. It makes me sad that there can be people such as Paris Hilton & Kim Kardashian in the world w/no redeemable skills or talent, to have more fame and success than this talented beauty. I didn't care for much of this film because the script isn't very good, but am glad I got to see some new talent. I hope that producers & directors think about Margarita when they need a beautiful new actress to be in there big budget film. If they can make Megan Fox a star (c'mon she isn't that hot, & her acting "talent" is worse than made-for Disney channel TV shows) from 1 film, it should happen easily for her, as she is gorgeous & has talent! I'd recommend her changing her last name so we can pronounce it and make it more marketable. Here's hoping this makes her career, & if there is any justice she can pop up on some big summer movie or two in the next couple years.

First of all, let me start by saying that I have been a devoted follower of C Thomas Howell's career ever since "The Outsiders" and "The Hitcher". He was an up and coming star in the 1980s - with hits such as "Soul Man" also. The future was bright for this young actor and he had the potential to go on from there and really assert himself in Hollywood. Put it this way - Tom Cruise had a bit part in "The Outsiders" while Howell had the lead. Look at Cruise today !!! But picking material like this drivel will only denigrate Howell's career even more - if that was possible. Why does he pick stuff like this? A small part in a major movie would be of more benefit to him than this rubbish.<br /><br />Essentially the story here takes place in a post-apocalyptic world where everybody lives underground where chaos reigns. Howell is a Shepherd - protecting the flock of various religious leaders by killing off any undesirables. He's a hit-man in other words.<br /><br />The sets are so bad, they wouldn't look out of place on a Thunderbirds episode. The use of slow-motion needlessly repeats itself throughout the movie but is well backed up by bad acting (and bad is a kind word here), no continuity, scenes that are thrown in for no reason whatsoever, vehicles that looked like they were made from a Corn Flakes box and a directorial style that bordered on stupidity. Oh yeah, and the storyline was pathetic too.<br /><br />I hate writing bad reviews about films - especially those in which I really like the star - but this film is so bad I don't believe for one second that anyone could have been proud of it. I am not a filmmaker nor am I a director but I would hide my head in the sand if I'd spent whatever amount of money and time on this movie.<br /><br />In short - this was a monumental waste of time and energy and I would not recommend anyone to EVER see this film. It came free with a DVD player I bought but I still turned the thing off halfway through because I was embarrassed for Howell. Come on C - give yourself some credit and wrestle yourself away from these non-hit wonders and try to knuckle down and get a good part - however small.<br /><br />1/10 - and only because there is no setting for 0/10.

This is a special film if you know the context. Antonioni, in his eighties, had been crippled by a stroke. Mute and half paralyzed, his friends -- who incidentally are the best the film world has -- arranged for him to 'direct' a last significant film. The idea is that he can conjure a story into being by just looking at it. So we have a film: about a director who conjures stories by simple observation. And the matter of the (four) stories is about how the visual imagination defines love.<br /><br />The film emerges by giving us the tools to bring it into being through our own imagination. The result is pure movie-world: every person (except the director) is lovely in aspect or movement. Some of these women are ultralovely, and they exist in a dreamy misty world of sensual encounter. There is no nuance, no hint that anything exists but what we see; no desire is at work other than what we create.<br /><br />I know of no other film that so successfully manipulates our own visual yearning to have us create the world we see. He understands something about not touching. No one understands Van Morrison visually like he does. Morrison's Celtic space music is predicated on precisely the same notion: the sensual touch that implies but doesn't physically touch.<br /><br />Antonioni's redhead wife appears, appropriately as the shopkeeper and she also directs a lackluster 'making of' film that is on the DVD.<br /><br />Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 4: Worth watching.

I waited quite awhile till I was able to watch this Lone Ranger movie. I finally got to see it on the Lone Star Channel today and was very disappointed in the whole movie. Clayton Moore and John Hart acted better Lone Rangers and Jay Silverheels as Tonto, than the two stars in this movie. Very poor acting was done by everyone in this movie. Even the plot was bad and far fetching. I believe the horse, portraying Silver was the best actor throughout this movie.I am glad I didn't go out and buy a copy of this movie when it first came out, as I feel it's a waste of good money. I am truly sorry the characters that Clayton Moore, John Hart and Jay Silverheels played, and brought to life on the silver screen, have been tarnished so badly. Unless in the future, they find actors worthy of portraying the characters in the same manner which Clayton, John and Jay did so well in the past, I'll not spend the money to buy the movie. I'll not watch this movie again.<br /><br />Wayne Davies

Von Trier once explained how he created such strong involvement from the viewer with his movies by placing his movie world in about the middle of the real world and the imagined world. So as viewers we think we watch a "true" story while in fact we are thoroughly manipulated, often to the point that the movie works disturbing (Dancer in the Dark) or painful (The Idiots/ Idioterne). Of course the Dogme-films acted only as a vehicle for this theory (besides creating some welcome spotlight on Von Trier).<br /><br />The story is typical for Von Trier: our hero is idealistic, seems to balance his relations with everybody else, but soon becomes the victim of the problems others have created in the past for themselves. The idealist inevitably has to reject society in order to stay idealistic and becomes the terrorist. Mankind is spoiled and purity only leads to (self-)destruction. (These elements were also very omnipresent in Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark.) The movie is also full of cynical (even humorous) undertones about the role of the Germans and Americans in post-war Germany.<br /><br />As a technical achievement the movie is wonderfully designed: shifting and fading washed-out colors, screen overlays, action on different overlays (with the shooting of the soon-to-be mayor as the most interesting). In this movie we can see how good Von Trier's handles film as a technical medium. In his later works he seems to step down from this (as if he is not longer interested in technical achievements because they become so easily available).

For once a Barbie movie that is good. I'm 18 and a embarrassed to say this but I'm hooked on these movies. I hated Barbie when I was younger but the movies I love. Shiver is so cute and I've fallen in love with him. He's so cute as the polar bear and totally in love with Aiden. Oh man I'm in love with Shiver. I love Annika determination not to give up on hope and eventfully it works. I love this movie and hopefully they will be other good ones. Barbie & Swan Lake is other brilliant movie. I would recommend this movie to children of all ages (even boys) because the movie is that good and I'm hard to please. Barbie and the Magic of Pegasus is a movie that is enchanting and exciting.

Though it's better than most made-for-TV movies, "Buried Alive" is nothing more than a run-of-the-mill revenge tale. There are so many plot holes in this one, it makes you wonder why the screenwriters didn't go through a series of re-writes. The ending has a nice twist to it, but it's hardly believable.<br /><br />The acting by Jennifer Jason Leigh is terrific, as always, but Tim Matheson hams it up with cheesy one-liners that reminds one of Jack Nicholson in "The Shining". Don't bother with this one.

The arrival of an world famous conductor sets of unexpected events and feelings in the small village. Some people are threatened by the way he handles the church choir, and how people in it gradually change. This movie is heartwarming and makes you leave the cinema with both a smile on your lips and tears in your eyes. It'a about bringing out the best in people and Kay Pollak has written an excellent script based on the ideas he has become so famous for. The actors are outstanding, Michael Nyqvist we know before but Frida Hallgren was an new, and charming acquaintances to me. She has a most vivid face that leaves no one untouched. Per Moberg does his part as Gabriella's husband almost too well, he is awful too see. One only wish the at he would be casted to play a nice guy one day so we can see if he masters that character as well.<br /><br />This is a movie that will not leave you untouched. If you haven't already seen it, do it today!

Overall I would have to say that I liked the movie. Some of the fight scenes are really good. Especially the fight against Leung Ka-Yan. One point that really bothered me was the fact that they used an Asian to play a black man. I mean really. Talk about bad taste. During a fight scene, you see one of the fighters on the floor is laughing. Otherwise, Sammo copies Bruce Lee's fighting moves perfectly. 5 out of 10 Stars.

Cinematography--Compared to 'The Wrestler,' a degree of verite and cinematic skill that disarms the viewer, and then hypnotizes as well.<br /><br />Acting--The dialogue is minimal, but the pauses and silence poignant.<br /><br />Story--The conflict in a 'balkanized' Denmark is volatile, as we saw recently jihad murders in the Netherlands and riots in France. While I harbor no love for Islam, the departure from the West from Christian values holds no cause for celebration.<br /><br />The director of this film managed to mirror the two societies in a way that belabored neither, emphasizing the development of Aicha as an individual who became a champion, not so much in the ring, but to all those around her. Even her worst . . . I will stop here to avoid the spoiler.

Well, what can i say about this movie. I'm speechless. I could go on about how stupid this movie is forever though the one thing that REALLY pi*sed me off was the music. And to top it all off someone commented on how much they LIKED it. To them all I have to say is that it was ripped off from one of the best martial arts movies of all time Fistsof fury starring Bruce Lee. IF he was still alive and ever came across this movie he'd be horrified. the rest of the movie is absolutely ridiculous and a waste of tape. I say tape because a movie like that couldn't possibly have been shot on film.I now feel more stupid for wasting 30 minutes of my life watching it. The only reason why i even saw it was because my roommate downloaded it out of morbid curiosity. What is this world coming to.

I remember reading the original Balzac story in college French.<br /><br />I remember Ken Nordine of WGN-TV in Chicago reading it as one of his late night shows.<br /><br />Always loved the story but never believe they could or would make a movie of it. To my surprise they did and did it VERY well.<br /><br />Few of any Balzac stories lend themselves to dramatization, which is unfortunate, and -cat lover that I am, I was always hoping it WOULD be filmed without a lot of Hollywood sexing up. This is as close to perfect conversion as could be done.<br /><br />The theater of the mind is always better than what the eye can see, but this is as close as I think it can come to letting the imagination of reading meet the reality of seeing.

Sensual and tough Maria Braun. (Hanna Schygula) marries a soldier in the middle of World War II and spends a half of day and the whole night with him. That's how long her marriage lasts before she loses him to the war and then to prison. She carries on with her life, becomes a successful businesswoman being not only sensual but intelligent, ambitious, and willing to use sex whenever or wherever necessary: "I don't know a thing about business, but I do know what German women want. You might even say I'm an expert on it". While climbing up to the success she always remembers her husband, Hermann (her man) and convinces herself that whatever she does – is for him, for their future happy life together. "Maria Braun"'s style reminds much of melodramas by Fassbinder's favorite Hollywood director, Douglas Sirk and offers a glimpse of the loss and survival in postwar Germany. Hanna Schygula literally shines in every scene of the movie and she is fantastic.<br /><br />8.5/10

Red Eye is not the kind of movie that's going to win the Palme D'or, but Wes Craven has never been that kind of director, anyway, and his branding is a good indication of what a film-goer can expect.<br /><br />The fact that Red Eye is a tight little, undemanding package at 94 minutes is part of its charm and an indication of Craven's craft in producing lightweight, but generally enjoyable, box office fare. In fact, it's the perfect kind of movie to show as inflight entertainment, attention-holding without putting any intellectual or emotional challenges on the viewer.<br /><br />Overall there is a cheesy feeling to the plot, vague terrorist subplot motivation and the supporting characters, and the main section has a TV movie feel. However, there are definite elements of Hitchcockian suspense, and echoes of Schumacher's Phone Booth, which ultimately is a more sophisticated (and pretentious) play on the same idea of emotional crisis being played out suppressed in public.<br /><br />For a film that focuses mainly on two people sitting in airline seats, it lives or dies on the characters and script. Cillian's icy but eloquent Jackson Rippner and Rachel MacAdams resourceful Lisa are the main reasons the film gets carried off. Not only making the dialogue zing but also giving some sort of Adam's Rib type dimension to their battle of 'male logic' against feminine 'sensitivity'.<br /><br />In the final portion of the film Craven indulges himself a little Scream style as man-chases-girl-with-knife. The most surprising revelation here is what Brian Cox looks like after the 'Just for Men' treatment, his ubiqutous appearance in films as diverse as Super Troopers, The Ring and this making him the sexegenarian version of Jude Law.<br /><br />Short haul fun.

This movie deals with one of the most feared geriatric diseases among the aging today. As one who has encountered a number of families who are facing the potential of Alzheimer's or who are in the formative stages, I would suggest that every health care giver recommend this movie to any family facing the trauma of this disease. The movie is designed primarily to speak to the family of the patient and reaches into the very heart of the struggle. Casting is excellent and the dramatic portrayal is outstanding with a very commanding plot line.

I'm a big fan of B5, having caught on only at the end of season three. I faithfully watched all the previous seasons when it was syndicated, concluding that it was one of the most well-thought out story arcs to ever hit television. Even the filler episodes were interesting. The movies, also, were well produced and as entertaining as anything to hit the theaters.<br /><br />Which brings us to 'River of Souls'. Naturally, after seeing everything else, I had high expectations. Martin Sheen appears to be acting in an Ed Wood movie rather than a serious Sci-Fi story. The story itself, might have looked good in outline form, even made it to the story board. However, it suffers obviously when it came time to filling this notion out into a two hour movie. There are no special effects to keep us entertained in the total absence of a compelling story. There are places where they were obviously short of time and just improvised the dialog to fill the story out. Had this made the regular season, it would have rated among the worst of the episodes.

A fine line up of actors and a seemingly nice plot -- though not original -- promised me a nice evening in front of the TV. I was disappointed. The actors delivered up to standard (Juliette Lewis cuddly as ever; William Hurt solid but in the background; Shelley Duvall convincing as ever) but the story was too thin to keep me engaged to the story and, the twist to the finale was too obvious and too late; there was only one character who was nice to he girl, so guess what?! Then the final after-twist… I do not know what to think of that. The boyfriend and the neighbor? Contract with the Devil, or just to get her to move in? What! The film had a nice idea behind it, but the idea was not worked out in detail. It could have been good, but it was not. Too many loose ends to tie up, Columbo would say.

This Book-based movie is truly awful, and a big disappointment. We've been waiting for this move over a month. Many film reviewer were hopeful for it. Also in newspapers and TV, it made big sense. When 29th April comes, many people regretfully noticed that movie is really awful. Why? First of all story was so monotone. It has been many indefinite scenes, sometimes it's hard to realize what's going on. The actresses, out of Hulya Avsar, weren't harmonized with their roles, especially Vildan Atasever. She acts better in comedy films, In this movie, a kind of drama, she couldn't disposed of her previous role. And finally Movie is too short, just 66 minutes.

An Avent-garde nightmarish, extremely low-budget "film" that has delusions of grandeur. Hard to sit through. I get the message that child abuse is wrong. Wow big revelation. I had no clue it was wrong before viewing this. Yes that's sarcasm. DON'T watch this "film" if you're offended by nudity of either the male or female gender. DON'T watch it if you're the least bit squeamish. DON'T watch it if you care about acting. On second thought just DON'T watch it period.<br /><br />My grade: D-<br /><br />DVD Extras:making the movie , the premiere,interview with Kristie Bowersock, deleted scenes, movie stills, Director's commentary, 2 versions of the teaser trailer, music video by The Azoic, & a classroom video experiment

I don't give a movie or a show ten very often but this show touched a nerve in a way no other show has. I found the entire series on mysoju.com and thought the premise looked interesting so I took a look see. I wasn't disappointed in what I saw; I was moved. This story stays on the tender side as the main characters move us through the scenes. Sumire Iwaya, played thoughtfully by Koyuki, shows us human nature as she wants to keep troubles from being shown. No one really wants to lay their soul out in front of a perspective mate. So instead she substitutes a human, played by an adorable Matsumoto Jun, as a pet. This pet is like any other creature we would consider a pet. The difference; he can retaliate in the same way, after all Momo is a man, not a dog. As he is treated like a pet, he reacts to situations how a dog might react. She spends time with the new boyfriend, Momo gets jealous. It's when she realizes that her pet isn't just a pet that the sexual tension between the two starts to become thick - Momo is a dance prodigy. Her thinking slowly changes as we start to get a glance at his own thoughts. Matsumoto takes us from seeing a character who is very one dimensional in the beginning, to two dimensional when we see he's a dancer, to a three dimensional character when we see him start to fall for his master as a man, not as a dog. In my opinion, it's worth watching this story just to see this character develop. Plus Matsumoto plays Momo with such tenderness you almost start to wish you had one too. Neither wants to think about the future and how their relationship will change, but as Momo (the name she gives him as one would name their new puppy) states – we both knew this wasn't going to be able to last. Watch this show with a open mind, it's worth it.

Other commentators have detailed the plot and the social parables and commentary as well (or better) that I could, but I would like to join in my admiration for this little jewel of a film. It holds up very well indeed more that 50 years later in every category - screenplay, acting, photography, set design, sound design...it really is a classic of sorts. This was my first exposure to the "young" Alec Guinness, and it's obvious from the first frames what made him so special as to eventually receive a knighthood. <br /><br />I only rate it an "8" because it's essentially a rather lightweight parable that examines human nature but doesn't really skewer it; and because the plot takes the easy way out at the end, rather than actually resolving conflict between the inventor and the mill workers and industrialists who are chasing him all over town. Also, a couple minutes of thought reveals the basic flaw in the logic of the screenplay - wear and tear is hardly ever the determining factor in buying new clothes (especially dress clothes); children grow up, people change sizes, gain and lose weight, and go with the latest fashions all the time, and have as long as looms have woven cloth. And if nothing else, the manufacturer would make a fortune providing indestructible material for military uniforms (especially BDUs). <br /><br />Still, this is a great film. If you get a chance to see it on a classic movie channel, you should.

This is a video version of a stage production, with extra shooting for the video edition. The result gains both the drama of the stage with the impact of well produced film. The set by George Tsypin, with sculptures and masks by Julie Taymor are superb.<br /><br />Jessye Norman is terrific, and one gets to hear (and see) the young Bryn Terfel. This production is stunning, emotional and majestic. If you don't see this you have missed out.

clara bow's beauty and wonderful appeal are the chief reason to watch this film. "hula" is not quite up to par with clara's best films but it is still enjoyable. she dances, she rides her horse, and pursues the man that she loves. this film is just over an hour in length and was directed by future oscar winner victor fleming (gone with the wind).the film moves quickly and clara bow has lots of screen time. if you like clara, i would reccomend "hula."

Meatballs is a classic comedy with so many laughs that it's impossible to count.<br /><br />In what was merely a precursor of what was to come, Murray rules the screen in what can only be described as comic mastery. Tripper Harrison is one of the greatest comedy characters in the past 50 years. Sarcastic all the time, smart when he has to be, stern when he needs to be, and caring when it suits him, Murray infuses Tripper with that SNL glint in the eye.<br /><br />The C.I.T's are merely in awe as they cower beneath the comic genius that is Mr. Murray.<br /><br />Summer isn't summer without a viewing of Meatballs. One of the best comedies to ever grace the screen.

I happened across "Bait" on cable one night just as it started and thought, "Eh, why not?" I'm glad I gave it a chance. <br /><br />"Bait" ain't perfect. It suffers from unnecessarily flashy direction and occasional dumbness. But overall, this movie worked. All the elements aligned just right, and they pulled off what otherwise could have been a pretty ugly film. <br /><br />Most of that, I think, is due to Jamie Foxx. I don't know who tagged Foxx for the lead, but whoever it was did this movie a big favor. Believable and amazingly likeable, Foxx glides through the movie, smooth as butter and funnier than hell. You can tell he's working on instinct, and instinct doesn't fail him.<br /><br />The plot, while unimportant, actually ties together pretty well, and there's even a character arc through which Foxx's character grows as a person. Again, they could've slipped by without any of this, but it just makes things that much better.<br /><br />I'm surprised at the low rating for this. Maybe I just caught this move on the right night, or vice versa, but I'd give it a 7/10. Bravo, Mssr. Foxx.

It should come as no shock to you when I say that Alone in the Dark is a crappy movie. To put it bluntly, it's as if a dung monster defecated, ate the result, and then vomited. The final product would still outshine this movie.<br /><br />Seemingly based on an ancient (!) Atari video game, the movie has something or other to do with a portal to the bowels of the earth, the unleashing of demons, and ancient civilizations. Something about there being two worlds, that of darkness and that of light. (Guess which one's ours.) Oh, and 10,000 years ago a really super-duper advanced civilization opened the portal, demons came over and had a blast, then wiped out the civilization. Which is why we've never heard of them, conveniently enough.<br /><br />Christian Slater, perhaps pining for the days of Heathers and Pump up the Volume, plays Edward Carnby, a paranormal researcher to whom Something Bad happened when he was 10 years old. He's hot on the trail of one of the artifacts of said advanced civilization. Carnby used to be part of a secret institution called 713, which has been trying to figure out what happened to that long-ago civilization. But Carnby believed he wasn't going to be able to find the answers he sought, so he left the group.<br /><br />But see, these beasties are out, and they get their prey in varying ways, such as gutting them, splitting them down the middle, implanting neurological control devices in them, or just turning them into killing zombies. Yes, it's another zombie movie.<br /><br />That's about as distilled I can make the plot. It's pretty convoluted and incomprehensible. In similar movies, one might see the intrepid researcher/adventurer figure things out a step at a time, and when we the audience are mentally with the researcher, it's a lot of fun. But when the scenes shift from attack to attack with no perspective or context... not so much fun.<br /><br />The acting is dreadful, save for Slater, who (although he almost seems embarrassed to be in the movie) showed he was capable of carrying the acting load. He had to; get this - Tara Reid is cast as a museum curator! Honest to goodness, I thought I'd seen the casting of a lifetime when Denise Richards was cast as a nuclear physicist in Tomorrow Never Dies. But Reid here matches Richards, crappy emoting for crappy emoting. Hightlights include Reid pronouncing "Newfoundland" as "New Fownd Land," Reid delivering most of her lines in a dazed, throaty monotone (kinda like she'd been on an all-night bender for the past week before filming), Reid - a museum curator, mind you - spending a lot of the movie in a midriff-bearing top and hip-hugger jeans. Oh yeah, she was as believable as Jessica Simpson giving stock quotes. Oh, why must the pretty ones be so dumb? (Note: I don't think Tara Reid's all that good looking. She looks like she's in perpetual need of food.) Almost everyone else in the cast is completely forgettable, except perhaps for Steven Dorff, who played Burke, one of the leaders of 713. Dorff's character wasn't terribly well developed, but nothing in the movie was, from the sets to the characters to Tara Reid. But I digress.<br /><br />Anyway, the perplexing and utterly preposterous storyline is tough enough to follow with the film moving at such a breakneck pace, but director Uwe Boll tosses in a pounding, mind-deadening soundtrack; it's so loud you can't hear what the actors are saying in some of the scenes! That can't be right. Given the acting level, however, perhaps thanks are in order to Mr. Boll.<br /><br />Oh, and a fun note. The opening moments of the movie include narration... of the words that are crawling across the screen at the same time. Remember the first Star Wars? You heard that now-familiar Star Wars theme while the prologue crawled. There was surely no need for narration; why do I need some doofus to read what's on the screen for me? Were the producers simply looking out for blind people? Maybe that also explains why the soundtrack was so loud - they were also looking out for hard-of-hearing people. Also, the narrator inexplicably had a lisp for the first few lines of the crawl - then lost it. Bizarre.<br /><br />Alone in the Dark is a loud, dopey mishmash of dreadful acting, an incoherent script, and ham-handed directing. Hardly a note rings true. There's so much chaos that the audience simply gives up caring about the characters and roots for their demise. Even in the dark, the demonic creatures seem cooler and much more developed by comparison.<br /><br />Ironically, since there were only three other people in the theater, I watched this Alone in the Dark. I wonder if Uwe Boll planned it that way? I can't quite give this the lowest rating, because I had low hopes for it to begin with - and because it never grabbed me enough for me to get worked up about it. It's atrocious, although Slater redeems himself a tiny bit.

From the Star of "MITCHELL", From the director of "Joysticks" and "Angel's Revenge"!!! These are taglines that would normally keep me from seeing this movie. And the worst part is that all the above mentioned statements are true!!! Ugghhh... Joe Don Baker eats every other five minutes in this film. It's like a bad remake of "Coogan's Bluff"

David Cronenberg movies are easily identifiable, or at least elements within the movie stand out as his trademarks. Fetishism, the blurring between the organic and inorganic, squishy throbbing things that shouldn't be squishy and throbbing. "eXistenZ" is classic Cronenberg. Briefly, it's about a future generation of computer games, but instead of a video monitor, visuals are supplied by your mind. The game plugs directly into a 'bio port' in the base of your spine and while the game is running, the player can't tell reality from game. Jennifer Jason Leigh plays the game's developer, guiding a novitiate marketeer, Jude Law, through the game's paces. While in the game they uncover strange goings-on and possible crimes. But are they real, or is it the game? Not even the game's author knows. <br /><br />The movie is quite a treat, keeping the viewer engaged, but in the dark until the final minutes. Another thing I like about "eXistenZ" is that it doesn't use a heavy reliance on special effects, it's the story itself that propels the movie. Recommended for the Saturday night when science fiction is called for.

Too bad Mike Meyers picked this for his dramatic debut. This film looks like it was put together by a committee that couldn't decide if it was a comedy, drama, suspense, or sci-fi. It starts out sort of playful, then quickly gets darker, and then at the end, apparently shortly after one of the main characters has been killed, the whole family is standing in the backyard laughing about something. It's totally weird and impossible to string together. The acting is extremely uneven, with the older professionals engaging your attention, and then the younger and less experienced actors looking like they are in a high school play. This movie showed me that it's probably harder to make a good movie than is evident from the truly professional fare we see in the first-run and art houses. This would be a good film for a film class to analyze. Plot, character, theme, consistency - they are all either faulty or missing from this film.

Sometimes it's hard to judge how bad a film made in Italy or Spain really is, because they all seem to use the same stable of 9-10 ESL trained voice actors to supply the English voices for release in the US. And things are always lost in translation anyway -dialog, character shtick and plot elements written for the expectations of European audiences may not go too well with our American ideas of what is funny, hip, or dramatic. I imagine that the team responsible for making the translation for the sound track of this movie to English had about 3 days to do it from start to finish, and they probably each earned the equivalent of an installment payment on their used Fiat to do it. In other words, pure hackwork, tossed off in one or two takes and never reviewed or redone by someone with a real ear for the American language.<br /><br />Watching "Devil Fish", I can imagine that if you were an Italian watching this presented in your native language, you might find it a mildly amusing little piece of fluff. You'd laugh at the 'in jokes' and the amusing drunk, you'd gasp at the monster and the villainy of the bad guys, and you'd ogle at the attractive pair of Peter and not-quite-Daryll Hannah as they couple on the beach for no apparent reason in the middle of a search for clues about a man-eating monster who has already killed one of their friends.<br /><br />But since the jarring voice acting and tin-eared dialog keep yanking we Americans out of the film experience, we can't help but notice that the editors had serious Attention Deficit Disorder, that no one on screen can really act so much as project an Attitude, that the stated reason for the creation of the monster makes absolutely no sense, that the action sequences have all the impact of a cereal bowl full of cooked oatmeal and that the director, screenwriters and producers really hate women.<br /><br />Don't even THINK about buying or renting this movie - watch only on cable TV on Saturday afternoon with one of several beers in your fist, or with the help and protection of Mike and the Bots on MST3K.

At first,this movie seems so bad that i almost fell in a trance the first time i saw it.It was like a bad dream.A cosmic bore.But i gave it a second chance,then another and another,etc...I finally got addicted to this film,due to it's dreamlike slow pace,wonderful natural sets,bathed in a mellow autumn light and especially the musical score,which is made of some 70's progressive rock and absolute exquisite folk songs by actor/singer/songwriter Derek Lamb(the Troubadour).You should notice the song about hazel wood,silver trout and lady vanishing in the air...,heard in the middle and near the end of the film.There are some carnal scenes in the beginning ,wich allow us to appreciate the natural charms of Elizabeth Suzuki.If that movie had been made by some "repertoire" directors like Bergman,Lars Von Triers or Jean-Luc Goddard,critics would have rolled on the floor,raving about that movie as if it were a cosmic masterpiece.I personally think this film is one million times superior to any of Fellini's cinematic sh#¤@t!Definitely not for the pretentious.

In the fifties the age restrictions for films in Brazil were the following: no restriction, 10 years old, 14 years old and 18 years old. Usually the westerns were allowed for ten years old, when they had a bit more of violence they would go to 14, but it was rare to see a western restricted for younger than 18. Winchester 73 was one of those, and I think this explains very well how this film was considered different from average. The hero, James Stewart was fighting against his own brother who had killed their father. He was looking for revenge and seemed quite traumatized, far from the average good guy. Anthony Mann tried variations on this type of character in the next films he did with Stewart. Shelley Winters, the leading lady was far from virtuous, she kept following the man who stayed with the rifle. Dan Duryea as Waco Johnnie Dean is one of those great villains that will always be remembered. The story of the film, which always follows the man who stays with the rifle, is one of the best suited for a western. It was to be made into a Fritz Lang film, which did not come through. When it was offered to Mann he made a point of starting from zero again and not taking anything that was prepared for Lang. With Winchester, Mann created a different conception of western, but still maintaining all its traditions. Winchester still is a great film to see again and again, but nothing will be comparable to the impression it made in those who saw it when it was originally released.

I don't know if I'm just weird, but I thoroughly enjoyed this film. <br /><br />Return to Cabin by the Lake is of course the sequel to another one of my favorite films Cabin by the Lake. In fact, I think that I enjoyed this movie even more than the first one. I also thought that the cast in this movie was great, Judd Nelson is always the best! I also enjoyed the plot as a whole. I liked the fact that this second movie focused on the filming of Stanley's screenplay Cabin by the Lake- it wasn't a completely redundant film of Stanley grabbing other girls and drowning them. - If you're looking for some deep meaning, then this film is probably not the one for you. However, if you're looking for a fun way to spend two hours, then go ahead and watch it. I've probably already killed at least ten hours watching this film. :)

The Giant Claw is in fierce competition with films like, 'Robot Monster' and 'Plan 9 From Outer Space' for worst film of all time. A phony looking giant vulture attacks 'Lionel Trains' in this completely unconscious film. The script is so bad that everything the characters say to one another is ridiculous. It's no wonder that this film is a prime target in the movie, "It Came From Hollywood," where this gem is hammered for the line, 'A Bird As Big As A Battleship', with gleeful, endless needling. The line pops up relentlessly through the course of the film, so there's no escaping it. There are several shots from, 'The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms' and 'Earth vs. The Flying Saucers' among other sci-fi films from the 50's to beef up the scraggly vulture's attacks. At one point the big vulture is responsible for a few deaths, so the military puts the entire world under martial law and no one is allowed to go out of their homes. Of course, the huge buzzard is mainly concerned with pursuing the stars of this classic, Jeff Morrow & Mara Corday, wherever they might be. Yet the director is so lame that he doesn't even provide for a few honey shots of pretty Mara in a decent dress and black heels for a little relief from the tedium of this zero star thriller. That's the second time this blunder has been made. In 'Tarantula', Mara Corday struts around in hot dresses for the whole film, but is relegated to pants throughout, 'The Giant Scorpion'. The budget for this film must have been not more than thirty or forty thousand dollars and I doubt whether Morrow or Corday got more than three thousand to make it. It looks like the whole thing was shot right out of somebody's garage.

Despite having 6 different directors, this fantasy hangs together remarkably well.<br /><br />It was filmed in England (nowhere near Morocco) in studios and on a few beaches. At the outbreak of war, everything was moved to America and some scenes were filmed in the Grand Canyon.<br /><br />Notable for having one of the corniest lyrics in a song - "I want to be a bandit, can't you understand it". It remains a favourite of many people.

This show is absolutely ridiculous. Yes, of course its fake. But it is agonizing to watch. I personally know more creative film influenced minds that could "make" this seem real. The young lead male couldn't be more unconvincing. He line-reads everything he says. Are we really suppose to believe he knows what he is talking about? There is a plethora of ways to Blair-Witch this show up. Fear does not breed from what seems "cool" and computer generated. Nor does it generate from such proverbial lines as "What was that? Did you hear that?" Also, There are real convincing psychics out there that don't just "Want to be on screen". Another DUH-Factor is... how do these producers think we are actually going to buy that paranormal activity will just magically happen within the 2 possibly 3 days (if we are lucky) they film. I don't think so. A 2 + week at one site would be more convincing. It is also disarming that they think including "Nasa radar checks" and computer's that show fancy bs really make us scared. AND IE: Exorcisms should not be staged like the film "The Exorcist". When are they going to get it right? Possession of the Devil or other evil spirits influence people differently. They don't just snarl and lower their voice like Linda Blair or fallel around like Courtney Love on a drug binge. As stated better concentrations on "psychic ability" would aid this show greatly. We want to see and hear EVERYTHING that supposingly flashes before them. Not cut-away to other story bs. On a final note- Shooting Stars do not generate interest when you showed fake pictures of UFO's ahead of time. Might I stress again the young dark haired man that hosts this show is absolutely down-right awful. Avoid this show. For fright: watch old Unsolved Mystery episodes... not the new ones (the recreation got it oh-so wrong). But that is for a different blog.

The reason why people say that this movie scared them is because it did!! That means the movie purpose was felt by a few who did see it. When I first saw this Movie it scared me and made me think about life and religion. This is not a blood and gore scary type movie, but the kind that you would think that it may be possible for things to happen the way the movie was written. Of course non believers will say its only a sci-fi movie. Truth is, this movie is a must have for your thriller collection, even if it does have a religious view. If you are a fan of classic thrillers (Omen..etc) this is one of them and its a must have. I never saw the sequel (Distant Thunder), but I believe it picks up where this movie ends.

Dark comedy? Gallows humor? How does one make a comedy out of murder? It can be risky business as the viewer is required to let go of their moral values and laugh at the antics of a man who kills people. So, the story has be rock solid with a good dash of suspended reality in order to make it work. So, Pierce Brosnan, the Irishman's answer to 007 is now cast as a chain-smoking, sex-addicted alcoholic who kills people for a living and is having a life crisis. He meets a struggling businessman, Greg Kinnear, and after a rocky beginning, he learns that he needs a friend. But, Greg's happily married to Hope Davis and Brosnan sees in him the basic things he doesn't have, love, home and a life. Add character actor, Philip Baker Hall as the hit-man's manager and we're off to the races. Brosnan is wonderfully crass and crude as the anti-hero and Kinnear delightful as his counterpart, the very human businessman. Hope Davis adds a sparkle as Kinnear's very conventional wife who is fascinated with this derelict who drifts into their lives. The ending is delightful and with some surprise to it. You should leave the theater feeling, at least, partly good-- if you're able to suspend being aghast at killing people.

It's very true that this film defies convention by not spelling out the plot for the viewer. While some may have a problem with having to figure it out for themselves, I embrace "Uzumaki" for its irreverence. There is a PLOT, it's just that it may not be immediately accessible to a lazy viewer. This is a film that invites numerous interpretations, as all great art does - however, this film is also very entertaining, making it a rare film experience. It's simultaneously provocative and fun.

This is part one of a short animation clip showing the history of the Matrix, the war between man and machine that resulted in the eventual creation of the Matrix. The animation is part Japanese anime, part contemporary american animation, and is very well made, considering the excellent directors behind the movie. It shows the initial development of AI and the exploitation of the machines by Man, until the day they rebelled...

This so called movie is horrible! The actors cannot act. There is no plot. I believe they need to start from scratch and film again. I hope that they can correct the acting flaws in this movie. I would like to see the trailer after they shoot it again. Maybe there is hope for it. I am not out to hurt feelings but I believe high school kids can do a better job. The wardrobe could have been much better. Sorry, but this just did not do it for me. I normally enjoy the trailers from this site but... this one i cannot find entertaining. I hope they take criticism well because i believe they will get much much more from others in regards to this film.

The only print of CHIKAMATUS MONOGATARI I've been able to find was abysmal - I almost couldn't watch it. Which is a shame as this is among the greatest Mizoguchi films. The story - which I believe had been done before and since by other Japanese directors - is a bit straighter than my favorite Mizoguchi films (SANSHO THE BAILIFF and UGETSU MONOGATARI), and is essentially a tale of tragic romance, in this case a transgressive romance that crosses strict class boundaries. As always with Mizoguchi, there is an exquisitely expressed tone of defiance, and - bad print aside - I was very pleased. As with all of Mizoguchi's films, I'm eagerly awaiting a restored DVD release - whenever that may come...

We gave up at the point where George Clooney's character has his finger-nails extracted. We were not squeamish - having sat through an hour of this drivel we just knew what it felt like. To say this film was incomprehensible, boring, pretentious twaddle would be to over-praise it! How did people manage to sit through this confusing, slow, depressing pseud's corner of a film, let alone nominate it for an Oscar? Clooney looked as ill as we felt watching him. What was he thinking? Oh .. and what was with those subtitles? - did we just have a dud DVD or was the original film done like that - sentences left hanging in mid-air? The film was hard enough to follow without that as well. I pity the cast, who obviously did their best with the material available.

George Barry is a genius. "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats" is a prototype for much of the 'slipstream' fiction and camp surrealism that is so chic now. Truly innovative, maverick, and just effing brilliant. Hyper-strange acting, subtly nightmarish atmosphere. I recommend reading Stephen Thrower's book "Nightmare USA" (there is a chapter devoted to Barry and "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats"). Available from FAB Press. On a related note, "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats" and "Beyond Dream's Door" make a perfect double-bill. Furthermore, it's trite and tired - and ultimately stupidly ironic - to criticize a low-budget cult film for being 'poorly made' or 'technically inept.' The B-movie aesthetic is part of these films' charm. No amount of CGI could duplicate the cumulative effect "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats" has on the viewer with an advanced palate.

This is a gem of a movie not just for people who like fun and quirky premises, but who love the history and traditions of Sci-Fi and Classic Hollywood movies. Each alien of the Martian crew is the embodiment of a classic Sci-Fi character or member of Hollywood royalty and it's pure pleasure watching them bounce of each other and the residents of Big Bean.

I found this flick enjoyable and involving to watch, and I'm surprised it's rated so lowly. Actually I can see why it is; I imagine it's the fans of Eric Roberts and Alyssa Milano that have been giving most of the 1s and 2s, because if you put the tape into the machine expecting to enjoy watching something starring either or both of these two then you could be rather disappointed. Eric appears for about half an hour towards the end of the movie, and Alyssa for about 5 scenes in the second half, and in those she says little and wears less (although never nude if that's what you're looking for, stick with embrace of the vampire). Although they're always a pleasure, it's a pity she, or Eric, don't get much screen-time yet I still give this an 8.<br /><br />

I saw this movie years ago on late night television. Back then it went by the title of "Stairway to Heaven". Even as a young boy, I remember being deeply moved by the story and astounded by the visual effects of the court trial (those who have seen it know what I'm talking about). Such imagination! A perfect blend of romance, drama, humour and fantasy, this movie is right up there with the greatest classics ever made: Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Gone with the Wind. This movie is rated extremely high by IMDB voters and rightly so - over 51% voters rated it 10 out of 10; over 84% rated it 8 or higher out of 10. I was surprised it was not listed in the top 250 films until I realized so few have seen/rated this movie, compared to those on the list. What a pity. I hope this movie gets released on DVD for Region 1 (North America), so that 1), I can purchase it, and 2), others discover this hidden treasure.

I think this movie had to be fun to make it, for us it was fun to watch it. The actors look like they have a fun time. My girlfriends like the boy actors and my boyfriends like the girl actors. Not very much do we get to have crazy fun with a movie that is horror make. I see a lot of scary movies and i would watch this one all together once more, or more because we laugh together. If this actors make other scary movies i will watch them. The grander mad man thats chase to kill the actors is very much a good bad man. He make us laugh together the most. i would give this movie a high score if you ask me.<br /><br />I don't know if the market has any more of the movies with the actors, but the main boy is cute. the actor with the grand chest has to be not real. they doesn't look to real.

I went to see "Evening" because of the cast. I'd gone to see "Norman's Room" for that reason -- that movie offering Diane Keaton, Leonardo De Caprio and, also, Meryl Streep -- and had loved every minute of it. Same for "The Notebook" even though it was chick-flit lite. And my feeling was, anything offering performances by Vanessa Redgrave, Meryl Streep, Patrick Wilson and Glenn Close would be at least as good. Instead, I found sometimes even the greatest actors cannot overcome trite, simplistic and -- on one occasion -- truly offensive material.<br /><br />Now I had no problem with the way the film was structured. I actually enjoy movies that cut back and forth in time to tell a story...so long as one era illuminates the other and vise verse. But while Vanessa's character being on her deathbed and recalling a past event she felt "was a mistake" was riveting, at times, the part actually showing what that "past mistake" was does nothing to clarify the matter. In fact, it makes it seem meaningless in the silliest "girl meets boy, girl gets boy, girl loses boy" fashion, and in the most unbelievable, clichéd, wrong-headed way possible.<br /><br />And from here be spoilers, so bear that in mind should you continue reading.<br /><br />First of all, Claire Danes was brutally miscast. Not only does she not even begin to resemble Vanessa Redgrave as a young woman, she has nowhere near the chops when it comes to acting. Don't get me wrong, she can be good in the right role -- just not this one. And Patrick Wilson was miscast, though he has the acting chops to almost pull it off. He'd have been better suited to the part Hugh Dancy played -- the rich confused WASP -- and not the object of sexual attraction to one and all; he's a bit too WASP-y for that. Hugh Dancy? One note -- "I'm a tortured drunk and wait till you find out why." And the "why" (I'm a closet case in a sexually repressed world, so I have to drink to excess and make a fool of myself in front of everyone I know) was so offensive to me and the manner in which he died (as you knew he would because that's the only thing that can happen to a faggot in the Fifties) so ludicrous, wrong-headed and mishandled, I nearly threw my candy at the screen.<br /><br />As for the modern part between Toni Collette and her sister, her fear of commitment, her jealousy of her sister's "perfect life," her sister wondering if she's made the right choices, her pregnancy and her too-perfect boyfriend (which actually might have been more interesting and meaningful if played by Patrick Wilson, and Ebon Moss-Bachrach might have been a more interesting Harris, given his dreamy eyes) -- anyway, all this was hashed over in the 70's and 80's. And in much greater depth. Do we REALLY have to present it, again, and all as if it was fresh and momentous?<br /><br />And to top it off, Meryl Streep doesn't even appear until the last ten minutes of the movie, all in old lady makeup that hides many of her facial expressions. She's still good, but only because she's Meryl, and Meryl can find a way to pull off even the silliest dialog under the heaviest of makeup.<br /><br />So to put it simply, this movie has every cliché in the "really meaningful message" movie book, and it adds a few that really had no business being trotted out, again. At two hours long and laced with "Lifetime Movie-of-the-week" music that is guaranteed to rub you raw, it's a complete failure in both the "meaningful" and "moviemaking" aspects. I give it "3" only because of Meryl and Vanessa.<br /><br />Now, if all you require from your films is twadd le, then please set my comments about "Evening" aside and have the time of your life. But if you want a truly meaningful experience being served up by great actors and filmmakers who know what to do with a simple story about life and death and all the nonsense it brings, rent "Norman's Room" and find out what truly great acting is.

Caught this on IFC yesterday, and can't believe the positive reviews! Am I the only one who thought these "ladies" were anything but? Kate tells Jed she could get fired because she's supposed to be a pillar of the community, but puts out for him! Then they suddenly decide they're in love? And she's SO devastated over his death, she doesn't go to his funeral, much less, tell his family the "good news"! By the way, how did an American get to be the headmistress of a very proper British school? Janine should have been kicked off the force for her inexcusable abuse of power, but nothing happens! And she winds up boffing a con she brought in for questioning! And the less said about Molly, the better!<br /><br />As for the guilt Janine and Molly feel over Jed, please! It's the punk's own damn fault he got turned into roadkill! Where's the guilt over poor Gerald, who gets puked on? If only I could do the same to the bozos behind this "movie"!

The plot it's not so original. If someone saw "L'ultimo Bacio" there's nothing new. A wealthy family in Rome living everyday life that's is boring and false, with everyone asking to others what they think about them. Really boring after an half of hour because it's simple to understand where the story is going to finish. This because it's simple to see the moralistic view of Muccino in this movie, so even the hardest parts seem normal. To summarise in the first 2 minutes of the movie it would be enough and the aim of the movie were already said. the family saw from a 30 years old, i don't like to see movie that want to show the reality but for be coherent to his thoughts has to push more than the normal the situations. Really good how Muccino put the camera in the right place moving with the carathers and it's the only reason that bring me not sleeping in the cinema though always in the movie scream from the begining. Perhaps it could be good to see the family how they are in reality and not put the blame to something out of it. Morante was intense and great as usual but unfortunatly on a bad movie!

There are films that make careers. For George Romero, it was NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD; for Kevin Smith, CLERKS; for Robert Rodriguez, EL MARIACHI. Add to that list Onur Tukel's absolutely amazing DING-A-LING-LESS. Flawless film-making, and as assured and as professional as any of the aforementioned movies. I haven't laughed this hard since I saw THE FULL MONTY. (And, even then, I don't think I laughed quite this hard... So to speak.) Tukel's talent is considerable: DING-A-LING-LESS is so chock full of double entendres that one would have to sit down with a copy of this script and do a line-by-line examination of it to fully appreciate the, uh, breadth and width of it. Every shot is beautifully composed (a clear sign of a sure-handed director), and the performances all around are solid (there's none of the over-the-top scenery chewing one might've expected from a film like this). DING-A-LING-LESS is a film whose time has come.

Have to agree that this movie and it's talented director do not receive the plaudits they deserve. Here's hoping that the DVD will do very well and bring both to the attention of a wider audience. The actors gave excellent performances and the plot is excellent. Perhaps overall the movie is a little long but May Miles Thomas seems to enjoy her actors when they are giving strong performances and therefore sometimes holds them in longer close ups than necessary. Good for the actors I am sure but sometimes as the audience you are ready to move on so to speak with the plot. May Miles Thomas deserves more recognition from the Film business as one of our foremost digital movie directors,

Four great stories from master Robert Bloch, adapted to the screen by the best actors in the field in the early Seventies, are the base of this excellent Amicus' production. This was a kind of movie very popular in the Sixties till the mid-Seventies and it's one of my favorite type of horror movies. This one in particular shines for the episode Sweets to the Sweet, where Christopher Lee is stalked by his evil little girl child, heiress to her mother tradition. Great fun from start to finish, and good to very good are also the other three episodes (with the last one a bit on the comic side, but with the great addition of Ingrid Pitt, the most famous vampress of the English cinema.

This whole film should have lasted 45 minutes - maximum. Although an interesting concept/theme, it really did not develop as a story. Once the initial idea of a brave (stupid?) bomb disposal expert (cowboy?) are introduced, and this happens very early in the film, the rest is repetitious. Characters were not explored, and aspects of the location and politics were ignored. There was some nice insight into the appalling difficulties faced by troops in such a foreign environment, and the difficulties in differentiating between friend and foe. But the way in which the unit operated stretched belief! Individual performances were good, and special effects were adequate, but not enough to overcome the basic lack of content.

I caught 2:37 at the AFI Fest in Los Angeles. It's a very well shot first film (though the DV format begins to show itself in outside scenes), and I'm sure it has good intentions of showing us the "dark side" of high school - in other words every side of high school. But the filmmaker doesn't have the talent to write or direct up to the premise's promise. There are several characters, but none of them are any more than what the plot requires them to be. There's no depth to these caricatures beyond the machinations of "I am troubled teen X, I have Y problem." The perceived roles of men and women in this story are phenomenally troublesome.<br /><br />Let's start with the men. You have the stoner kid who's gay, the jock who's also gay, the boy who rapes his sister, and Mr. Peepants. As the stereotype requires, all gay men must be sexually unfulfilled and violent toward women and themselves. Naturally (or unnaturally as the stereotype assumes), the two gay male characters beat up women, Peepants, and themselves. I'd be perfectly fine with these characterizations if the stereotypes were turned on their heads, or if the characters somehow transcended them. Yet neither took place, and that's all there is to these characters' stories.<br /><br />Next, the ladies. One young woman wants to be a bulimic housewife, another is the pregnant rapee of the sister-raping brother, and there's the girl who kills herself (I'll get to that later). Again, I don't think there's a requirement of political correctness for filmmakers (I'd be out of a job were that the case), but I do think that it's only justified if there's more to that character or story. If that archetype were being used to reveal something about character other than "I'm a teenager and life sucks," I'd be happy as a clam. But nothing new is revealed! Nothing is subverted, or changed, or sublimated.<br /><br />Finally, the girl who kills herself. This is blunt and HIGHLY sloppy storytelling. We're supposed to sit through 5 minutes of a girl violently killing herself who we've seen for maybe 30 seconds through the whole film? We've followed all these other stories for an hour and a half, and now we're invited to torture ourselves for a character that isn't part of the story? It's cheap, exploitative, and sloppy. Despite the millions of crappy indie films that came before this, you have to EARN something like that. You can't simply purchase it on credit. So this suicide happens, we get wrap-ups from the characters that go similarly nowhere but down, and the film ends. What have I learned? I already knew high school sucked - been there, done that. I already knew people have stereotypical views of gay men and young women. I already knew that kids with disabilities are mocked.<br /><br />What else is there, then? Smoke, mirrors, and some really nice views of leaves. Oh, and the nastiest deus ex machina I've seen in a while.

When I first saw this movie back in the middle of January (2005) I didn't like it. I thought it was too weird and thought that some parts that the main star, Judith Light, acted were so unlike her. (Which of course is true) And then I watched bits of it the next day when it re-aired and I felt pretty much the same. Then I watched it again two Sundays ago (March 20th, 2005) and I began to really enjoy it and this time I taped the entire thing. I even cried the first 2 times, but mainly because the actress was actually crying and I am a big fan of hers.<br /><br />It is a very well acted and done TV Movie. Judith Light is one of my favorite actresses and I think she does a superb job in this film! I keep watching it over and over. It's a sad movie, but very good.<br /><br />If you have not seen this movie, I definitely recommend it! It's not usually my type of movie, but I did enjoy this one! A+++

After watching the trailer I was surprised this movie never made it into theaters, so I ordered the BluRay. I had a great time watching it and have to say that this movie is better than some major animation movies out there. Of course, it has its flaws but I can still really recommend it. The animation is well done, very entertaining and unique and the story kept me watching it all the way to the end. Some of the backdrops are just drop-dead gorgeous and you can see the French talent behind it. I thought that Forest Whitaker's performance feels a bit lifeless but that is how the character Lian-Chu is depicted in this movie. So overall, thumbs up, I liked it a lot and I hope it is successful enough for all the studios involved to continue making great movies like this. I would recommend to give it a chance and be surprised how great a movie can be with such a small budget. Hektor alone is worth watching the movie since some of his moments are Stitch-like hilarious.

...however I am not one of them. Caro Diario at least was watchable for two thirds of the time, but the boring and self-centred third section of that movie gave us a taste of what was to come in this extraordinarily self-indulgent mess. Moretti says he feels a need to make this movie, but doesn't want to, whereas the viewer feels that he should stick with it, but really doesn't want to either. A film about Italian politics and elections could be fascinating, but this is not that film. At one point, Moretti and his friends are standing outside the Communist Party headquarters, discussing the interviews they are preparing to conduct with Party leaders inside, but it's characteristic of this film that we never get to see anything of them. Interposed with Moretti's political ravings are the events leading up to the birth of his son, and subsequent home movie shots of him with the baby and later the infant Pietro (the film drags us through several years and more than one election period). We keep expecting to see some definitive sequence or cogent argument, but they never come. I for one doubt that I could have the patience to ever sit through a Nanni Moretti movie again. He succeeds in making an hour and twenty minutes seem like an eternity.

Worst movie ever!! Its not clever or funny or thought provoking. 84 minutes of bad actors doing their best with an awful script.<br /><br />Acting was so bad that you can see the dead people breathing.<br /><br />Maybe the writer/director combination believed they were Quentin Tarantino or something (you know make a movie about nothing still cool) but failed miserably.<br /><br />I hope the writer never makes another movie EVER!! not everyone is born a writer, sometimes we need to count our losses and go back to being a bathroom attendant or whatever.<br /><br />Please don't watch this movie, even on mute with the stereo going its still a painful 84 mins.

An excellent cast who do their best with an awful script, inept direction, and some of the worst score that I have ever heard. More TV movie of the week than serious drama. Which is sad when one considers that the source material is very serious and very real. The film makers decided that instead of building drama and character, it was better to just show the most graphic and violent bits and hope that the audience would be shocked into sympathy and caring. In my opinion, one the most blatant forms of cut and paste film adapting.

The acting wasn't great, the story was full of simplistic turns and transparent characters. It's about the repercussions of the struggle between right-wing Flemish block voters on the one side and the Moroccon people living in the Belgian city Antwerp on the other side. Is it a political analysis ? Is it some kind of Belgian West Side Story or modern Romeo and Juliet ? The film just isn't strong enough to answer both questions (supposing those were the director's questions, too). Still, some of the scenes could function as a kind of Ken Loach film, set in Antwerp. After all, this city has been the starting point of the extremist right-wing Flemish Block party and is struggling with a lot of problems and tensions between different populations and cultures. It's very difficult to make a film about this situation, and this one isn't successful, unfortunately. Still, it's telling a story about a very real and complicated situation in present-day Belgium. The few foreign viewers watching should try and enjoy it and realise it's not the actual film that is important but the social dividing lines behind it that haunt Belgium, a 10 million people country, in the 2000s<br /><br />Dries Van Dongen

I realize why people hate this film. And, I hated Blair Witch Project,so go figure? This is about as staged as it gets & yes they do insult your intelligence by trying to make it seem real.I really liked the madame lalaurie storyline though it's more than likely made up. But, the main reason I like this film, is fake or not when the ghosts start attacking & kidnapping them,I get chill-bumps every time & have to look behind me as it feels like something's there with me.i know it's my imagination, but hey more than half of the drivel that is horror in today's cinemas & DVD's doesn't give me goosebumps,so that makes this a creepy delight.Not for everyone, as skeptics will hate it & not for gorehounds as with a PG-13 rating there is no gore. And, the females are very annoying!You'll wish the ghosts would take them off & experiment on them before it's all said & done. ** out of *****.

I am finding that I get less and less excited about Disney's sequels to movies. Yes, I do understand that the budget for the direct to video movies are not the same, but these movies don't even try. Some examples are Hunchback II and Tarzan and Jane. If anyone has seen the previews for Stitch-The Movie, you will see my point. But I digress, this movie reaffirms my point. The animation is sloppy, the story lines resemble Saturday morning cartoons, and not all of the original voices are there. I was very disappointed not to hear Michael J. Fox's voice. It was so glaringly obvious that the person doing Milo's voice was trying to sound like Fox, but didn't come close to succeeding. <br /><br />If it says anything, my children ages 10 and 6 didn't even sit through the whole movie.

This movie could only originate in the 1970's!! It's a bizarre action movie set in a small California workers town. Some sort of mill or plant is closing down, so suddenly, rampant bad behavior is occurring in the streets! The townsfolk's are fed up! So Ben Arnold (Jan Michael Vincent), goes to another town to recruit his brother, Aaron, played by Kris Kristofferson. Aaron is a Vietnam Vet who looks and acts a little…off balance. He hangs out with a bunch of other surly Vietnam vet's. They come into town to clean it up (they become deputized), but underneath their good deeds, they are actually running gambling houses, asking for protection money, etc.!!! It takes a while for people to catch on, and in a biblical Cain and Abel showdown, Vincent has to take on his older brother. There's an interesting blue-collar sleaze atmosphere to this movie, which makes it interesting (note the cock-fighting scene!). Vincent is almost too angelic in this role – he thinks so highly of his brother, he cannot conceive of him committing the evil deeds he's accused of. He finally comes to his senses – his girlfriend, Victoria Principal, is brutally shot in the back & he himself is beaten up in his home. Kris Kristofferson is creepily effective as Aaron. He coolly denies any wrong-doing, and even gently coos and talks to Vincent's young daughter (she refers to him as 'Uncle Aaron') even while he's threatening her father's life, all the while smiling! Vincent and Kristofferson have good contrasting chemistry with each other. Bernadette Peters makes an interesting appearance as a 'saloon' girl who attracts Aaron's attention. This is a good 70's action movie, if you can find it!! It is NOT available on DVD yet…

OK, so I'm not usually one that runs out and rents foreign movies...especially foreign dark comedies. I think I can count on one hand the number of films that I found genuinely hilarious from beginning to end. This movie will be added to the short list. Even dark comedies right out of Hollywood sometimes turn me off because they require an incredibly dry sense of humor. But this one had my eyes welling up with tears. My sides hurt. I haven't laughed that hard in a long time. This movie was recommended by my mother and I don't think I would have even dreamed of watching it had she not raved about it. Don't be afraid of having to read during your movie - you'll miss out on a hilariously well-acted flick.

Deranged and graphically gory Japanese film about little beings taking people over and turning them into necroborg-zombie like machines- which beat and hack each other apart so that the winner can eat the loser. In the middle of this a pair of lovers become infected.<br /><br />Technically superb horror comedy(?) is only for those with strong stomachs as blood and body parts go flying. Good taste prevents me from describing what happens here, but lets just say its pretty gruesome. If you like this sort of thing with form several steps above slender content by all means see this film. Personally I'm not normally one to enjoy films like this on anything but the how sick and twisted do they go level. Here I was intrigued enough that I can suggest it to people I know who like really gory movies.. Its also a film with enough going on in the details that I want to see it again since now that I know what was going on-as revealed in the end-I want to go back and see what it was I didn't catch on to. There is an internal logic rare in these films.<br /><br />7ish out of 10 for those who like blood and severed limbs, its a zero or more precisely a run and hide alert for everyone else.

This is a excellent series. You will laugh, you will cry, these wonderful people will be a part of your family. The way this family cares for one another and helps each other through their crisis sets a great example of the way we should live our lives. There are many good things they do, and a number of bad choices, but they never turn their backs on family, they work through problems. Michelle, the youngest daughter, is the cutest thing I've seen. Stephanie, the middle daughter, suffers with Middle Child Syndrome and with the help of EVERYONE in the family it's better. DJ, the oldest daughter, is growing up whether her dad wants it to happen or not. One thing they all share is they miss their mom. Danny (Dad), Joey, and Uncle Jesse love these kids so much, and it's apparent in every episode.

This version of "The Lost Horizon" is actually not a bad film at all. I think the problem is people like to pick on musicals, especially those made in the 70s. I saw the film upon its original release in 1973 (I was ten) and really enjoyed it, the music especially. (Burt Bacharach has always been a favorite.) The story is fun, the acting is good, and technically it's excellent. Sure, there are one or two rather silly dance numbers, but hey, you can't win 'em all. I have this film on video and watch it every so often...and I enjoy it each and every time!

When I first started watching this movie I was looking for some kind of subtle metaphors but it soon dawned on me that this movie was indeed about people on a train. The interactions between people are like those you can see any day on the street and when in occasion there is a slightly more interesting situation the dialogue becomes stilted and boring. Its not that I don't get how this film is trying to portray the way people interact, it's just that in this film they are very boring. If you want to see and analyse these kinds of relationships you'd be best to actually go out and buy a train ticket and look at the people on the train with you. It is realistic but you wouldn't go to a movie to watch a film about you sitting there watching the movie.

There's never a dull moment in this movie. Wonderful visuals, good actors, and a classical story of the fight of good and evil. Mostly very funny, sometimes even scary. A true classic, a movie everybody should see.

This is my favourite movie of all time. And I always think of it as John Huston's requiem.<br /><br />I must have seen it at least 20 times and never tire of it. The mood, the script, the singing, the dinner, it is like being invited into someone's home and observing the events and not able to participate even though you want to... It is a rare treasure, this movie and I cannot write enough praise for it.<br /><br />It is cast incredibly well, with quite a few Abbey Theatre faces and also the wonderful tenor voice of Frank Patterson. Lady Gregory's poem recited in the movie is one of the most moving ever written. Anjelica's scene walking down the stairs as she listens to the song is one of the best performances every seen on film. I cry every time I see it..for all the right reasons.<br /><br />We have all had love lost at an early age and weep for our young hopeful selves.<br /><br />Donal McCann acted in far too few movies for my liking, he just loved stage work and stuck to it, and it is our loss that we do not have more of his performances on film as he does so much with this delicate role by expression and the portrayal of a deep love for his wife that will never be reciprocated and he conveys such inner sadness at knowing this.<br /><br />If you want your movies action and plot packed avoid this, there really is no beginning, middle or end just a lens onto the characters at a dinner party in Dublin 80 years ago and all the little nuances and shadings of the personalities portrayed so beautifully.<br /><br />Bravo to all who were involved in this production. 10 out of 10.

All through his career Hitchcock did great films; this was not one of them.<br /><br />A man knows too much, his daughter is kidnapped to secure his silence, and in the denouement all is resolved to the accompaniment of gunfire and rooftop drama.<br /><br />Anyone who has seen 1930s Fritz Lang films- 'M' comes to mind- will know how far this urban narrative of crime and conscience falls short of what had already been done in that genre at that time. There is an altogether amateurish air about much of the staging and acting which subverts any sense of menace, darkness, and depravity that Hitchcock might have been seeking to instil.<br /><br />What it is worth watching out for, however, is the sequence associated with the shooting at the Albert Hall. Once that kicks off it is as if the film has been given a blood transfusion. The camerawork is lively, the cuts are interesting, and the way that everything combines to a climax is masterly. Here you can see the future master: Hitchcock effortlessly orchestrate all the resources to impressive and memorable effect: when the scream comes you really feel as well as hear it.

This movie takes the psychological thriller to new depths. Well written by Shane Black, the film is executed phenomenally by the cast under the watchful eye of Director Jack Swanstrom. Clearly, Swanstrom is a director that we should look out for in the future. His strength lies in his adaptation of personal experiences both on screen and in the classroom.<br /><br />This thought-provoking film is a must see for anyone who can appreciate action, drama, suspense, and mystery. As with all good films, the viewer goes on a journey of their own to find their individual interpretation of the movie. The mystical aspect of the film is intriguing and adds to the suspense. You find your self looking for the answers along with Marquette. Audiences have liked the movie on the festival circuit - with many awards received, they must have agreed that A.W.O.L. (2006) is well worth watching. <br /><br />I'd love to own a copy - how do I go about getting one?

Another gray, horrible bit of schlockiness from the family Corman. The first space capsule into outer space crash lands back on Earth(with some of the worst special effects ever), and the pilot appears to be dead. But appearances can be deceiving. He's actually more alive than the rest of the cast, including a patronizing misogynist old doctor(who'd also really, REALLY boring), a greasy guy who looks like he's cornered the market on hair oil, another guy so dull he doesn't even make much of an impression, a female scientist who never seems to be hurt or angry over the old guy's patronizing, and a female photographer with a Farah Fawcett haircut(pre-Farah, of course) and about as much liveliness as a dead duck.<br /><br />What are any of these people's names? I think it was Steve. Apparently, everyone in the cast, including the women, were called Steve. Anyway, the dead pilot Steve turns out to not only be alive, but to be incubating baby aliens(or seahorses, or shrimp, or whatever) inside his torso. The Momma beast that implanted these little critters looks like a giant bald parrot with claws. Once again, I am impressed by the laugh-ability factor of the monsters created by the House of Corman. The space carrot from Venus in It Conquered the World is still officially the worst, most laughable monster I've ever seen grace the screen, but the Cormans always manage to deliver when it comes to bad, cheesy looking monsters.<br /><br />They also managed to deliver on their other trademarks as well; i.e. a boring, confusing plot, long gray shots(thank God Corman did most of his films in black and white, since his color stuff still manages to look somehow gray)two or three locations max, stupid and lame props and special effects, and lots and lots of dull dialog. There's only two deaths in the film(if you don't counted the roasted parrot..err..alien blood beast being offed at the end of the film). Cheers rang out through the land, I'm sure, when the alien rips the old doctor's head off and(apparently) eats it. Now it can talk in English and has the doctor's memories. It can also move the pregnant astronaut around as though he were Pinnochio. <br /><br />The monster's apparent intent is to rebuild its race using human beings as food and giant wombs. There's a confusing bit at the end(well, more confusing than usual, anyway) in which the creature tries to explain why it is doing this, but it makes no sense whatsoever. Something about how humanity is about to follow in its race's footsteps and destroy themselves by something they'll soon create. It never really said what that was. It could have been anything from toaster ovens to digital watches, who knows. Its baby minder stabs himself rather than let the alien shrimp crawl out of his body, and the oily guy(and the other guy) burn the parrot-alien to death with a Molotov cocktail. Ahh,the smell of roasting chicken..err.. alien. End of story, in which the rest of the characters wander off and leave their dead comrade laying on the ground to rot. Oh, Hell, why not save yourself the expense of a funeral? I'm sure that was what Corman was thinking, when he was trying to cut corners and make his scenes as cheaply as possible.

Noni Hazlehurst's tour-de-force performance (which won her an AFI award) is at least on par with her effort in FRAN three years later. Colin Friels is also good, and, for those who are interested, Alice Garner appears as Noni's child, and Michael Caton (best known for THE CASTLE) is a bearded painter. (Also interestingly, Hazlehurst is currently the host of lifestyle program BETTER HOMES AND GARDENS, and Caton is the host of property-type programs including HOT PROPERTY, HOT AUCTION, etc...) This film reaffirms the popularly-held belief that Noni was arguably Australia's top female actor during the early-to-mid 1980s. Rating: 79/100.

Perhaps the wildest outlier in Alfred Hitchcock's career is this straight-out comedy vehicle by the director, pairing Carole Lombard with Robert Montgomery as a couple who discover a mistake has invalidated their marriage. Where do they really stand with each other?<br /><br />Contrary to what others say, there IS an element of suspense here: The idea that these two miserable people might escape each other, free to inflict their awfulness on some other, undeserving mate.<br /><br />It's funny reading comments here about how miserable Lombard's Ann Smith plays out in this film, because Montgomery's role is as much of a heel. He manhandles Ann, snaps at witnesses, short-shrifts clients - just the kind of lawyer who gives his profession a bad name. Ann is overbearing, too, of course, the kind of wife who holds her husband hostage from work for six days over a petty squabble, bringing up things like what he did in Paris when he was 20 and hadn't even met her yet. "I forgave you that!" she says, as if it was big of her.<br /><br />For David, a revoked marriage is an opportunity to have a little illicit pleasure with his "mistress" before tying the knot for good. For Ann, it's an attempt at premarital sex that must be repelled with a bottle of champagne to the head, followed by expulsion from their apartment and her life.<br /><br />The acorn doesn't seem to fall far from the tree, as Ann's mother is scandalized into apoplexy when she learns what David tried to pull: "Oh my poor baby! Thank Heaven your father is dead!"<br /><br />That's a rare good line in this laughless, unlikeable comedy.<br /><br />You can call this an example of the "remarriage comedy", in which the bonds of matrimony are challenged in order to be reaffirmed. You can also call this an example of what Roger Ebert calls the "idiot plot", in which the storyline depends on the main characters acting like idiots. Hitchcock seems to have a laugh at uptight American morality, but can't really do much more with it than a jokeless scene where an older couple is scandalized by the sound of loud plumbing.<br /><br />Lombard died within a year of this film's release; it was the last film of hers she lived to see. What a shame it couldn't have been something better! She was overbearing in "My Man Godfrey", too, but in such a likable way you didn't just have to go with her, you wanted to. Here she plays for laughs that aren't there while sadistically breaking David's chops again and again. Montgomery rolls his eyes a lot like Groucho, a study in smugitude.<br /><br />The only really decent thing in this movie that lasts more than a few seconds is Gene Raymond as David's law partner Jeff Custer, who makes a play for Ann and acts with honor and decency. Raymond underplays his many reaction shots, and even a drunk scene, all to good effect.<br /><br />***SPOILER***So decent a guy is Jeff that Ann ends up rejecting him for not fighting David after she goads him into a confrontation, calling Custer "a lump of jelly". Jeff exits the scene, leaving Ann and David together for their future murder-suicide. Here's one Custer that managed to escape a massacre!***SPOILER END***

This 1939 film tried to capitalize on the much better Michael Curtiz's film "Angels with Dirty Faces". As directed by Ray Enright, the only interesting thing is how tamed these kids were in comparison with what's going on with the youth in America's inner cities today.<br /><br />The film is only worth seeing because of the presence of Ann Sheridan and Ronald Reagan, who showed they were well paired together. The Dead End kids have larger parts as the plot concentrates on them rather than in the older folks.<br /><br />In a way it's curious how arson was used in the same way some scrupulous landlords did in later years right here in New York. It was the quickest way to turn a property around never considering the social problems it created. In today's climate with so many guns around there is a new reality. The young kids of the story seemed mere pranksters rather than criminals. How times change!

The ending made my heart jump up into my throat. I proceeded to leave the movie theater a little jittery. After all, it was nearly midnight. The movie was better than I expected. I don't know why it didn't last very long in the theaters or make as much money as anticipated. Definitely would recommend <br /><br />

The film is not for everyone. Some might think the acting is bad when it is actually understated and natural. There are no obviously evil acts and there are no stunningly beautiful moments. There is a lot of indecision, an lot of conflicting feelings.<br /><br />Actually this film takes a very honest look at a very complex subject, Sex with minors. It is complex because the characters are trying to deal with love and sex when her body and hormones are still developing and both of their minds and personalities are still developing. Complex also because society has very simplistic views of sex with minors, and complex, because the characters don't know if society is right or if their instincts are right.<br /><br />Some will not like the movie because it leaves unanswered questions. Questions such as who was really in charge of the relationship, who was damaged, did good come out of it, was it art, who was damaged more, did some of the problems with their relationship stem from it being forbidden by society, did some of the problems stem from their own immaturity, and probably most important, was this truly a crime?<br /><br />The film is resolutely neutral on all of this, and it is this neutrality that is its strength. It is the reason for the understated acting, the simple sets, the lack of background music, soft lighting, and the general "flat" presentation. The message is clear. We don't really understand this kind of relationship today, and quick judgments are bound to be shallow.