Datasets:

srivatsavaasista

/

textgenerator-ds-mini

like 0

***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** There's not much that can be said about this early-talkie era flick. (I'm hesitant to call "Cimarron" a "film", because I feel that the word is too esoteric.) But what can be said about it...mainly speaks against it.<br /><br />Take, for example, the overuse of portraying Indians as bad folk. In one scene, the little boy of the flick's lead character--an overbearing and over-ambitious family man who wants to set up a newspaper business-- is playing just outside of his father's office. An Indian kneels down in front of the child. "Hello," the boy says to the Indian, in a very polite manner. The Indian gives him a feather, stands up and walks off.<br /><br />Yancy Cravat, Jr. excitedly runs inside the office. "Mommy! Mommy!" he shouts, holding up the Indian's gift. "Look what an Indian gave me!"<br /><br />"How many times do I have to tell you!" she snaps at the boy. "You aren't ever to talk to those filthy Indians!"<br /><br />Yancy Yates, Sr. (Richard Dix) comes across as a man who speaks with a forked tongue. At the start of the story, he seems to have a definite plan for giving his family a better life. But, we soon enough discover, he's no great over achiever--much less a totally good-moral minded man. His slave child, Isaiah (Eugene Jackson) is one tell-tale sign of this.<br /><br />Upon his family's first trek to a Sunday morning church service--one<br /><br />at which, curiously enough, Cravat is to give the sermon--Isaiah tries to come along, dressed up like Cravat, long-tail suit, holster, gun and all. Cravat tells him to go home. "Ya' all doesn't want me to come with ya' ta church?" Isaiah says with a pout.<br /><br />"No!" Cravat corrects him, patting him on the shoulder. "You don't understand! I want you to stay and guard the house. And if anyone at all comes along... you shoot him dead!"<br /><br />The characters--not to mention the actors--in "Cimarron" couldn't<br /><br />act their way out of burlap sacks, despite their obvious efforts. And nothing in the script was any too commendable, either. (Granted: the incomparable Edna May Oliver--notorious for playing the Red Queen in Alice In Wonderland, also released in 1931--actually manages to look good, pulling off her portrayal of a pompous old woman, which is what she's also been best-known for.) But, aside from that, well...<br /><br />Yancy Yates isn't popular in town from the first week he arrives,<br /><br />and one of the outlaws decides to shoot Cravat's white hat off as he and his wife (Irene Dunne) are casually walking by. Despite her anger with the man who fired the bullet, Cravat just takes it completely in stride.<br /><br />Not only was this story not "shooting for realism", but it was very<br /><br />lacking in several key areas: e.g., Cravat's newspaper isn't ever really seen. (Bulletins and posters, yes--but not any newspaper.)<br /><br />Perhaps strangest of all, though: this is set in a small town in<br /><br />Kansas. Yet, for some reason or other, Yancy Cravat is dead-set on<br /><br />calling his paper "The Oklahoma Wig-Wam."<br /><br />Really good westerns have always been very few and far between--the only exceptions being Clint Eastwood's so-called "spaghetti westerns" of the late '60s to early '70s. Cliche westerns, on the other hand, are a dime-a-dozen.<br /><br />If you like cliche westerns, "Cimarron" will do you proud--but, as for me... it did me embarrassment.<br /><br />

dont ever ever ever consider watching this sorry excuse for a film. the way it is shot, lit, acted etc. just doesn't make sense. it's all so bad it is difficult to watch. loads of clips are repeated beyond boredom. there seems to be no 'normal' person in the entire film and the existence of the 'outside world' is, well, it just doesn't exist. and why does that bald guy become invincible all of a sudden? this film is beyond stupidity. zero.

George Hilton never really grabs me like Franco Nero or Clint Eastwood, but this is a great outing for him. Basically rippin off the Django/man With No Name and doing a damn good job. The opening sequence of this gem is a classic, and the cat n mouse games that follow are a delight to watch. Fans of the genre will be in heaven.

As always, controversial movies like this have mixed reviews. You either love it or you hate it, and not everyone will like this movie. This shows the perspective of the killers, which is something I personally feel is something important to consider. You may hate them, you may claim to understand them and feel as though you can relate, but regardless this movie will make you think about school shootings from a different perspective.<br /><br />The movie is shot entirely using a hand-held camera, something that I think works quite well as it makes it more realistic. It is told completely from the killers point of view, from their "missions" to family outings, all leading up the big day "Zero Day" in which they are planning on a massacre at their school. Zero Day does not offer answers, but merely presents a glimpse at the lives of two troubled young boys and lets the audience decide for themselves. Our feelings towards the boys are something mixed between sympathy and hatred, but yet we are left confused as to why two ordinary young boys would do such a thing. They are shown to be surprisingly normal, typical teenage boys leading ordinary lives, and if we didn't know what they were planning we wouldn't expect a thing (They make it clear throughout the whole movie that no-one else knows about their plan)<br /><br />The acting is extremely good considering the two actors are complete unknowns. We can only hope to see more work from the both of them in the future. Despite how this is a fictionalized movie, one cannot help but notice the obvious similarities to Columbine. Calvin and Andre are scarily similar to Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, (not so much in looks, but in manner) As someone who has researched Columbine very extensively, I could see the similarities and it is almost certainly based on it. <br /><br />The actual massacre is shown through surveillance cameras at the school and is one of the most chilling things I have ever seen. I was completely in shock after seeing it, and its a feeling that stays around for a while. It is very realistic and well-done, and it is very difficult to watch.<br /><br />All in all Zero Day is an excellent movie, and I think everyone should at least check it out. In the past, we have always simply branded killers "psychopaths" and assumed that either they were biologically wired for disaster or had media influence, but as Zero Day shows sometimes the motives are deeper than that, and we can never truly understand why tragedies such as school shootings happen until we have seen it from the perspective of the killers.

in his descriptions of CAA, platinum card lunches in Hollywood, psychoanalysis, a vacation in Provincetown he never took, and free trips to Nicaragua, financed by Columbia pictures.<br /><br />It sounds narcissistic, but Spalding Gray (possibly because of his unusual personality) ropes the audience in, laughs at himself (perhaps because he did not take the Hollywood thing oh-so-seriously) and gets us to care.<br /><br />This monologue is not just about "The Killing Fields", or "Swimming to Cambodia"; it is more a pastiche of events, as he sees them. Some of the lines are classic, as when Gray meets with the esteemed talent agents at CAA. The conference table is ..."full of them, tanned, healthy, fresh from drinking blue-green algae from an Oregon lake...there are no drugs now in Hollywood".<br /><br />This was before the tragedy occurred. Many of us will miss his off-balance humor. 9/10.

Never when I was a child did I love any movie more then this one. I would love to own it. I watched it every Sunday they played it on the Family Film Festival. It is an enjoyable film suitable for the whole family and the songs are wonderful.

Look as being Anglo-Irish I assure you this reviewer is anything but Bias. But I assure you this is very much an Irish Film - and not English as the last comment seems to have suggested. This film was written by Neil Jorden and Conor McPherson and directed by Conor McPherson too - both Irish. The Cast is almost entirely Irish - it was shot in Ireland with an Irish crew. Even Michael Gambon was born in Ireland - I remember him joking about it in an interview about this film.<br /><br />Michael Cane was evidently brought in to boost Box office takings abroad.<br /><br />Loved the film, I just wanted to correct a totally uninformed comment!<br /><br />Now on with the review - I loved Dylan Moran, have always been a fan of his, himself and Michael Cane formed a surprisingly good double act. It was great to see Morans range as an actor as he plays several different made up characters during the film. I would recommend this film to anyone with an interest in comedy - as it represents a fresh, quirky and inventive turn in Irish feature length chuckle films. I laughed a lot. what more could you ask for?

H.G. Wells in 1936 was past his prime and the books of his that will survive were long gone by. He was coming to the end of his life and he was confronted to his dream gone sour. At the very beginning of the 20th century he defended the idea that the world was doomed because the evolution of species, natural biology, on one side, and Marxism, market economy on the other side, were necessarily leading to the victory of the weaker over the stronger due to the simple criterion of number. The weaker were the mass of humanity and the stronger were the minority elite. He defended then a strict eugenic policy with the elimination of all those who were in a way or another weakening the human race. First of all the non-Caucasian, with the only exception of the Jews who would disappear thanks to mixed marriages. Then, within the Caucasian community all those who were not healthy, the alcoholics, the mentally disabled, all those who were genetically disabled, etc. That was not Hitler. That was H.G. Wells and that was not after the first world war. That was more than ten years before. And twenty years before the first world war he had published The Time Machine that defended the idea that the human "race", left to its own means and due to the vaster cosmological evolution of life on earth, would see the differentiation of the human "race" into two "species": the working class would become a subterranean laborious species and the bourgeoisie would become an idle surface species. The point was in the novel that the surface sophisticated and weak idle species was the prey of the other species who were the predators. Wells was convinced humanity was in danger and politicians were supposed to stop this evolution by imposing a strict eugenic policy. The first countries to follow this injunction were the Scandinavian countries who were also the last to drop it only very recently for some of them. The film here proposes a vision of 2036 with a world government that is absolutely dictatorial in the fact that there is no election, no parliament, no really democratic institution, only peace imposed by military conquest, and the government is dominated by one man or at the most one man and his few councilors. And in that future world all, absolutely all human beings are Caucasians. Wells was able to imagine humanity being completely white by 2036. Amazing. Wells envisaged some kind of a rebellion but that would be short lived and lead to nothing at all. The last sentences are the vision of this white civilization conquering the whole universe when contemplating the sky and its stars and planets. Frightening. And that was produced in 1936. All the more frightening since nowhere the slightest mention of Hitlerism, fascism, Japanese imperialism or Stalinism can be found. But it is essential to have that film in a good restored edition because it is crucial to have a full vision of H.G. Wells. We are obviously very far away from the Brave New World of absolute "democratic" social selection, or the Animal Farm of the dictatorship of the porcine proletariat, or the 1984 of the abstract mediatic dictatorship of Big Brother. This vision is at least just as much frightening as the three others. And I only want to compare Wells with the British science fiction writers of his days. It would be unfair to go beyond. This reveals that in England in these first three decades of the 20th century there was a tremendous fear among intellectuals: the fear that the future would only be somber, bleak and in the form of an impasse of some kind.<br /><br />Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines

This was alright. It was one of those We Gotcha But We Don't Have Enough Evidence Yet storylines. In the couple handfulls of movies I've seen her in, I've never really though much of Stephanie Zimbalist. A professional TV actress she is but nothing really outstanding. Here in this she was definitely above average as the former fed (or was it fed on loan?) profiler. Her character got along well with the motley bunch of Special Investigation Unit cops she was assigned with. There wasn't really a goofy character you'd roll your eyes at and just despise which was good. Also good is it takes awhile to know who the murderer is... but when I found out I wasn't that surprised. Oh well. One more thing that was good was the Los Angeles locations. Quite possibly if this was made today they'd use Toronto or Vancouver but here they really shot in downtown L.A. Like that a lot (even though I semi-despise L.A.) Liked the movie, too. I don't know if I'd ever watch it again but it wasn't too bad. My grade: B-

this move was friggin hilarious!!! funniest I've seen in a while, akshay and john kick ass as always, and the chicks are hot too. the story is awesome, lots of great jokes, and whoever reviewed this before me is an idiot. to him i say that u are not of Indian background so u wouldn't understand the humor u moron. don't rate movies u don't understand. what did u watch, the subtitle version where majority of jokes are lost in translation? thats what i thought jackass. <br /><br />akshay kumar is the best actor ever and proves once again his versatility, he can do not only action but comedy as well, and is excellent at it. john has proved himself as well, this is his first comedy role and he was also excellent at it.

I have been a fan of Amanda's since All That, and she is still funny. Too me, it's as simple as that. If you like the Bynes, you will like this film. It's harmless fun and quite funny in parts. Vi's wacky Sebastian accent and mannerisms are entirely unrealistic but made me laugh so hard at some points I almost choked on my popcorn. <br /><br />And anything that gets teens reading Shakespeare (maybe) is a good thing for me. <br /><br />On a shallow note, Tatum Channing is quite *ahem* freaking hot. He also does a good job with some of the film's tougher scenes. <br /><br />Some of the side characters are VERY broad, but they are broad in "Twelfth Night" so it's cool.

Evil warlord puts a town through pain and suffering. Not long before they call upon giant stone samurai Daimaijin for help. Daimaijin soon comes and really gets the warlord with all his viscious might. The revenge climax is really funny as Daimajin squashes guys under his feet and crushes guys with his fist and even drives a spike though a man's heart.

Like other movies from the worst director ever, Ed Wood, this movie is very bad but because of that it is also very funny. May be not for everyone, but I laughed a lot. It is a strange thing when you enjoy a bad movie. How do you rate it? As a movie very low, as entertainment at least a little higher.<br /><br />The movie tries to explain what a transvestite is and it does this through a scientist (Bela Lugosi) and an inspector (Lyle Talbot) who talks to a doctor (Timothy Farrell) who knows about these things. The doctor tells the detective two stories and that is what we, and apparently the scientist, see. The doctor tels these stories because a dead transvestite is found, suicide, and because of a headline in the news paper about a sex-change. The first and longest story is about Glen (Ed Wood himself) who is in love and about to marry Barbara (Dolores Fuller) but he has never told her he like to dress as a woman, when he is named Glenda. The movie tells the same thing over and over again, especially the fact that a transvestite is not necessarily a homosexual. The movie almost says that being a transvestite is not a bad thing, but being homosexual is, since it keeps telling us the fact that a transvestite is not a homosexual. The second story is about a transvestite who really wants a sex-change and not just wants to dress up as a woman, but it is much shorter and less interesting.<br /><br />A couple of things make this movie very bad, and therefore laughable. How the story is presented is the first thing, the way the same things are told over and over again and the conclusion of it all are others. This is not where it ends. The acting is very bad, especially Dolores Fuller seems to be reading her lines directly from a little screen somewhere. Every thing she says is funny. The whole dialogue actually gave me quite some laughs.<br /><br />There is also a sequence where someone walks into a room. The door stays half open and we see something hanging on the wall, not completely straight. Then the door, in what seems to be the same shot although we know it is not, is a little less open and suddenly the thing on the wall hangs straight. Ed Wood didn't mind to leave this kind of continuity errors in his movie. May be a good thing, because basically it is just another laugh for the modern audience. I think you understand that it is a bad movie and I think there is a good chance you will laugh at the ridiculous mistakes as well.

"Scientists at a remote lab experiment on (insert scaly creature here) and create out of control monsters. In the meantime a crack military team/the scientist's daughter/bank robbers find their way to the remote place and are menaced by the giant critters. One by one they're eaten, all during an "exciting" race to not be blown up by the forces who initially created the monsters..." The sad thing is that this sounds like about a dozen movies which have appeared on the Sci-Fi Channel. I have to wonder just what is going on? Sure... I like bimbos and Hollywood-Hunk wannabes be eaten by CGI critters as much as the next person... but where's the plot or originality? Granted, there are times when Sci-Fi Channel Shines. Battlestar Galactica, if a bit dark, can be very good. Writers have continued to pump life into the various Stargate offerings, and the latest BBC import of Doctor Who is surprisingly good.<br /><br />Even in the various "giant animal" movies on Sci-Fi, the animation seems to be getting better all the time. Compare the kommodo in this film to the rather clunky version in the first giant kommodo film on Sci-Fi.<br /><br />But goodness... how about a different plot? Maybe some -different- giant critter? On a whim, I started searching around the internet. Among the litter I found a few interesting stories which might appeal to SF fans and out of work Russian CGI animators at once. I offer http://www.macrophile.com/~arilin/archive/metamorphosis-day to the network with a suggestion that they contact the author for the story rights. (The story contains violent images generally on a par with those of various Sci-Fi channel offerings).<br /><br />The story has subplot, ethical and moral comment on the nature of humanity and ends not on one of those horrible "did they REALLY kill all the monsters???" moments, but rather leaves you guessing completely and in an entirely different mindset.<br /><br />Which is generally what science-fiction is supposed to do, no?

While I hold its predecessor, "Fast Times At Ridgemont High," as a standard to which other teen comedies should be compared, "The Wild Life" is one of the better lesser known films from that time-and a worthy sequel, if you can call it that. I believe its tagline reads, "From the makers of FTARH, something even faster." This definitely holds true. Though it may lack the depth of the former which tackles issues like first dates, teen sex, and abortions, "The Wild Life" is, nonetheless, a great flick. It's pure chaotic fun, especially due to Chris Penn's over-the-top character, Thomas Drake. If Spicolli was high on coke instead of weed, he would be Drake. Eric Stoltz, in his first major role, is great as the straight-laced Bill Conrad. The two characters work well off one another. Think a younger, hipper Odd Couple, complete with 80's gloss. Outside of them there are so many other great things about this film worth mentioning. Lea Thompsom has never looked cuter, especially during the scenes of her working at the donut shop. Jenny Wright is just delectable and fun to watch. Rick Moranis plays a great nerd/perv who is dying to get in her pants. Thomas Drake's wrestler buddies are hysterical, especially Benny, the little Puerto Rican guy, who says some pretty memorable lines. One in particular that he yells out during a night out at a strip club had me on the floor the first time I saw it. That's saying something! Finally, the movie ends with one of the best 80's party scenes on film, ever. Look out for special appearances by Ron Wood of the Rolling Stones, Leo Penn (Sean and Chris Penn's dad), and a random Michael Jackson look-alike at the party. Throw in a score by none other than the man himself, Eddie Van Halen, and you can't go wrong. For Van Hagar fans, keep your ears open for riffs that would be found on such albums as 5150, OU812, and For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge.<br /><br />If anything disrupts the flow of the movie it is a small subplot involving Randy Quaid as a burned out Vietnam vet. It just seems out of place and unnecessary. Other than that, it's near perfect. If your a fan of mindless but fun 80's movies and have not yet seen this one, you're in for something special. RENT IT NOW!!! <br /><br />p.s.-The credits say Cameron Crowe has a cameo as one of the cops in the film. Does he have his back turned during his scene because I have yet to find him. Someone please help me.

Now that Che(2008) has finished its relatively short Australian cinema run (extremely limited release:1 screen in Sydney, after 6wks), I can guiltlessly join both hosts of "At The Movies" in taking Steven Soderbergh to task.<br /><br />It's usually satisfying to watch a film director change his style/subject, but Soderbergh's most recent stinker, The Girlfriend Experience(2009), was also missing a story, so narrative (and editing?) seem to suddenly be Soderbergh's main challenge. Strange, after 20-odd years in the business. He was probably never much good at narrative, just hid it well inside "edgy" projects.<br /><br />None of this excuses him this present, almost diabolical failure. As David Stratton warns, "two parts of Che don't (even) make a whole". <br /><br />Epic biopic in name only, Che(2008) barely qualifies as a feature film! It certainly has no legs, inasmuch as except for its uncharacteristic ultimate resolution forced upon it by history, Soderbergh's 4.5hrs-long dirge just goes nowhere.<br /><br />Even Margaret Pomeranz, the more forgiving of Australia's At The Movies duo, noted about Soderbergh's repetitious waste of (HD digital storage): "you're in the woods...you're in the woods...you're in the woods...". I too am surprised Soderbergh didn't give us another 2.5hrs of THAT somewhere between his existing two Parts, because he still left out massive chunks of Che's "revolutionary" life! <br /><br />For a biopic of an important but infamous historical figure, Soderbergh unaccountably alienates, if not deliberately insults, his audiences by<br /><br />1. never providing most of Che's story; <br /><br />2. imposing unreasonable film lengths with mere dullard repetition; <br /><br />3. ignoring both true hindsight and a narrative of events; <br /><br />4. barely developing an idea, or a character; <br /><br />5. remaining claustrophobically episodic; <br /><br />6. ignoring proper context for scenes---whatever we do get is mired in disruptive timeshifts; <br /><br />7. linguistically dislocating all audiences (even Spanish-speakers will be confused by the incongruous expositions in English); and <br /><br />8. pointlessly whitewashing his main subject into one dimension. Why, at THIS late stage? The T-shirt franchise has been a success! <br /><br />Our sense of claustrophobia is surely due to Peter Buchman and Benjamin VanDer Veen basing their screenplay solely on Guevara's memoirs. So, like a poor student who has read only ONE of his allotted texts for his assignment, Soderbergh's product is exceedingly limited in perspective.<br /><br />The audience is held captive within the same constrained knowledge, scenery and circumstances of the "revolutionaries", but that doesn't elicit our sympathy. Instead, it dawns on us that "Ah, Soderbergh's trying to hobble his audiences the same as the Latino peasants were at the time". But these are the SAME illiterate Latino peasants who sold out the good doctor to his enemies. Why does Soderbergh feel the need to equate us with them, and keep us equally mentally captive? Such audience straitjacketing must have a purpose.<br /><br />Part2 is more chronological than Part1, but it's literally mind-numbing with its repetitive bush-bashing, misery of outlook, and lack of variety or character arcs. DelToro's Che has no opportunity to grow as a person while he struggles to educate his own ill-disciplined troops. The only letup is the humour as Che deals with his sometimes deeply ignorant "revolutionaries", some of whom violently lack self-control around local peasants or food. We certainly get no insight into what caused the conditions, nor any strategic analyses of their guerrilla insurgency, such as it was.<br /><br />Part2's excruciating countdown remains fearfully episodic: again, nothing is telegraphed or contextualized. Thus even the scenes with Fidel Castro (Demián Bichir) are unexpected and disconcerting. Any selected events are portrayed minimally and Latino-centrically, with Part1's interviews replaced by time-shifting meetings between the corrupt Bolivian president (Joaquim de Almeida) and US Government officials promising CIA intervention(!).<br /><br />The rest of Part2's "woods" and day-for-night blue filter just exasperate the audience until they're eyeing the exits.<br /><br />Perhaps DelToro felt too keenly the frustration of many non-American Latinos about never getting a truthful, unspun history of Che's exploits within their own countries. When foreign governments still won't deliver a free press to their people--for whatever reason--then one can see how a popular American indie producer might set out to entice the not-so-well-read ("I may not be able to read or write, but I'm NOT illiterate!"--cf.The Inspector General(1949)) out to their own local cinemas. The film's obvious neglects and gross over-simplifications hint very strongly that it's aiming only at the comprehensions of the less-informed WHO STILL SPEAK LITTLE English. If they did, they'd have read tomes on the subject already, and critiqued the relevant social issues amongst themselves--learning the lessons of history as they should.<br /><br />Such insights are precisely what societies still need--and not just the remaining illiterate Latinos of Central and South America--yet it's what Che(2008) gleefully fails to deliver. Soderbergh buries his lead because he's weak on narrative. I am gobsmacked why Benicio DelToro deliberately chose Soderbergh for this project if he knew this. It's been 44yrs, hindsight about Guevara was sorely wanted: it's what I went to see this film for, but the director diabolically robs us of that.<br /><br />David Stratton, writing in The Australian (03-Oct-2009) observed that while Part1 was "uneven", Part2 actually "goes rapidly downhill" from there, "charting Che's final campaign in Bolivia in excruciating detail", which "...feels almost unbearably slow and turgid".<br /><br />Che:The Guerilla aka Part2 is certainly no travelogue for Bolivia, painting it a picture of misery and atavism. The entire second half is only redeemed by the aforementioned humour, and the dramatic--yet tragic--capture and execution of the film's subject.<br /><br />The rest of this interminable cinema verite is just confusing, irritating misery--shockingly, for a Soderbergh film, to be avoided at all costs. It is bound to break the hearts of all who know even just a smattering about the subject.(2/10)

Black Snake Moan is uproarious. It is over-flowingly rich, fantastically orchestrated, strange and cumbersome, unique and visionary. In continuation of Hustle & Flow, Brewer paints his portrait of the American South almost as a mythological land one would expect to see in a Fantasy or Ancient Greece epic. And yet as far high above us his movies hover, they are still rooted; rooted in the deepest, darkest soil there is.<br /><br />As in traditional fairy-tales, Brewer paints his portrait in Black Snake Moan using extremes and exaggerations. Sharp and stark character traits, when coupled with such extreme acts as chaining a half-naked white girl to a radiator in an attempt to redeem her of her sins, exaggerate and emphasize the metaphor the same way such extreme visual techniques such as some characters having colour in Pleasantville strengthened the metaphor in that fairy tale film. But Brewer doesn't begin his film with "once upon a time"; in this film and also in Hustle & Flow, Brewer presents us with a different fairy tale; a dark, Gothic fable of sex, prostitution, and ultimately, redemption. These themes run through the film's veins like blood and resonate and bloom in its dark, brooding setting.<br /><br />But despite these harsh extremes, Brewer treats his characters like humans, and creates extremely well-executed, three-dimensional characterizations in Lazarus and Rae, particularly emphasized with their relationships with Lazerus' friend at the pharmacy, Angela, and Rae's mother.<br /><br />The acting is, all-around, quite perfect. One gets the feeling that both Christina Ricci and Samuel L. Jackson were born to play these roles. Their characterizations are so intense and so severe; it's even more of a challenge for the actors to keep their heads on and craft realistic characters. And they succeed admirably. Samuel L. Jackson in particular utterly disappears into his character, which serves as a polar opposite to most of the character's he's played before. With films like Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, Shaft, and others, he has crafted for himself a typecast of the "ultimate bad-ass". In Black Snake Moan Jackson plays an old, broken, defeated and earthy character quite unlike anything he's done before. And frankly, it's just fantastic. What comes as quite a surprise, though, is the casting of Justin Timberlake, and more specifically, the fact that he comes across as quite tolerable. Sure he doesn't have much screen time, but like what Brewer did with Ludicrous in Hustle & Flow, he actually gets Timberlake to act and do what he is meant to do, and not come across as totally unconvincing and irritating.<br /><br />But what is really so incredibly great about the movie is the atmosphere Brewer creates. The rural Southern locations work to his advantage in creating a dark, dirty, grimy, crusty, rugged kind of texture to the entire film, which more than fits in with the film's thematic and metaphorical aspects. And by utilizing all sorts of elements such as the rising sound of cicadas when Rae gets her itch, or a raging thunderstorm that increases and intensifies as Lazarus plays his "Black Snake Moan" blues number for Rae, Brewer truly manages to create almost a fantasy world, an undermined mythology to the rural Southern setting. And it works so utterly fantastically to craft Brewer's unique vision.<br /><br />And one can't talk about a Craig Brewer film without mentioning the music. In Hustle & Flow, he utilized a soundtrack of down-and-dirty, street-wise hip-hop music to emphasize the atmosphere and the vision. In this film, the music works even better at polishing off and fully representing the unique atmosphere. It is a rural blues soundtrack, but it's the dirtiest, rawest, grittiest blues you've ever heard. And it sounds just absolutely fantastic.<br /><br />In all, it can be said that had this movie been a simple tale of an old, broken, lonely, god-fearing black blues singer redeeming a young white woman who was sexually abused as a child and now suffers from nymphomania, there may have not been very much to write home about. But this film is not about the plot, and not even about the characters, as well as they are crafted in the film regardless. No, this film is about the vision – and what a unique vision it is! It is about the atmosphere, the mythology, the setting. It is about anger, fear, redemption, and most importantly, the blues. And it's all wrapped up in a unique, entertaining, stylized and impeccable ribbon. Brewer has guaranteed himself a spot on the most promising up-and-coming directors list, and with such a solid follow-up to a great debut film, Hustle & Flow, he will definitely be on my radar for future projects.<br /><br />It also must be mentioned that the film has one of the most fantastic and unique titles I've heard yet.

Even if I had never seen or heard of Georgetown, CO, this would be a sweet little movie. But my dad was born and raised there, and those are my uncle's horses you see pulling the sleigh! So this movie is very special to me. A lot of the interiors are shot in buildings and houses I recognize, and are very realistic. The story is a little hokey, but Georgetown is that kind of magical place where things like that COULD happen. John Denver was a better actor than a lot of people give him credit for. Mary Wickes plays the kind of "common-sense lady with a lot of sass" she played so well in many other films, most notably "White Christmas". I usually don't get to go out there in the winter, so I like to see this movie at Christmas time to "tide me over" until my next trip!

John Madden's cinematic interpretation of Edith Wharton's Ethan Frome falls short of doing justice to a great literary piece. While the story is maintained the elements that give the novella its soul are skewered and all in all lost in the film. Madden fails to convey the innocence, and overall tragedy of Ethan and Mattie's relationship instead transforming it into a morality tale. The mark is missed and the point lost in added details and poor dialog. Zeena (Zenobia) in the book is almost completely the antagonist, the books least sympathetic figure, where in the movie she can be almost pitied though it's a stretch you kind of feel bad for this sick woman who is being cheated on. The book more accurately describes Zeena's tyrannical control of the house and of Ethan. The movie just ticked me off. The addition of the fox was pointless, as well as the scene with Mattie trying to kill herself. It was just poorly interpreted and done. Film mistakes: Ethan's elusiveness in the church dance scene, interactions with Denis Eady, addition of love scene, fox scene, store scene, saying his plans allowed, lack of displays of Ethan's inner emotions and thoughts, introduction of the priest instead of nameless engineer, let on to much that Zeena knows about the growing relationship where in novel reader never knows what Zeena is thinking or aware of. Just too many flaws and poor directing decisions.

There were very few good moments in this film. Only a couple of characters were fleshed out and not that well. There were plot holes big enough to drive a truck through. The pace creep-ed along like an old man. There were many moments that the film never came back to like Coco stripping. What happened to her? How about Garci's sister? Is she better now? What about Leroy? We learned absolutely nothing about him. What about the electronic piano guy? How about the rich girl that got an abortion? What happened to her? That was an interesting subplot.<br /><br />Overall this is not a good movie and I recommend another musical that was in this film. LET'S DO THE TIME WARP AGAIN!!!!!!!

The script is so so laughable... this in turn, makes the actors' lines sound stiff and unrealistic and not to be believed. There's repetition of phrases -- "my sweet little god daughter" and minor variations of that line which comes to mind... and it's just sloppy soap opera dialog.<br /><br />Worse yet, the music is so WRONG! Plus, the main bluesy "theme" is horribly quaint and entirely wrong for this. And it feels overused mostly because the instrumentation, texture and arrangement of this theme never changes, even when the scene's emotional context does.<br /><br />Subsequently, whenever it appears, it sticks out like a sore thumb as the main transition from one scene to another.<br /><br />The music's corny, and it's as if the writer were writing music for a soap or a sitcom -- a low budget 80's Canadian sitcom at that -- and this makes it feel as if we're always on the brink of throwing to a commercial.<br /><br />This is so miscast, there's a lot of overacting and it's a real stretch that so many of these characters are employing only ONE type of NY accent -- a thick Bronx accent. I don't know if it's a question of the actors' limited capacity in only knowing *one* NY accent -- or whether it's a question of the director's ability to notice such an glaring anomaly.<br /><br />In the end, it's the amateur script with it's leaden lines which makes this entire "movie"... blow. When any foundation is shaky and unstable, it's impossible to build upon it without it's flaws revealing themselves in exponentially more damaging and unflattering ways.

Musings: Pure delight from beginning to end. Not a laugh riot, but a more subtle, sophisticated humor. What a goldmine of great scenes and character actors, including Reginald Denny, Nestor Paiva, Ian Wolfe, Harry Shannon and Jason Robards Sr.. <br /><br />Cary Grant is at the building sight of his new home, which is at that point, being framed. A young carpenter, played by future Tarzan Lex Barker, asks him if he wants his "lallies to be rabbeted", or some such thing that only a carpenter would know. Grant, not wanting to appear ignorant, replies in the affirmative. At that, Barker yells up to his mates, "OK boys, he wants 'em rabbeted, so....YANK 'EM OUT!" A second later you hear the ripping and tearing sounds of about 20 big nails being pulled out of various boards. All Grant can do is moan.<br /><br />Yes, the movie IS dated. You'd never see that many carpenters working at once on a single family home, and a place like that, in Connecticut of all places, would probably run a few million bucks.<br /><br />A classic movie that is really a treasure.

I guess this is meant to be a sort of reworking or updating of "Beauty and the Beast", but I can't say I've ever watched a movie that began with several minutes of graphic horse sex. Wow. Anyway it seems that a young woman and her..aunt? Have traveled to this castle in France where the woman is to be married to the son of the castle owner, who is the man who takes care of making sure the horses get their rocks off. It seems that there are legends in that area of a beast that was rather, uh, frisky, I guess you could say, with the ladies, or at least, one in particular. There are all kinds of references tucked away in that regard but every time the soon-to-be-blushing young bride gets her curious little hands on one the groom's father removes it from her sight. Anyway, the young bride-to-be goes upstairs to sleep while the family is waiting for a Cardinal to show up to the wedding (a family member, I guess) and as she dreams she dreams of a beast in the woods that has its way with her. The effects in this leave a little to be desired, and any attempt at eroticism (not that I know much about that) is kind of rendered laughable, especially when certain featured appendages appear about as realistic as a bed post or a baseball bat. This has a rather strange and abrupt, yet twist ending, with not really any clues or much build up to it, but it was kind of fitting and definitely not what I expected. I don't know, this is kind of a tough one to get through but it has its moments and is definitely weird. 7 out of 10.

OK this movie was made for one reason and one reason only TO MAKE MONEY!!The producers obviously didn't care about killing a classic horror movie. I knew this movie would suck as soon as it was going to be a pg-13 how many pg-13 slashers movies have turned out to be good? Thats like asking how many women have been on the moon? The answer is NONE!! Prom night 1980 was of cource no masterpiece but it certainly deserves to be recognised as a movie that stays true to its genre and deosnt try to be anything more than that.<br /><br />My problem with Prom night 2008 is the way that it handles the killer and i have 3 major problems with him.....................<br /><br />1)The way he escapes, he was locked up in a mental institute and he escapes through a air conditioning vent!! WHAT THE HELL? why would they have an air conditioning vent in the patients room? Do they want him to be comfortable during his stay or something? 2)His intentions are somewhat uncertain the killer want all of the main victims family and friends dead so he can have her all to his self, he says he loves her but the next minute he trys to kill her, so does he want to kill her, love her or just plain rape her?? 3) The killer is too good, how did he develop all of his skills? He used to be a teacher, so in this one scene where he kills the main victims boyfriend while hes basically on top of her asleep and she doesn't notice, it all silly 2 stars out of 10 terrible,silly,stupid attempt at a horror movie

As many know, this is the feature film debut of Edward D. Wood Jr. as as a writer/producer/director/actor. I have been a fan of Ed Wood for several years now. While I don't like this as much as some of his other films it was probably the largest insight that the cinematic going public gets of Wood during his life. Everybody knows that he was a transvestite. This film is about changing one's sex and how being a transvestite can create conflict in relationships with loved ones. This film is way ahead of its time in dealing with this subject matter and how it deals with it. However, the film still contains Wood's usual pitfalls of bad dialog, meaningless stock footage, and hokey special effects. Throw in Wood's usual overdose of Bela Lugosi hamming it up and you have Wood's first attempt at being a director.<br /><br />The plot is that a police inspector goes to a doctor after he discovers the body of a transvestite who committed suicide for advice on how to avoid further problems along these lines. The doctor tells him the story of Glen, who is also a transvestite. Glen wants to marry Barbara, but can't bring himself to tell her about his secret. He also tells the inspector about Alan who undergoes a sex change because he is really more suited to being a woman. Bela Lugosi plays a scientist who seems to add some kind of running commentary on what is going on (Lugosi's part really isn't well defined and proves to be most likely a vehicle for Wood to have a star in his film and Lugosi to get some cash).<br /><br />All in all, the movie shows the hallmarks of Wood's career. It was obviously shot on a very low budget and has quite a few things thrown in rather haphazardly. It definitely has the "it's so bad, it's good" feel to it. However, I do have to applaud Ed on his progressive thinking in making this film. Transvestitism and sex changes were not extremely open subjects in the early 50s. Wood took a big risk in making a film that portrays transvestites as people who are not sexual deviants and putting a more human face on cross-dressing.

The most difficult thing about this movie is to say anything positive about it. The characters were stereotypical "white-trash", the movie's "plot" was stunted from the beginning, and the worst feature of this movie was that the nudity was so blatantly from body doubles it was funny. Regretfully, that was the only funny thing in the movie. Ms. Jenkins would be better served if in the future, she would refrain from using her life-story to "entertain" people. It was simply that bad. The one positive aspect of this movie (this has nothing to do with the lack-of-quality of the film) is that my brother shelled out the money for this stinker.

I absolutely love all of Tom Robbins books, so I was very excited and interested to see a movie made after one of his books. I knew that there would be no way that the movie would capture even half of Robbins' magic, but after seeing the movie, it made me never want to read the book again. The movie Even Cowgirls Get the Blues doesn't include an eighth of the content in the book, and it seems to focus more on the love connection between Bonanza Jellybean and Sissy than anything else. Along with the incredibly weak plot line in the movie, I think that better actors definitely could have been chosen to play the characters. The only actors in the movie that I thought played their roles fit to Robbins' descriptions in the book were Julian's friends, in their five minute clip in the beginning of the movie. Those who haven't read the book might enjoy the movie, but as a huge Tom Robbins fan, this movie was nothing but a disappointment.

Pam Grier is the super soul sister of the 1970's, appearing in many blaxploitation films that have recently been discovered and appreciated by a new generation. I can safely say that BLACK MAMA, WHITE MAMA may be the worst Pam Grier movie I've ever seen.<br /><br />Grier is Lee and Margaret Markov is Karen; they are two female prisoners who escaped from prison after Karen's revolutionary friends attacked the paddy wagon. Chained to each other, the film becomes THE DEFIANT ONES for women, but has three separate plots: a fat criminal (Filipino sleaze star Vic Diaz) wants Lee dead, a cowboy bounty hunter (the excellent Sid Haig) searches for the two girls; and Karen's revolutionary friends search for her. The film eventually becomes so convoluted and uninvolved with the two women that the title should have been MEN CHASING WOMEN. Grier, an action star, is not given any chance to participate in any of the many (overlong) action scenes. Markov is excellent as Karen and Grier is OK as Lee, but both are eventually forgotten in the many subplots. One interesting scene has the bounty hunter forcing a police officer and his chief to drop their pants so he can shoot the one with the smallest penis (judged by his whore), but is easily forgotten amidst all the mayhem.<br /><br />BLACK MAMA, WHITE MAMA starts out great as a women-in-prison film complete with lesbian wardens and a shower scene, then completely switches to a chase film. If director Eddie Romero (famous for directing Filipino horror films) had just stuck with the WIP theme, he would have been fine. Instead, BMWM gets real old real fast and the surprise ending just makes the audience wonder why they sat through a 90-minute film for it to end like this! Another problem: where is the film supposed to be set? While some of the accents are Hispanic and cities have Spanish names (Los Robles, etc.), all the natives are obviously Asian! Hmmm... Recommended only for die-hard Grier fans, who even then will be disappointed.

So, Steve Irwin. You have to admire a man who is not only willing to throw himself into a river that clearly is filled with crocs, snakes, lizards, tons of poop from the aforementioned reptiles, and mud, not only daily, but with enthusiasm. He was never able to make ME want to do it, but he managed to make his wife come close.<br /><br />This movie does not fall into my parallel universe of film category - the films for people who just had their teeth drilled, have a migraine, or have no film experience and therefore like quiet mediocrity (currently well populated by Disney films). It's too noisy. Well, Steve is too noisy. He's just so happy all the time, and would cut right through the blasé' teenager (I can hear it now: "that movie was so STUPID") or the Tylenol with codeine. I'd say his enthusiasm is catching, but if it was, I would own a room full of snakes, and that hasn't happened yet. I agreed they're beauties, but I'm still not going to pet them.<br /><br />Plot was indeed predictable. Bad guys were so bad, for a minute there I thought I was shopping at a consumer electronic superstore. But the movie was filled with animals, and Steve and Terri, which is why I watched it. That plot (if you could call it that) was really more of a reason to throw yet another croc in a truck. My expectations were low and stayed that way.<br /><br />I was hoping, though, that there would be a bit of a sequel, where Steve and Terri (having worked on their acting skills) have a movie with a real plot and more animals with fur. I still can't believe we won't see Steve anymore. I hope that Terri and the children continue to be involved in the Australia Zoo and the discovery channel, at least. I can't imagine seeing a crocodile without having some member of the Irwin family telling me forcefully how wonderful that croc is. Crikey!

*May contain spoilers* *May contain spoilers*<br /><br />In the age of Shrek(the movie) & Pixar(the studio), this is a much more traditional animation film. It put together some characters that normally wouldn't be seen together(not to mentioned, try to save a human baby and bring it back to his father). They begin as enemies and end as best friend. If this sound like a Disney film, it is(only made through 20th Century Fox). The trailer to the movie was one of the best I've seen in ages, but the movie doesn't live to the expectation the trailer set. The problem lie with the fact that the makers of the film didn't made up their mind who is the target audience of the film. Yes, there are some jokes in the film that only adults will understand but the film is mostly aimed at children. The parents will enjoy the fact that for 90 min. their children's attention is focused on something else than them. The backgrounds are excellent and the voice are good but this is nothing more the a nice film. Children will love this film, adults will only like it.

Only the most ardent DORIS DAY fan could find this one even bearable to watch. When one thinks of the wealth of material available for a story about New York City's most famous blackout, a film that could have dealt with numerous real-life stories of what people had to cope with, this scrapes the bottom of the barrel for lack of story-telling originality.<br /><br />Once again Doris is indignant because she suspects she may have been compromised on the night of the blackout when she returned to her Connecticut lodgings, took a sleeping potion and woke up in the morning with a man who had done the same, wandering into the house by mistake.<br /><br />Nobody is able to salvage this mess--not Doris, not ROBERT MORSE, TERRY-THOMAS, PATRICK O'NEAL or LOLA ALBRIGHT. As directed by Hy Averback, it's the weakest vehicle Day found herself in, committed to do the film because of her husband's machinations and unable to get out of it. Too bad.

This movie was so great! I am a teenager, and I and my friends all love the series, so it just goes to show that these movies draw attention to all age crowds. I recommend it to everyone. My favorite line in this movie is when Logan Bartholomew says: "rosy cheeks", when he is talking about his baby daughter. He is such a great actor, as well as Erin Cottrell. They pair up so well, and have such a great chemistry! I really hope that they can work again together. They are such attractive people, and are very good actors. I have finally found movies that are good to watch. Lately it has been hard for me to find movies that are good, and show good morals, and Christian values. But at the same time, these movies aren't cheesy.

This film centers on four criminals, locked away in a prison who desire escape from their cell, hoping that a mysterious book of black magic, penned by a former inmate around 1920, named Danvers who wanted to use spells to keep his skin young.<br /><br />Carrère's(Gérald Laroche)criminal business tactics(shortcuts)have landed him in prison with three oddball cell-mates..a transsexual brute Marcus(Clovis Cornillac), Marcus' love-toy Pâquerette(Dimitri Rataud)who eats objects he touches(..and is in prison for eating his six-month old sister)and obeys his charge as if "he" were his mother, and the scholarly Lassalle(Philippe Laudenbach)who doesn't read, or eat breakfast(..the latter being that he murdered his wife during that time of the day). The film follows Carrère as he reads from the book, attempting to understand it's meanings hoping to find an exit from his prison. Carrère loves his child, and for a while believes his wife will get him out early on bail. When she betrays him, Carrère begins to slowly seethe with hate, and longing to see and hold his beloved son. Carrère's toughest critic is Marcus, who longs to be fully female, while still folding to several masculine traits, such as working out and taking a leak standing up. He talks tough and uses his muscle as a type of fear tactic, although deep inside is a world of vulnerability. Pâquerette is completely under Marcus' control and behaves like a canine to it's master..there's even an alarming scene where Pâquerette breast-feeds from Marcus! Lassalle is an unraveling mystery, opening up for us to slowly understand his ulterior motives and what lies within his possibly sinister brain. Clearly intellectual, and holding possible secrets from the others, Lassalle is actually the one who keeps the motivation of pursuing the secrets of the book going. Soon, those who aren't a threat to the book seek their "true" escape, not as much from the cell of four walls, but the cell that imprisons their true desires. After a certain murder, the book is thrown from the room with a very fascinating character entering the film with a camcorder as if he were a new occupant..who is this person and how does he understand the power of a book tosses away, and better yet, how to use it? A constant in this film is each of the prisoners often seen throughout looking out their window into the world just out of reach.<br /><br />I'm glad I had a chance to watch this film. It does play out like "Monkey's Paw", the characters get what they desire, but a price must be met. There's gore in the film, startling moments of graphic violence, but, in my opinion, this is first and foremost a story-driven tale. The gore is a product of what the book unleashes. One of the group gets his limbs twisted while suspended in the air, while a grisly opening act displays the carnage left in the wake of one man's desire. We see Danver's fate at the end, with a magnificent special effects sequence regarding an infant melting away. Lassalle's fate is a masterful effects sequence. I will say that Maléfique, through Eric Valette's well paced direction, always kept my attention, and, for being such an isolated movie(..about 95 % of the film takes place in a singular location, the prison cell)it never seems to drag. I guess that's a testament to interesting actors and fascinating characterizations, not to mention a compelling story using the supernatural to drive them.

If you'd like a great April Fool's joke, then please by all means show this film to someone. However, it is important that you in no way criticize the film but instead talk about what an artistic triumph it is and how "they just don't make great films like this any more". As your victim watches many disconnected and nonsensical scenes (such as a cute dog getting punted for no apparent reason, a cow standing on the bed, a woman licking a statue's feet or Jesus apparently raping a woman), make lots of comments using words like "brilliance", "juxtaposed" or "transcendent"--all the while acting as if the film actually makes perfect sense and isn't a complete waste of an hour of your life. Also be sure to keep a straight face and feign shock when (and if) they say that they either didn't understand it or thought it had all the artistry of a cow patty. Then, to further mess with them, show them all the comments on IMDb, as nearly all (except for a few trouble-makers like almagz and rooprect) talk glowingly about what genius and artistry this film is! By the time you are done with this little charade, they'll most likely think they are idiots and will make an appointment with a psychologist. <br /><br />This, to me, is the ONLY possible reason to watch this horrid mess of a film!!! That, or you could show it to the prisoners at Guantanamo in order to get them to talk!<br /><br />If you ask me, the famous painting of dogs playing poker or a velvet Elvis painting are superior artistically.

"In Cold Blood", adapted by director Richard Brooks from Truman Capote's famous novel, deals with the brutal and senseless murder of a family of four by a pair of hapless criminals. The film excels as a character study of the killers, particularly trigger-man Perry Smith (Robert Blake).<br /><br />The cast includes few recognizable names but they nevertheless bring the story to life with ease. Robert Blake and Scott Wilson are excellent together as two criminals with disparate personalities. They play off of each other effortlessly while Blake also gets plenty of opportunities to explore his character's idiosyncrasies. The rest of the cast is merely average and isn't worth remarking on.<br /><br />Richard Brooks received Oscar nominations for both his script and his direction. In my opinion, both were excellent, though the script does miscalculate with some ill-advised narration in the late stages. The Oscar-nominated cinematography by Conrad Hall is also top-notch, as is the editing. Also worthy of note is the jazzy score by Quincy Jones which secured the last of the film's four Oscar nominations.<br /><br />Unlike so many other crime films, this one doesn't glamorize violence. Brooks turns the killers into pitiable characters rather than flatly condemning them. Whether or not you agree with that sentiment the film does present an interesting alternative to the usual Hollywood approach. I recommend the film for this reason and also for the expertise with which the technical aspects are handled.

For those fans of Laurel and Hardy, the 1940s and beyond were a very sad time for the team. Their contracts with Hal Roach Studios had expired and now they were "free agents"--able to work for any studio who offered them a job. Unfortunately, Fox, RKO, MGM (without Roach) and even a French film company who hired the boys had absolutely no touch for their comedic talents. Plus, Stan and Ollie were a lot older and seeing these geriatric men taking pratfalls seemed sad, not particularly funny. Stan looked very ragged and Ollie's weight had ballooned up to the point where he could barely walk--and so it made me feel uncomfortable laughing at their very, very sedate antics.<br /><br />In addition to their age, this particular film suffers because Fox Studios oddly cast them in a supporting role and created a parallel plot involving a young couple--something that reduced their time on screen AND turned them into insipid "hangers on" instead of just being themselves. A cute and cuddly Stan and Ollie is very foreign to the old Laurel and Hardy of the 20s and 30s--and just seemed awfully strange and suited them poorly.<br /><br />Now even with their age, this COULD have been a decent movie if it had been given decent writing and if it appeared the studio cared--and it's quite obvious they were using the "B unit" here--with, at best, second class support. In particular, there are very few laughs and the last 10 minutes of the film is simply dreadful--relying exclusively on a sloppy rear-projected screen for the stupid chase scene--which might just rank as one of the worst of its kind in film history.<br /><br />For mind-numbed zombie lovers of Laurel and Hardy, it's probably a film they will love. But, for lovers of the team who are willing to honestly evaluate this film relative to their amazing earlier films, it simply comes up wanting indeed. In fact, of all their full-length films pre-1940, I can't think of one I liked less than DANCING MASTERS. Unfortunately, of the post-1940 films, this might just be one of their better ones. Sadly, it got a lot worse--with wretched films like THE BIG NOISE and NOTHING BUT TROUBLE. I just wish the boys had just retired after SAPS AT SEA.<br /><br />Finally, I wonder if all the generally positive reviews for this film on IMDb might reflect the reviewers' love of the team more than it's an indication that this is a good film? For an audience who are NOT already in love with the team, I don't know HOW this film will do anything but bore the audience--it certainly WON'T convince anyone that Laurel and Hardy were comedic geniuses. But even comedic geniuses need material worthy of their talents.

...and I Bought A Vampire Motorcycle staggers all over that line like a drunk with his shoelaces tied together. Some 'bad' films are quite enjoyable (like Norman J.Warren's Inseminoid), some 'bad' films are just bad (like Kent Bateman's Headless Eyes), but 'bad' films that try and do the post-modernist thing of being knowingly bad should always be approached with extreme caution. A lot of people think Troma's Terror Firmer is a bad-taste masterpiece, for example, but I'm guessing anyone over the age of nineteen will shrug it off as worthless dreck. Then there's John Carpenter's Dark Star. Yes, it's quaint, and certainly a product of its time, but as a film it's only two notches above worthless. This no-budget British black comedy-horror outing tries to achieve a satirical tone, with its endless references to its fellow shoestring splatter flicks (among them Psychomania, Horror Hospital and pretty much anything by Pete Walker), but due to dismal performances by second-string TV actors (the leading lady looks like Amy Winehouse), a script that appears to have been written on the back of a peeled beermat by two 'lads' with no understanding of how film comedy works, Dean Friedman's (intentionally?) dire elevator-rock soundtrack and production values never rising above mediocre, the net result is a film that can only be laughed AT, rather than WITH. If your idea of whoopee is anthropomorphic turds, Chinese takeaways called Fu King and references to long-forgotten TV ads, you'll enjoy this one, but don't expect too much.

Thanks to Kevin Smith, a bunch of geeks are running around saying that Return of the Jedi isn't any good because it's actually fun to watch. And oh no! Muppets are involved! That makes it bad! Everyone liked Return of the Jedi until someone in a Kevin Smith movie made a negative comment about it. Now all of a sudden people people look at you like you have some kind of disease if you mention how much you like it. This movie is so much better than anything Kevin Smith ever even considered creating that it boggles my mind that the man would even think of denouncing it. This movie is good fun! It's just as awesome as I remember it being when I was six! Enjoy this movie for what it is and stop stealing Kevin Smith's opinions! His aren't correct!<br /><br />And that Ewok song at the end ruled! I bet you people don't even enjoy "Ewoks: Battle for Endor"!!!! I'm going to set you all on fire!

OLIVER TWIST was to have controversy as well as success following it after Dickens published it in 1837. His picture of life in the urban ghettos was something shocking and new, and his making the central figures of the novel include criminals was another innovation.<br /><br />One day he was walking in London and passed a young woman he had been friendly with. He said hello, but she was rather stiff with him. He could not understand this. A few days later they met again, and he asked what he had done to upset her. "Well, if you must know, I did not like your last novel.", she said. "Really, everyone else thinks highly of it." He was puzzled: "What's wrong with it?" "Oh, Charles," she said, "I'm Jewish. How could you make up such a character like Fagin?!" He had not expected this: "Well...you know that trial last year of Ikey Solomon, the thief trainer. He's a model for Fagin and he was Jewish." <br /><br />Dickens found that did not settle things. "Yes," she replied, "He got what he deserved. But Charles, they did not call him "Solomon the Jew" like you call Fagin "the Jew"! Moreover, Solomon did not plan a murder. Fagin does." Dickens had to admit that he might have gotten carried away. He left thinking about what she said.<br /><br />Oliver Twist was published in several editions. Dickens tried to improve on Fagin a bit. Then he got an idea. He reworked the chapter called "Fagin's Last Night Alive", showing the fears in the man as he faced hanging. He also added some additional details. <br /><br />He let his female friend know about his resolve to change Fagin. A day or so later he met her at a friend's house. She looked at him as though he was crazy. "Didn't you like the changes?", he asked. "Charles, what changes - he's still a vile villain called "the Jew"!", she replied. "Yes, I did keep those in, but didn't you see how frightened he was in the death cell in prison." The young woman had noticed this, but felt that he was so vile he deserved to be suffering such fears. "Ah...then I was right about that...and did you see the little details I added?", he asked. "What details?", she replied. "When you first see Fagin now he is cooking himself dinner...you read that?", Dickens looked at her expecting a sign of recognition. Instead the lady looked confused. "I read he was at the fireplace, but I must have skimmed the passage." Dickens smiled as though he was brilliant, "He is cooking a pork sausage for his dinner." "A what!"she exclaimed. "He's eating pork, my dear...see - he's not a good Jew!" His friend looked at him, shook her head, and to his dismay left their friend's house. She didn't speak to him for years.<br /><br />Dickens never totally shook off his own bigotries, but the situation did lead to a partial attempt at amends in his last completed novel. In OUR MUTUAL FRIEND (1865) he has a minor character, Mr. Riah, who is used by an unscrupulous landlord to collect high rents from poor tenants. The landlord figures that Mr. Riah will be blamed because he is Jewish.<br /><br />But Mr. Riah is a good man. He is a very good man. He is a very, very, very, very good man - so good as to be unbelievable. If Fagin saw Mr. Riah in action he'd probably chase him away with a stick.<br /><br />The anti-Semitic image of Fagin lingers to this day. It is a measure of Dickens' genius as a writer that the novel overcomes it. However, in presenting the story on film it still causes problems for screenplay writers and directors: how, after the Holocaust, can one do a film treatment of a worthy novel without inflaming bigotry? David Lean showed how by having Alec Guiness appear in one or two scenes showing a human side and in confronting a mob at the end with true dignity. Sir Carol Reed, in his musical version of the novel did it better yet, due to a rewrite in the original musical's script.<br /><br />OLIVER had been made into a West End musical hit in the middle 1960s, and then taken to Broadway where it was again a hit. With a wonderful score by Lionel Bart, including "Food Glorious Food", "I Am Reviewing the Situation", "Consider Yourself", "Boy For Sale", "Who Will Buy", "As Long As He Needs Me", it deserved it's success. Reed did well in his casting the roles, including his nephew Oliver Reed as Sykes, Ron Moody as Fagin, Mark Lester as Oliver, Jack Wild as the Dodger, Shani Wallis as Nancy, and Harry Secombe as Mr. Bumble. There had been no big musical successes in Hollywood for a decade - the last musical to win the Best Picture Oscar had been GIGI in 1958. OLIVER won it in 1968.<br /><br />And Fagin - how to handle the eternal problem of the caricature? Well in the musical Fagin is not captured, tried and executed for the murder that is committed. After all, even Lean showed Fagin tried to control his confederate in his actions. But here Fagin realizes that he is getting too old to depend on this kind of chancy life. Although he loses his treasures (those stolen items he kept because he knew their value, and admired their beauty), he decides he can reform. He is allowed to do so, accompanied by his faithful acolyte, the Artful Dodger. I don't think Dickens would have appreciated the change (his female friend might have), but a modern audience certainly accepts it as fitting.

The funniest thing about Fortunes is that one of the main characters, Lewis (Urbaniak) has writer's block and apparently so did the screenplay writer for the film. This is sad, as well, as I guess by large, this is supposed to be a comedy, or dramedy, but that's the funniest thing I can remember from watching this.<br /><br />Three friends go out and drink one night. On the way home, two decide to get their fortunes told by a "gypsy," as they call her. Those two lives fall apart while the third friend stands by. Then, nothing happens.<br /><br />I hope I didn't spoil the movie there, but really, this extremely low-budget, bad quality movie had some kind of idea when it started but quickly snowballed into the depths of hell. Yeah, I'm being harsh. Honestly, it wasn't that bad, it was just blah.<br /><br />The aforementioned writer was annoying to watch, though he delivered maybe one or two of the only two funny lines. The clichéd "ladies man," the only one that didn't get his fortune told was just annoying. The only bright spot, was the remaining friend, the married dad whose fortune was told that something big was to happen to his son and he needed to be prepared. He was funny, genuine and clearly the best actor in the movie. Unfortunately, that's not saying much.<br /><br />Perhaps I'm being too cruel. Heck, they got the ambition to make a movie, went and got funding and accomplished something. Unfortunately, however, I can't at all recommend the film on the basis, there's hundreds of thousands of other independent movies that have hundreds of thousands better ideas and executions. This one was literally 10 minutes of an idea stretched another 81 boring minutes.

This was pretty inevitable. This movie borrows from "The Core" and from the film it borrowed from, "Armageddon", and the films it borrowed from and so on. Except this time there's Luke Perry too. This films version of the familiar save-the-world plot involves super-earthquakes beginning in the Pacific Northwest and extending too the whole ring of fire. Its soon determined that everybody on Earth just might be doomed. So the military and some scientists build one of those high-tech drilling machines to go inside the Earth and fix things (it just wouldn't be as much fun if they didn't have to go somewhere like space or inside the planet). There's even a line the tries to make the journey into the Earth sound more impressive than the journey into space (like the one in "Armageddon"). It's a Sci-Fi Network movie, so the script is paint by numbers disaster movie. There is in-fighting between scientists and military guys, there are rock-melting lasers, people die and sacrifice themselves for the good of all, and above all, there are (weak CGI) special effects. Not original and not all that entertaining. This is a movie to watch when you have nothing to do, particularly if you've got beer.

Empire of Passion starts out deceptively - that is, if you're immediately expecting it to be a horror movie. It's like a riff on James M. Cain's The Postman Always Rings Twice, at first: Seki (Kazuko Yoshiyuki) is a mother of two and a dutiful, hard-working wife to rickshaw driver Gisaburo (Takahiro Tamura). But when he's not around, and she's at home with the baby, the feisty and aimless young man Toyoji (Tatsuya Fuji) comes around to bring some goodies for Seki... and a little extra. They're soon sleeping together, but after he does something to her (let's just say a "shave"), he knows that he'll find out, and immediately proposes that they kill Gisaburo. They drink him up, strangle him, and then toss him down a well. Naturally, this will come back to haunt them - but that it's literally, at least to them (at first super-terrified Seki and then only later on skeptical Toyoji), changes gears into the 'Kaidan', a Japanese ghost story.<br /><br />This is a film where the horror comes not simply out of "oh, ghost, ah", but out of the total dread that builds for the characters. In a way there's the mechanics of a film-noir at work throughout, if only loosely translated by way of a 19th century Japanese village as opposed to an American city or small town (i.e. the snooping cop, the "evidence" found possibly by another, word getting around, suspicions aroused, etc). It's compelling because Seiko actually was against the plan from the start, manipulated by the lustful but ill-prepared Toyoji, and her reactions to Gisaburo's re-appearances are staggering to her. Take the one that comes closest to poetry: Gisaburo's ghost, pale-blue face and mostly silent, chilling stare, motions for Seiko to get on the rickshaw. She does, reluctantly, and he pushes her around on a road she doesn't know, in the wee hours before dawn, surrounded by smoke. Most Japanese ghost stories wish to heavens they could get this harrowingly atmospheric.<br /><br />While it starts to veer into hysterics towards the end, there's so much here that director Oshima gets right in making this a distinctive work. After hitting it huge in the international cinema world with In the Realm of the Senses (which, ironically, got banned in his own country), he made something that, he claimed, was even *more* daring that 'Senses'. Maybe he was right; Empire of Passion has less graphic sexual content by far than its predecessor (also starring Tatsuya Fuji, a magnificently physical actor with an immense lot of range), but its daring lies in crafting a world of dread. You can believe in ghosts in this story, but you also have to believe how far down to their own personal hells these two would-be lovebirds will go. The snooping detective or the gossiping townspeople are the least of their worries: the fate of their very souls is at stake.<br /><br />And Oshima takes what in other hands could be merely juicy pulp (sadly, it wouldn't surprise me if an American remake was already in the works) and crafts shot after gorgeous shot, with repetition working its way into the mis-en-scene (i.e. the shots of Seiko and Toyoji walking on that road, the camera at a dutch angle, the world tilted and surrounding them in a grim blue hue) as well as some affecting movements that will stay with me long after I finish typing this (i.e. Toyoji throwing the leaves by one hand into the well in slow motion, or how Seiko's nude body is revealed after she becomes blind). It's daring lies in connecting on a level of the spirit- not to be confused with the spiritual, though there may be something with that as well- about life and death's connections to one another, inextricably. It's a classic waiting to be discovered.

Must confess to having seen a few howlers in my time, but this one is up there with the worst of them. Plot troubling to follow. Sex and violence thrown in to disorient and distract from the really poorly put together film.<br /><br />I can only imagine that the cast will look back on the end product and wish it to gather dust on a shelf not to be disturbed for a generation or two. Sadly, in my case, I have the DVD. It will sit on the shelf and look at me from time to time.

In WWII, America has developed a brand-new HUGE bomber plane. Lois Lane and Clark Kent go to cover the story when the plane is going on its first mission. Lois stows away on the plane before it takes off. There are also some Japanese saboteurs on board who have every intention of flying the bomber to Tokyo. Will Lois be able to warn Superman? What do you think?<br /><br />Fast-moving, colorful cartoon. The animation is a little jerky but much better than anything we see today. The color and sound have been beautifully restored. Just two problems--the lousy music score and the racism (especially in the title). That aside this is pretty good. An 8.

Dreadful acting. A thinly veiled attempt to slam those on the left side of the aisle.<br /><br />Women are subjugated and revolve around men. Tom Selleck shows his acting range from A to B.

Being a D.B. Sweeney fan, I've been on the lookout for this movie for quite some time. I recently rented the video and found it very enjoyable. It had some really hilarious scenes. The dysfunctional lives of some of the characters was unsettling, but I think the movie also showed that it's possible to keep your life on track or get it back on track if it's been derailed.

I am definitely a Burt Reynolds fan, but sorry, this one really stinks. Most of the dialogue is laughable and the only interesting plot twist is in the last five minutes of the movie. I can't believe he even made this one. Is he actually that hard up for money?

This movie was for a while in my collection, but it wasn't before a friend of mine reminded me about it – until I decided that I should watch it. I did not know much about Close to Leo – just that it was supposed to be excellent coming out of age movie and it deals with a very serious topic – Aids. <br /><br />Although the person who has aids – is Leo – the scenario wraps around the way in which Marcel (the youngest brother of Leo) coupes with the sickness of his relative. At first everyone is trying to hide the truth from Marcel – he is believed to be too young to understand the sickness of his brother – the fact that Leo is also a homosexual contributes to the unwillingness of the parents to discus the matter with the young Marcel. I know from experience that on many occasions most older people do not want to accept the fact that sometimes even when someone is young this does not automatically means that he will not be able to accept the reality and act in more adequate manner then even themselves . With exception of the fact that the family tried to conceal the truth from Marcel, they have left quite an impression for me – the way they supported their son – even after discovering the truth about his sexuality and his sickness. The fact that they allowed the young Marcel to travel along with Leo to Paris to meet his ex boyfriend was quite a gesture from them– most families I know will be reluctant to do that. There is a lot of warmth in the scenes in which the brothers spend some time together – you can see them being real friends , concern about each other.<br /><br />Close to Leo is an excellent drama, which I strongly recommend

Ann-Margret did the best job she has ever done in her history of film making. I felt as if she WAS Mrs. Frey. There might be one or two films of Ann-Margret's I have not seen since her film debut in "Pocket full of Miracles" with Betty Davis in 1961. I feel she has been totally under-rated in the industry. Though she was nominated for an Emmy Award for this role in "Who Will Love My Children," she was overlooked. Like she was nominated for an Academy Award for her roles in "Carnal Knowledge" and "Tommy," she was snubbed. Over all, I think everyone did a superb acting job including all the children in "Who Will Love My Children." Yes, it is a sad movie (as true stories can be), but well worth the time. Thank you.

Silly comedy casts an embarrassed-seeming Ray Milland as a British officer in World War II Europe escaping German confines and taking up with a man-hungry gypsy woman, played by Marlene Dietrich. Slowly-paced, overlong, and miscast: the leads are far too old for this type of juvenile fodder, although Marlene shines in her solo moments. It took three scriptwriters to adapt Yolanda Foldes' book for the screen, but this material must have already seemed dated by 1947--it smacks of something Ernst Lubitsch might have turned out in 1939. The scenario is musty, and the stars have absolutely no chemistry together. ** from ****

Parts: The Clonus Horror is a horror all right. There are of course the bad fashions of the late 70's. There's the really bad acting from Dick Sargent to Peter Graves. And then there's the clones themselves. Their days mostly consist of running, jumping, cycling, and wrestling with each other. When they're not doing that, they learn about America. Not the band America, or the song by Neil Diamond, but an America where they go on to become part of a greater society. But they're given some strange drug then they have all their bodily fluids drained(General Ripper was right!) and they are placed in the freezer and await Thanksgiving or Christmas when they will be thawed out and roasted at about 450 degrees or so. Oops, that's not what happens, but it would've been a lot more interesting than what's shown. Mario, of Super Mario Brothers fame, makes a delightful cameo as a doctor who bickers with Dick Sargent.

First of all, I'm upset there's no choice of a "0" out of 10. <br /><br />I was bored tonight, and while flipping through the channels, I see Dr. Chopper. With there being nothing else on, I decide to watch it, expecting it to be just another crappy horror movie, with a similar plot to Cabin Fever. <br /><br />Man was I wrong...Dr. Chopper made Cabin Fever look like it should have won numerous Academy Awards. May I remind you, Cabin Fever contains a scene of a little hick boy doing roundhouse kicks off of a porch screaming, "pancakes!!", characters who leave their dying friend in a tiny shack to bleed to death, and Shawn from Boy Meets World mistakenly fingering a hole in a girl's thigh.<br /><br />So needless to say, Dr. Chopper was a big, smelly pile-o-crap. It wasn't even funny crap. It reminded me of a horror movie I had to make in 8th grade, called "The Campout". Except for the fact that "The Campout" had a better script (we wrote it about an hour before filming), better actors, plots, bloody scenes, and camera work. I was hoping to get some laughs out of a poorly-made horror film, but instead I could only watch in astonishment as I thought to myself, "Was this made by 8th graders?". <br /><br />The acting was horrible, the events and different little subplots were thrown together and didn't make sense, and the gore and violence was very minimal. I liked how that from a small stab wound, people died instantly, and the only weapons the killers had were small pocket knives...if you're going to make a horror movie, at least give the killer(s) an insane killing device.<br /><br />Also, what the hell was the point of the sorority girls hazing their pledges? Good way to bring in some scenes of girls running around in their bras, even if they have no relevance to the story whatsoever. And I must say, my favorite line was when the blonde says to Dr. Chopper, "I'd like to introduce you to someone....my inner bitch." Her "inner bitch" then proceeds to grab a garbage can, throw it at Dr. Chopper, miss, and back up in terror of the killer.<br /><br />Wheww....well that was a long one, but I felt that I needed to express my feelings on how absolutely horrible this "movie" was. I know that everyone has their own opinions, but if anyone rates this movie higher than a 2, they should be shot to Hell...<br /><br />...seriously.

The only complaint I heard about this film was that it was slow. Though, perhaps this is the point. The two characters clash unforgivingly and the slow build-up of tension between them is anxiety-producing. The intricate and subtle gestures and minimal dialog take the tension to a point where an otherwise normal argument shocks the audience. Istanbul and the outskirts are dreamy, scenery captivating, and the plot is thrilling - not in that "look, the hero blew up yet another car and he's now flying with his motorcycle" kind of way, though. I had chills down my spine as the characters moved in and out of each other's spheres and watched the fog engulf Istanbul.

This movie, despite its list of B, C, and D list celebs, is a complete waste of 90 minutes. The plot, with its few peaks, was very predictable. It was so silly that I cannot believe that I am taking the time to even write a review of it. Flex, to his credit, has grown in his ability to act since playing Michael Jackson in a made for TV movie a few years ago. Tangi, on the other hand, has regressed, as she was more talented in her role as Felicity's flunkie some years ago. As I sat watching this train wreck of a film, with its pitiful production and horrible sound quality, other four letter words came to my mind to qualify what I thought of this film. However, in an effort to keep my writings G Rated, I'll simply say this film is another four letter word starting with an L. LAME!!!

Darr is a great movie! Shahrukh plays an obsessed lover who will do almost anything to win over his lady which in this case is Juhi Chawla. Little does Juhi know in the film that Shahrukh has a MAJOR crush on her and is constantly stalking her. I have to admit, some of the things he did in this movie were pretty creepy... like the threatening phone calls. Never in my life will I forget the line, "I love you K..k..k..Kiran!"<br /><br />It's just too bad that Shahrukh and Juhi weren't exactly "together" in the film. But Juhi and Sunny do make a fairly good couple in the movie. Though Shahrukh's role was pretty psychotic, I still think he did a great job of playing it and can't possibly imagine anyone else doing that role. No wonder he got an award for Darr in 94'!<br /><br />Juhi... what can I say??? She looks especially amazing in this film! It's not that she doesn't always look amazing in her other films, but Darr did give the public a wonderful image of her!<br /><br />As for the music... it was excellent! Especially "Jaadu Teri Nazar," one of my all time favorite songs. I also thought "Tu Mere Samne" was quite nice also.<br /><br />A must see for everyone! Overall Darr deserves a 9/10!

In the future of 1985, a governmental committee headed by Howard Hesseman, is holding hearings on TV's first uncensored network. They sample it's programming, that play as a series of skits. I can name the good 'skit' movies on one hand, not using my thumb. "Amazon Women on the Moon", "Kentucky Fried Movie", "The Meaning of Life", and "Mr. Mike's Mondo Video". Notice how I didn't mention "Tunnel Vision"? The reason for that is that this 'movie' is death in cinematic form. None of the skits are even remotely funny, or even the least bit clever. It takes some sort of great ineptitude on the film makers' part to not even get one laugh out of me.<br /><br />My Grade: F <br /><br />Eye Candy: Dody Dorn goes full frontal

This is yet another bad movie that you should probably avoid watching. The plot could be a lot "thicker" than it actually is and would be better made as a blockbuster type movie.<br /><br />The acting leaves something to be desired, though you can not quite place your finger on what it is.<br /><br />This is one of those that you watch on late night TV, perhaps on USA, simply because you can not get to sleep. Watch it if you want but do not expect too much from it.

Bergman and comedy don't quite go together. Some of his comedies are so naff you almost wince. This film has the odd naff moment - the last 30 seconds being the nadir, but on the whole this is a charming (rather than funny) piece, enjoyable throughout. Bergman casts several of his usual suspects who perform well. There is a great scene on the train between David, Marianne and an uncouth salesman which will stick in the memory. Some of the marriage material is typical, cynical Bergman, but this is Bergman in a light rather than dark mood.<br /><br />This film has its moments and is worth the 90-odd minutes. Not one of his classics and not the place to start if you want to fall for Bergman.

I made a special effort to see this movie and was totally disappointed with the outcome. On paper, the script seems hopeful, and the choice of actors leaves one with hopes - I liked Pacino in Scent of a Woman and have seen Anny Duperrey and Marthe Keller in several French and other films of the 70s/80s. But I had forgotten how important a part dialogues can play in a film, and in this film they are absolute ..... trash ! The filming locations were also attractive but the hopeless, pretentious and forced dialogues pulled the whole thing down to sub zero level. In addition to that, I am pretty allergic to the world of motor racing and find no interest in this sport. Even the inelegant dialogues in "Love Story" were better than the ones in this film (and that's saying something !!). I was really expecting better from this film and was very disappointed to have been let down so much.

I actually had quite high hopes going into this movie, so I took what was given with a grain of salt and hoped for the best. About 1/3 of the way through the film I simply had to give up, quite simply the movie is a mish-mash of stuff happening for no apparent reason and it's all disconnected. I love movies that make you think, but this movie was just a bunch of ideas thrown together and never really connected.<br /><br />Don't think it's David Lynch-esquire as some would have you believe, it is nowhere near that realm other than some trippy visuals. Saying it's artsy to disguise the fact there's no apparent plot or story is just a manner or justifying why you wasted the 1.5 hours in the film. The acting was good, but that cannot save lack of story. I do agree with the one comment posted previously... "it's like being in some other person's head... while they're on drugs," in other words nothing makes sense.

The Knowledge is a typical British comedy for the period. To someone who is not familiar of the process of becoming a London cabby the film is bound to seem very average with a few laughs from a few old faces.<br /><br />The Knowledge however comes into its own for Knowledge boys like myself or their wife's who know what these poor individuals are going through. And find yourself comparing incidents of your own to that of the characters.

If you want to see someone accidentally eat another man's testicle, or look at a row of pathetically fake hard-ons at a wedding, or listen to a man talk about how good it felt to have sex with a girl while she was throwing up, then this is the movie for you. Alternating, in neck breaking fashion, between romantic and gross out comedy, Tomcats is certainly interesting. The lovely Jaime Pressly plays the wife of Horatio Sanz(tell me another one) who is found in many silhouetted situations with other women, but there is, surprisingly, no nudity. Jake Busey is thoroughly revolting as a hound dog who you wouldn't want as your friend. Shannon Elizabeth and Jerry O'Connell are both good and make a convincing couple, but the movie is far too busy trying to disgust to be any good.

This fanciful horror flick has Vincent Price playing a mad magician that realizes his vocational talents have been sold to another. He devise ways of avenging all those that have wronged him. His master scheme seems to back fire on him.<br /><br />Price is a little below par compared to his masterpieces, but is still the only reason to watch this thriller. Supporting cast includes Patrick O'Neal, Mary Murphy, Eva Gabor and Jay Novello.<br /><br />

Stephen Hawkings is a genius. He is the king of geniuses. Watching this movie makes me feel dumb. But it's a great movie. Not highly entertaining, but very very intriguing. The movie centers around wheelchair bound Stephen Hawkings, a man who makes Einstein look average, and his theories and scientific discoveries about the universe, time, the galaxy, and black holes. Everyone at sometime or another during a really intense high comes to a moment when they think they'v got the universe and the cosmos figured out and they swear as soon as they sober up they'll write it all down. Well here is a man who actually held that feeling for more then six hours. Here is a man who despite suffering from Lou Gehrig's disease has become the greatest mind the world has yet seen. Watch this and listen in on how he has formulated theories on black holes. Awesome. You won't be the same after you see it.

Favela Rising is a documentary about the slums of Rio, the favelas, specifically the most violent one, Vigário Geral. According to this film, a lot more kids have died violently in Rio's favelas over the last decade or so than in Israel/Palestine during the same period -- a fact astonishing if true, which shows how under-recognized this social problem is in the rest of the world. This is an important topic, especially for those who see hope in grassroots efforts to marshal the neediest and most at risk through a vibrant cultural program. This is a compelling documentary, if occasionally marred by a somewhat too personality-based version of events and by grainy digital video and film that sometimes may make you think you need to have your eyes examined.<br /><br />Drug lords rule in the favelas and gun-toting teenage boys are the main drug dealers, like in parts of Colombia. Fernando Meirelles' movie City of God/Cidade de Deus has been accused of celebrating violence (Cidade de Deus is another of Rio's many favelas). But the early section of Favela Rising shows that in fact favela boys do celebrate violence and want to deal drugs where the money and the action are. It's cool to carry a gun there, cool to work as a drug trafficker: it's fifty times more profitable than the earnings available by other means.<br /><br />Mochary first discovered the AfroReggae movement and its leaders Anderson Sá and José Junior while visiting Rio for a conference and quickly persuaded his friend and mentor Zimbalist to quit his job and come down to help make a film with his own promise to fund it. Sá's eloquence and charisma and a startling twist in his life make him the center of the film and its chief narrator, but like the favelas themselves the film teems with other people. No doubt about the fact that Sá is a remarkable leader, organizer, and artist.<br /><br />Vigário Geral is compared to Bosnia: shooting there was very dangerous. Anderson Sá's friendship and protection and caution and diplomacy in the shooting enabled the filmmakers to gain access and shoot detailed footage of their subject matters while (mostly: there were close calls) avoiding any serious confrontations with drug lords or drug-dealing cops. They also trained boys to use cameras and left them there on trips home. That resulted in 10% of the footage, including rare shots of violent incidents including police beatings. It's hard for an outsider to keep track of police massacres in Rio. There was one in the early 1990's that looms over the story and inspired Sá, who ended his own early involvement in drug trafficking to lead his cultural movement. The cops are all over the drug trade and if anybody doesn't like that the ill trained police paramilitaries come in (often wearing black ski masks) and shoot up a neighborhood, killing a lot of innocents.<br /><br />This is pretty much the picture we get in Meirelles' City of God, except that this time Sá, Junior, and the other guys come in, starting in Vigário Geral but spreading out eventually to a number of other favelas to give percussion classes that attract dozens of youth -- girls as well as boys. Their AfroReggae (Grupo Cultural AfroReggae or GCAR) program, formed in 1993, is a new alternative way of life for young black men in the Rio ghettos. It leads them to leave behind smoking, alcohol, and drugs (that's the rule) to explode into rap, song, percussion, and gymnastics in expressive, galvanic performances. Eventually the best of the performers led by Sá wind up appearing before big local audiences with local producers, and their Banda AfroReggae has an international recording contract.<br /><br />Other centers and groups have been created by or through the GCAR over the years in Vigário Geral and other favelas to seek the betterment of youth by providing training and staging performances of music, capoeira, theater, hiphop and dance at GCAR centers.<br /><br />The performance arts aren't everything, just the focal point. GCAR is also a movement for broader social change Gathering public awareness through such performances, the centers also provide training in information (newspaper, radio, Internet, e-mail links), hygiene and sex education, to seek to bridge gaps between rich and poor, black and white, and to offer workshops in audio-visual work, including production of documentaries. The program is currently active in four other favelas.<br /><br />There are many scenes of favela street and home life in Favela Rising and they look very much like the images in City of God with the important difference that the focus and outcome are very, very much more positive. Not that it isn't an uphill battle. And the corruption of the police, the inequities of the social system, and the indifference of the general population of Brazil are not directly addressed by any of this. But there's a scene where Sá talks to some young kids in another favela, cynical boys not enthusiastic about AfroReggae and determined to work in the drug trade as Sá himself did as a boy. Sá doesn't seem to be convincing any of them despite pointing out that traffickers don't make it to the age of fifty. But we learn that the most negative boy in this group, Richard Morales, joined the movement five months later. There's also the account of a freak accident that disabled Sá, but with a positive outcome.<br /><br />It would be great if the images were sharper and clearer and if the story were edited down a little, but this is vibrant, inspiring material and represents committed, risk-taking documentary film-making and it's nice that Favela Rising has been included in seven film festivals and won a number of awards, including Best New Documentary Filmmaker at the Tribeca Film Festival. It's currently being shown at the Institute of Contemporary Arts (ICA) in London. However, a wide art house audience in the US seems somewhat unlikely.<br /><br />Included in the SFIFF 2006.

I knew it would be, but I gave it a rent for some laughs and maybe some mindless fun. Anyone whose read a few of my reviews can see that I'm pretty easy to please. I really didn't think I'd end up feeling this negatively towards it.<br /><br />The plot is about an ancient army of dragons lead by a huge serpent that will destroy the world unless some chosen heroes who inherited the responsibility can… become one with… a good dragon… or something… I don't know. It was so stupid, I didn't bother to put much effort into retaining it.<br /><br />It features a really dumb story full of ridiculous moments and goofy concepts. So many of the events just felt totally random and sudden.<br /><br />I assume there was studio interference or something because the biggest problem I have with the movie is the fact that the story seems like it's trying to be so grand and epic, yet everything happens so fast and goes by so quickly. I feel like I've just been hit with a million plot points and action sequences in one big ball. The film is like a punch in the face. It doesn't take much time at all to establish characters or drama. Imagine the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy in 90 minutes… You could have most of the epic battle sequences, but there would be absolutely no buildup and you'd hardly care about the outcome of those battles. That was the case with Dragon Wars… 90 minutes of me not giving a crap, waiting for it to be over.<br /><br />Fantastic CGI with some okay directing, but horrible acting, speedy pacing, and dumb story made this very hard to enjoy on any grounds. I probably would have loved it when I was 6.

One Night at McCool's is one of those films that starts with an awful amount of promise but as the film goes on it becomes silly and loses it's way big time. Liv Tyler plays a manipulative woman who tries to get her own way by flaunting her body to every man she meets ,all of which fall under her spell.There are a few funny moments in this but they get fewer and fewer as the film deteriorates into a comedy farce. Michael Douglas who plays the assassin is good as is Liv Tyler, although she does look like she had put on a bit of weight since armaggedon. This is ok but is only memorable for the scene in which Liv Tyler washes her car, you will know what i mean when you see it fella's! Shwing!!!!! 7 out of 10 (just).

Lovely little thriller from Hitchcock, with lots of nice shenanigans surrounding a murdered spy, a kidnapped child, a nasty church, a foreign plot and some random taxidermists. Jimmy Stewart is as ever a great hero for Hitchcock, the story rips along to its cool climax at an embassy function, but it lacks the brooding menace of Hitchcock's black and white, low-budget original. Nevertheless yet another wonderful film from the great master's stable.

I own almost every Seagal movie (yes even ones like this that are low budget), and I must say, this may be the worst, not only of his movies, but of all movies ever made. The only highlight of this film, and only reason I gave it 2 stars instead of 1, is that A. it is Seagal, and B. Seagal does have some sweet action sequences, specifically in the store, and also when ever else he takes out an entire army with a knife. Next time give me 90 minutes of Seagal killing people, and don't even bother with a story line, because the storyline not only stunk, but so did the acting, the fact that F-18's and F-14's somehow changed into F-16s, and also the fact that the Stealth was as fast as an F-16. Also the Stealth never had to refuel??? And since when is Afghanistan considered hostile territory from an Air Force stand point. last I checked, Afghanistan has no Air Force, we (USA) control the skies. Also, this top secret mission was played through speakers to all the crew in the room, yet the Admiral still whispers to the other guy that it is secret. Also, how did Seagal go from the bottom of the truck, to the top? PLease tell us why they jailed him, Since when are Air Force pilots great commandos (unless they are Owen Wilson?) And since when are their drunks in Arab countries, considering Muslims don't drink alcohol? Also on top of that, since when do Arabs listen to orders from females like the #2 in charge? The highlight of the film was definitely Seagal killing people in the store, and the other 50 people he killed with a knife, as well as the very brief and totally random lesbian scene that came out of nowhere.

"Envy" is bad for a number of reasons. Yes, there are unlikeable characters. That's not the problem. It is that they are unlikeable and we do not care for them at all. "The War of the Roses" featured unlikeable characters but due to proper introductions we grew to at least find ourselves interested in their fate, whereas in "Envy" the introduction is thin, the characters are never believable, and the plot only makes things worse.<br /><br />Ben Stiller is simply repulsive in his role and I'm a fan of his work most of the time. Stiller campaigned to have this released straight-to-video and now I can see why. The movie proposes that he's "best friends" with Jack Black, but from the first five minutes we are given footage that seems to indicate Stiller hates Black. I thought this would develop into some sort of one-sided relationship (a la "The Cable Guy") but it never does, instead Stiller insists he's his "best friend" and I felt confused as he seemed to treat Black like, well, "poo." The movie's plot is ridiculous but it doesn't matter, because it's supposed to be an exaggerated morality tale. Unfortunately the message is lost in the mess. Walken gives a good performance but Black is off-key and annoying (and I usually find him very funny). No, it's not a horrible film but I still can't believe Barry Levinson ("Rain Man," "Sleepers") is responsible for this - it's not one of the worst films of all time but it could certainly be a whole lot better. I wish Va-Poo-Rize did exist - so we could make this film disappear forever....

Not near as well made as the "Guinea Pig" flicks it was inspired by ("Flowers of Flesh and Blood" or "Devil's Experiment") and not conveying any real philosophy, this video feature, which is barely feature length, adds hardcore sex (with mosaic censoring) to its inspiration. The special make-up effects, which include stomach slitting and disembowelment, are pretty good, if overlit. The amateur feel of the production is a distraction. It all looks cheap and lazy. The lighting is harsh and the sound and editing are sloppy. The simple story involves a porno actress who ends up starring in a real snuff movie. Just when she gets tired of being abused, the real abuse begins. In the film's hero scene, an actor cuts the woman's stomach open in graphic close-up, stuffs his member inside it, and proceeds to do his thing. I didn't find "Psycho - The Snuff Reels" shocking. On the contrary, I found it to be a desperate attempt by amateurs to one-up "Guinea Pig" and its bloody ilk. Interestingly, this was distributed by Aroma, a leading fetish producer.

It's been said that Batman Begins in the first Batman movie to "get it right" but I think that's a horrible overstatement, for I think the new Batman film, although greater that Batman Forever and Batman and Robin, pales compared to Tim Burton's classics, with this one being the best of the five. The darkness is beautiful, as is the music and scenery, creating a Gotham City cloaked in mystery, unlike Batman Begins, where Gotham City is a normal-looking city. The villains are terrific in this movie. You literally can't take your eyes off of the penguin and cat woman. I applaud Tim Burton for being original with his use of the penguin as a freak, rather than an ordinary criminal or a clone of the old Batman TV show. In Batman Begins we have the scarecrow, whose not nearly as demanding on screen as the penguin or cat woman. The film doesn't need to focus only on Batman, because we already know his story, and it is the villains who we are exploring and trying to figure out, and they are the ones who create the plot, with the penguin running for mayor and seeking revenge for his parents' desertion by killing the first born sons of Gotham, a task he fails. Danny Devito gives the finest performance ever by a superhero villain in any film, surpassing even Nicholson's joker. The closing scene where the penguins drag the dead body of the penguin into the water is touching and powerful. It's a tragedy that Tim Burton wasn't allowed to complete his trilogy, since Warner Bros., interesting in marketing appeal, wanted to "lighten" the Batman movies up. And they got their wish...unfortunately. Tim Burton planned on directing the third film, using the Riddler as the villain, with no Two-Face and Robin to mess it up, and I'm sure Michael Keaton would've signed on. So this is the last great Batman Film. Batman Begins is dark, but boring, tedious, ordinary, filled with lackluster villains, and a playboy Bruce Wayne. A decent Batman film, but the best Batman film ever? Never. Batman Returns holds that crown.

I usually like comedy movies. I really enjoy them. But I don't really get the point of "Envy". I mean, it has a dull content/topic, and it's not really funny.<br /><br />Although the acting is generally good, it's not enough for the movie to get at least a bit interesting. Stiller and Black don't show all their talent in this movie.<br /><br />So, if you're about to rent a comedy, I suggest you definitely don't go for this one. Unless you want to get bored, and I can see I'm not the only one with this opinion, because even Jack Black apologized for it (take a look at Trivia).

One of the best films I have seen in the past five years! The cast is universally spectacular in a tale of young love and bravado on the Lower East Side of New York City with the two leads being superstars in the making. Funny, charming, sad and inspiring, this is a totally refreshing take on urban youth that puts Larry Clark's often-nauseating shtick in the gutter where it belongs... although I have to admit that Bully was a cut above his normal fare. Raising Victor Vargas is one film you will kick yourself for missing... so don't miss it!

I was shocked at how bad it was and unable to turn away from the disaster. This made 'Major League II' and 'Blues Brothers 2000' Oscar-worthy in comparison.<br /><br />I have tried to remember watching anything as bad as this in my life and was unable to come up with anything even close.

Yes, it's pure trash. It might be interesting for every guy who likes experimental cinema (like me) to see lowlifes babbling and doing nothing for almost two hours, but it gets very painful when you realize you have actually paid for this. Probably, this is one of those films you love to watch for its complete emptiness and nihilism. I accept it though for its shock value, decades before Trainspotting and Pulp Fiction.

"The Love Letter" is a somewhat pleasant, very very low-key romantic comedy in which the use of just the right few words in a mysterious love letter unlocks the secret passions and longings of a sleepy sea-side town's inhabitants.<br /><br />It's not for all audiences. "The Love Letter", I feel, benefits from it's simple and quiet tone. Never intentionally wacky and phony like most romantic comedies it's quaint, picturesque, and comfy. However, for these exact same reasons, many viewers will be bored and disinterested.<br /><br />The cast is nice. It's great to see Tom Selleck again, and is such an underplayed role. And it's hard to believe this is the same Kate Capshaw we met 15 years ago in "Indiana Jones and the Temple Of Doom". She's quite naturally good here; improving in every role I've seen her in since grating on Indy's nerves. And is it possible Capshaw is just getting lovelier and lovelier with age ? ( What is it about that Spielberg!?)<br /><br />It doesn't amount to much; but after another noisy summer movie season I'll probably look back with brief fondness for this light-as-a-feather romance.

Audiard made here a very interesting movie. It begins with the description of an almost-deaf young woman, in its working universe as a secretary; she is ignored, frustrated, rejected... Hiring an intern as an assistant appears to be a way for her to find someone in her life : but the guy is just coming out from jail. Their both being rejected by the society reunites them progressively. Characters'description is profund, goes into details...both start to help each other; for she can read on lips, which reveals itself to be very useful for him...She will progressively evolve, far from what she was at first.<br /><br />It's beautifully filmed; the whole is very convincing, even if it turns into a film noir at the end. Gesture is in particular beautifully observed in Audiard's filming. Emmanuelle Devos should be nominated at the Best Actess Cesar Awards for her magistral play. Action towards the end of the film prevents it from being a simple "etude de moeurs". It's actually surprisingly entertaining : 8/10.

I love horror movies that brings out a real amount of mystery like say "silent hill" ( which i found to be quite good, but still, was missing something ) and movies that keeps you guessing, this i thought was one of those movies. At first the movie starts out with some really good suspense and builds up a good starting point for a good horror scene, but after that it just rolls down the hill and from there it only goes faster and faster down. I mentioned silent hill at first for a reason because i can see a lot of "stolen" themes from that movie in here.. All in all i would say, watch silent hill instead of this one, its better, its more scary, it has a lot more suspense and also the ending is a lot better.. And best of all, you wont feel ripped off as i did with this one.. This just seems to be one of those "i like that movie so I'm gonna re-make it in my own really bad version" kinda movie.. Oh and one more thing... Lordi.. in a horror movie... thats like trying to scare a kid with a care bear who has "hug me and i will love you forever" written on the stomach of it..

Fame did something odd. It was not only a musical that was created originally for the screen (most are based off of Broadway musicals), but it spawned a TV series and a Broadway musical. Let me correct that sentence. Fame is not a musical. Musicals have song numbers in order to advance the plot or to show characters' feelings. The singing in this music is not used to do either; in fact, there's no use for it at all. People just randomly sing to fit in with the plot. And that's not the type of musical I know.<br /><br />The so-called plot of Fame has an onslaught of characters (who are all introduced at once-last time I saw that in a movie [Gosford Park] it had disastrous results) who audition for, and get into, New York High School for the Performing Arts. All of them are in for different reasons-i.e. acting, singing, etc. Quote-unquote drama unfolds as these middle-aged people pretending to be teenagers go through their four years.<br /><br />My largest complaint is that the high school is supposed to be selective. After all, it's a free college, and they can't let everyone in. So how is it that some people who are really bad get into the college? Obviously so that drama could ensue between all of these different people. And why is the person top billed not even in the movie until near the end, for no reason at all, except to make us feel uncomfortable? There's many unsettling situations that these untalented people get into, yet you can't feel bad for them because you don't know who they are! These relationships occur between people whose names you don't know. And these characters realize things about themselves throughout the course of the movie, yet you don't realize that, because you don't know what they were like in the first place.<br /><br />As for the singing, it pops in randomly (and is supposed to be humorous?) and does nothing. When the title song is sung, it's played in the middle of a street and before you can say Ferris Bueller everyone's in the middle of the street dancing wildly and off-beat to it. The song itself is fine, but the whole scene, like the whole movie, is unnecessary. Fame is an unpleasant movie, to say the least. I would say more, but most of the movie has thankfully gone out of my head. Just don't see it. You'll be doing yourself a favor.<br /><br />My rating: 2/10<br /><br />Rated R for language.

I havent seen that movie in 20 or more years but I remember the attack scene with the horses wearing gas-masks vividly, this scene ranks way up there with the best of them including the beach scene on Saving private Ryan, I recommend it strongly.

As anyone old enough knows, South Africa long suffered under the vile, racist oppression of apartheid, which completely subjugated the black population. One of the most famous anti-apartheid activists was Steve Biko, who was murdered in jail. Following the murder, reporter Donald Woods sought to get Biko's message out to the world.<br /><br />In "Cry Freedom", Woods (Kevin Kline) befriends Biko (Denzel Washington) before the latter is arrested on trumped up charges. When Woods attempts to spread Biko's word, he and his family begin living under threat of attack, and they are finally forced to flee the country. The last scene gut-wrenchingly shows police firing on protesters.<br /><br />As one of two movies (along with "A World Apart") that helped galvanize the anti-apartheid movement, "Cry Freedom" stands out as possibly the best ever work for all involved.

Forbidden Planet rates as landmark in science fiction, carefully staying within "hard" aspects of the genre (science -- not fantasy, ergo nerds will love it) while still playing with imagery and ideas of contemporary 1950s values. Morbius's isolated house is a model of modern design with open spaces that step out into sculpted gardens, a swimming pool, and the ultimate home appliance: Robby the Robot. "A housewife's dream!" exclaims the Captain after lunch and a demonstration of the robot's abilities to synthesize food and disintegrate waste.<br /><br />Also revealing to the 1950s: Fruedian psychology rears its head in the Id explanation, although Morbius dismisses it as an outdated concept. There is a touch of the Pacific war drama in the battle with the invisible monster and life aboard the saucer. Perhaps most timely is the post-atomic fear that Science is the enemy, and arrogant scientists will unwittingly bring down destruction in their blind quest for knowledge.<br /><br />Yet the suburban drama presented by Forbidden Planet seems uniquely fresh in the sci-fi genre. They aren't swashbucklers or heroes, but ordinary sailors crossing the galaxy with a serviceman's crudeness and honesty. The good guys drive the flying saucer, and the aliens are so long gone we don't even know what they looked like -- although their music er-"atmospheric tonalities" by Bebe and Louis Barron are remarkably futuristic today. The views from Morbius' house are truly alien with jagged cliffs and pink bonsais. The interior of the saucer is just this side of Buck Rogers. There's a lot visually to like. Although we get fantastic monsters and robots for the kiddies, Forbidden Planet is a cerebral movie, slow paced and talky. It is working on many levels at once: hard sci-fi against space adventure, philosophical against domestic. <br /><br />There are many suburban touches. In spite of all their space-talk, the soldiers are dressed for the golf course. Morbius' fatal discovery is a humble educational facility, a schoolhouse. The most interesting character is Morbius' daughter Altaira. Having never seen a man she is unashamedly forward to the crew. She's a post-Madonna teen who designs her own space-age clothes and takes every opportunity to change outfits -- imagine Christina Aguilera with a household replicator. Men watching the film might see her as a naive girl in a minidress, but every woman knows there is no such thing as a naive girl in a minidress. Anne Francis deserves better recognition for humiliating the Leut with kisses. Alas we'll never know if she was "working" him as he suspects, since the Captain interrupts and becomes a more interesting target for her attention. She is the character who makes the important change in the film. Shocked that her father compares the dead Doc to the other "embeciles" in his landing party, she turns away from her father, her home, to leave with the sailors for Earth. It's this act of defiance, of maturity, that sends Morbius' Id creature over the edge, allegorically destroying its creator just as it did thousands of centuries earlier to the Krell. <br /><br />Maybe the Krell had teenage daughters too...?

I can understand how Barney can be annoying to some, but the hatred he gets is very ridiculous. Barney was made simply right from the beginning and simplicity isn't bad, especially for the young ones he entertains. I personally find this show to be very underrated period. Barney & Friends is a very educational show in my opinion and even 17 years after its debut (and nearly 21 years after the character's debut on home video), he proves time and time again that he still appeals to young children. Maybe less so than in the early 90's where Barney was the Hannah Montana of the time, but he's still a classic. As a fan of Barney myself, I feel that I should defend him in a way that doesn't seem like spam. The way the purple guy teaches things may be very simplistic and unrealistic, but would you rather have them hearing about war? Be thankful some one (a costumed dinosaur, but still) is there to comfort kids and let them be kids simply. In this day and age, I feel that we rush our kids to grow up and Barney is there to say you can still be a child at heart. In addition, many of Barney's lessons on current episodes about plagiarism, being honest, and yes... even death, could appeal to everyone, not just his target audience. Besides, our children need to learn to be kind and respect others for who they are, and he helps them do that. In short, Barney may be annoying to some people and I completely understand why, but cut him some slack. All he and his friends (along with HIT Entertainment, his production company) are trying to do is help kids not only learn necessary skills, but to have fun and to also look at the positive parts of life. If more people listened to their children's favorite character and viewed him through their eyes, maybe we wouldn't be so negative about him and possibly life itself.

I watched this on a whim because it was available and I'd heard the Thumb movies were funny. This one was not. The majority of the jokes were based around "Geranium's" physique and, in turn, Kate Winslet's. I think it's really pathetic of the the "Thumbtanic" creators to stoop so low to make jabs at a respected actress just because she (heaven forbid) doesn't starve herself into the model of ideal modern beauty.<br /><br />My favorite part was the line that goes something like, "Hey, I have a great idea! Let's swim over to this makeshift raft that no one else seems to see!" Thirty seconds of amusement out of a 26 minute movie does not redeem its value.

He seems to be a control freak. I have heard him comment on "losing control of the show" and tell another guest who brought live animals that he had one rule-"no snakes." He needs to hire a comedy writer because his jokes are lame. The only reason I watch him is because he some some great guests and bands. <br /><br />I watched the Craig Ferguson show for a while but his show is even worse. He likes to bull sh** to burn time.I don't think either man has much of a future in late night talk shows.<br /><br />Daily also has the annoying habit of sticking his tongue out to lick his lips. He must do this at least 10 times a show. I do like the Joe Firstman band. Carson Daily needs to lighten up before it is too late.

No redeeming features, this film is rubbish. Its jokes don't begin to be funny. The humour for children is pathetic, and the attempts to appeal to adults just add a tacky smuttishness to the whole miserable package. Sitting through it with my children just made me uncomfortable about what might be coming next. I couldn't enjoy the film at all. Although my child for whom the DVD was bought enjoyed the fact that she owned a new DVD, neither she nor her sisters expressed much interest in seeing it again, unlike with Monsters inc, Finding Nemo, Jungle Book, Lion King, etc. which all get frequent requests for replays.

This is by far the worst adaptation of Jane Eyre I have seen. It is uncertain whether or not the writer of the screenplay ever read the book by Bronte. George C Scott is ridiculous and bumbling as Rochester -- when not just plain old acting angry. Susannah York has the most dated 1970's hairstyle I have ever seen in a Victorian movie. The characters hardly speak to each other, so the rich banter enjoyed in the book that is the basis for their deep intellectual and abiding love, is gone. The ending is ludicrous.<br /><br />Please, rent the Timothy Dalton version instead. It is so true to the book, it's like having the novel read aloud to you. Dalton is superb as Rochester. G. C. Scott is laughable.

I like Brad Pitt enormously. He is an actor with brains and wit, not to mention face, pectorals and all the rest. Since I saw him in "Thelma and Louise" a thought has been bothering me, who does he remind me of? "Troy" did it for me. He is the new Brigitte Bardot. The differences are obvious of course. Male, American etc but Brigitte Bardot comes to mind nonetheless. He is so beautiful that he is at his most effective when he plays against it. "Kalifornia" "12 Monkeys" "Fight Club" "Snatch" His self deprecating humor makes him human, almost accessible. Fortunately "Troy" will soon be forgotten. Only still photographs with Pitt, semi naked in ravishing sprint positions will decorate the walls of legions of salivating fans. Strange, "Das Boot" is one of the great films of the second part of the 20th Century. What is Wolfgang Petersen doing directing this? Well, I suppose it would be very hard to say no at the chance of working with the new Brigitte Bardot.

I saw this at the 2008 Palm Springs International Film Festival. There are some wonderful descriptions of this film from other commenter's here and they seemed to have really enjoyed it so I won't too far into giving a film synopsis but you could see a little of Woody Allen and maybe a little of Federico Fellini in this film's collection of some 50 short sketches or vignettes strung together with no real singular plot. A few of the vignettes are related to each other in their character and plot lines however and a a corner bar is used frequently as a central scene where they are always giving last call. The beginning and ending scenes have a common theme too that bookends the film. It took three years to film this and much of the time must have been spent on finding the plainest and homeliest looking people in all of Sweden to make the cast. This is Sweden's official submission for Best Foreign Language Film for the 2007 Academy Awards. It's a nice movie but hardly worthy of an official submission for best foreign film. Last year Sweden's official submission was the very weak Farväl Falkenberg and the year before it was expensive looking but dull ZoZo, so once again Sweden will have no chance in picking up the Oscar. This film has it's moments and would have made a good 20-25 minute short film but it gets a little old and cold for a full length feature film. Roy Andersson directs. Gustav Danielsson is the cinematographer. Editor Anna Märta Waern deserves a lot of credit for the work she must have put into this. Benny Andersson of ABBA fame provides an entertaining music score. It's an interesting film with a lot of dry humor and I did like it but It's nothing really special and could only give it a 7.0 out of 10.

Mr Michael Jackson is an artistic phenomenon. His short movies, i.e. music videos, are simply the best. I do not care if I get a sane sci-fi feature from this man, but I do care to get a medley of his crazy dancing, shriek yells, cool crowd choreography, and some bits of CGI and animation. There also should be a few uninterrupted videos. Everything I've mentioned is here. Stupid plot and over-the-top "vanity fair" are not a problem when I witness Mr Michael Jackson in action. To me he will always be the ultimate king of music videos (not "king of pop" which sounds moronic, especially for us, Russians, because "pop" sounds like the Russian word for "arses" and MJ is definitely not "king of arses"). I can re-watch his best music videos (which are artistically beautiful) and I never get tired of them.<br /><br />My first impression of this film was "What is this...?" (bits of different videos, some drawn images, unsettling jumps from one theme to another, absence of any cohesive plot line, some kids fooling around, etc.) but as I watched it till the end, I could tell that it was great and really nothing like anything else shown on TV nowadays. What I like here too is that it never shows any shameful material and can be watched by kids easily.<br /><br />Without Mr Michael Jackson the universe of music videos would be rather poor. Even the best classic videos of other artists cannot come very close to the energetic hyperbole of MJ musical insanity and artistic quality. He knew how to get the audience of different ages and he knew how to remain a man with moral principles.<br /><br />When I see a proper DVD release with Mr Michael Jackson videos I know that it deserves to be purchased even if some clips have already appeared in some other previous release. "HIStory I", "HIStory II", and "Moonwalker" are all great, though only "Moonwalker" is more like one movie (with a solid "Smooth Criminal" theme, "paparazzi" topic, and a few weird spoofs and twists).<br /><br />Being no fan of MJ I can still give this "film... like no other" a solid 9 out of 10 (I've been hit by "Smooth Criminal" for sure and my major complains are the following: initial segments of the movie could have been dropped while the main "MJ anti-drug campaign" should have been given more "sky-rocketing insanity and stress" and there should have been more "moonwalking" itself of course). Thanks for attention.

I love this show! Mr. Blick, Gordon, and Waffle are cats so different from each other, yet they refer to themselves collectively as 'brothers.' I often find myself trying to imitate the tired, sighing accent of their butler, Hovis, or even the Scottish borough of Gordon. There should be more episodes made about Human Kimberly. The episode about the cats disguising themselves as pre-teen girls to gain admittance to Human Kimberly's slumber party in order to get their thirsty paws on their favorite drink, Rootbeer, is a hilarious classic. We can't drink rootbeer in our house now without either doing the Catscratch voices or the Hanson Brothers from the movie 'Slap Shot.' Future classic. Where can I get the first two seasons on DVD??

A good cast... A good idea but turns out it is flawed as hypnosis is not allowed as evidence in courts. So many good actors and they are all acting so badly! So why did they all get attracted to this mess... And yes it has its good points such as lighting etc... But ultimately I wondered two things.... How could so much talent lead to such a bizarre mess? What is that accent that Nigel Hawthorne is putting on? He is/was a great actor and so what is that accent all about? It is impossible to identify? What was he trying to do? Maybe it is his subtle indication as if to say to us: 'I've got involved with a turkey so here's a crap accent to go with it!'

Well now, here's the thing - for this movie to work, you'll have to accept the following - a woman who's murdered is alive again at the end of the movie, a detective stops interrogating the dead woman's fiancée because a newspaper reporter asked him not to, and that same reporter, smitten by a good looking blonde hauled into night court for suspicious behavior, winds up getting married to her in exchange for the judge letting her off the hook. Are you following me on this? I can't tell you how many times I paused and rewound the picture to repeat scenes that just didn't make any sense. In the end, the blonde (Claudia Dell) and the reporter (Richard Hemingway) remained married, but I have no idea how they came to that decision. In fact, I can't figure out how the film maker came to the decision to make this flick. Oh I suppose there's some entertainment value here for just the sheer nonsense of it all, but it would have been nice if even a couple of the pieces fit. Still, I'm not ready to add this one to my Top Ten Worst list. I think that night club scene with the feathered ladies might have saved it. But why was it in the movie? I just don't know.

Hoot is the best movie. go and see it if you haven't about these 3 kids that stand up to the right and the wrong. a perfect family film. the characters Mullet Fingers ( Cody Linley) Beatrice Leep (Brie Larson) and Roy Eberhardt ( Logan Lerman) are the three main characters. great movie the best!!!!!!!!!!! i love this movie and you guys should too, its a great movie i mean it a great movie. go and see it if you haven't. i like it because they stand up to the right and wrong, and it has cut owls and the hot Cody Linley.<br /><br />Cody Linley is so HOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I LOVE HIM SO MUCH!!!!!!

I am a big follower of Indian Movies especially Malayalam and Tamil.<br /><br />Shame on India for not sending this movie as their official Oscar entry. I have seen this movie and it has clearly revealed to me the maturity Tamil cinema has in its screenplay and narrative which bollywood better catch up with.By the way to all we westerners, Tamil Cinema is more qualitative and very different from Bollywood which is all about good looks glamour and promotion.<br /><br />Coming to the point what was India thinking when they sent a movie like 'Devdas' to the Oscars? That was a really a Masochist move. I think they are trying to punish Oscar judges with boredom by sending Devdas since the judges toppled Lagaan last year.<br /><br />'Devdas' is just a brigthly colored but stale and predictable melodrama of Love, fate and destiny. I would keep away from it. Anyway, not sending a movie like Kanathil Muthital shows how much of a revamp Indian administration needs to save them from poor administrators who lack intelligence. Now I know why this country has so many issues. They are heavily talented but not showcased properly.

This is a very difficult movie, and it's almost impossible to get a handle on what's going on. At first it seems to be a rather pedestrian movie about a guy (Trelkovsky) who needs an apartment and rather crassly invites himself into one when the current tenant (a woman) commits suicide. Then the twists and turns start. Are the neighbors trying to kill him? And why are the dead tenant's clothes turning up in the apartment? One wonders, finally, if Trelkovksy _is_ the prior tenant. <br /><br />SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER <br /><br />One of the tricks Polanski pulls on us is to lie to us. We assume when we see things from the point of view of a character that we see things as the character does and that there may be distortions of reality. We assume when the camera is showing us things from its omniscient point of view that we see actuality - but Polanski has the camera lie to us.

Terry Benedict (Andy Garcia) catches up with Danny Ocean and his team and demands that they repay the money that they stole from him (in Oceans 11) plus interest. He holds back from violent action however as he is under the instruction of the world's greatest thief, the Night Fox. The team then have to pull off a series of heists to pay Benedict back whilst testing their abilities against the Night Fox who wishes to maintain his position as the greatest thief ever. Put simply, this film is a complete mess. The masses may argue that it is "cool" and that Clooney and Pitt put in great performances but these are the same people who have a subscription to "Hello" magazine and think that David Beckham has the potential to be a great actor. The story is convoluted, it is not complex or clever and it does not have intelligent twists and turns, it is just a complete mess that spills out in multiple directions with the hope that the audience will think it is cool and intelligent (Hello magazine readers). Any respectable movie watcher will however see the film for the farce that it is. Whilst Oceans 11 wasn't a great film it had a decent pace, was stylish and had some decent twists and turns. This movie loses its way very quickly and then basically gives up. It is as if the director and cast said to themselves, hey this isn't really working out, lets just have a laugh! Indeed the cast looks like they are enjoying themselves but I was not. I will not delve into the plot as its confused evolution does not warrant any examination. The addition of Catherine Zeta Jones is largely annoying. The scenes where Julia Roberts impersonates herself (with Bruce Willis undertaking a cameo role) whilst mildly amusing appear to be a desperate move to keep the audience interested. The movie is so full of plot holes that it as if Arnie has emptied an Uzi 9mm into the film studio. Credit can only be given to some scenes where the Night Fox uses Caopeira to undertake a heist against the back drop of some funky music but this is hardly justification to watch the movie. The final scene features the team in a nonsensical drunken stupor; this accurately sums up the movie. Stick with the original.

"Are You in the House Alone?" belongs to the pre-cable TV days when the networks were eager to offer an alternative to popular TV shows. It is well-made thriller with a talented cast and credible situations. Kathleen Beller plays a High School student who gets a series of threatening letters. Everyone seems to think that it is nothing more than a prank but Beller is really scared. Tony Bill and Blythe Danner play Beller's parents, Ellen Travolta (John's sister) is the High School Principal and Dennis Quaid has one of his earliest roles as a cocky rich kid. It's a competent chiller with a still relevant social message. Beller is lovely - if you are 30 or older, you will remember that she was very popular among youngsters. Blythe Danner, who I usually don't like, gives a truly moving performance. Nice little film.

"What would you do?" is a question that will stick in your mind for weeks after watching the emotional Brokedown Palace. You will also be left wondering if Alice (Danes) was telling the truth or not - a issue that is left unresolved, and rightly so. This is a particularly well acted and beautifully shot film. Although it is slow at times, its pace is reflective of the story line - but a lot of the film will have you on the edge of your seat; wanting to know what happens next. The ending will also leave you imagining yourself in the shoes of the lead characters, which are brilliantly played by Kate Beckinsale and Claire Danes. Bill Pullman's performance is commendable, too.