Datasets:

srivatsavaasista

/

textgenerator

like 1

Alicia Silverstone (pre-"Clueless") plays a modern-day crime-obsessed teenager attempting to solve the brutal slaying of a local girl. Pat Verducci wrote and directed this B-flick, which isn't especially well-made but is however surprisingly serious-minded in regards to its leading character. Silverstone is appealing and successful in carving out an interesting young woman here, despite the picture's kitschy undermining. The supporting cast (including Kevin Dillon and Michael Bowen) isn't bad, though the violence in the last act goes overboard. Not a cheesy camp-fest, but nothing exceptionally memorable either. *1/2 from ****

This film screened last night at Austin's Paramount theater as part of the SXSW Film Festival. We were graced with the presence of director Mike Binder and stars Adam Sandler and Don Cheadle who took audience questions after the film. It is a remarkable and powerful film about what it is like to lose yourself and begin to find your way back. The performances are phenomenal and the story manages to be both tragic and funny in a way that is all too rare. (The trailer for the film tries a little too hard to emphasize the comedic aspects.)<br /><br />This is a breakout role for Adam Sandler. While he has begun to transition to more dramatic roles with Punch-Drunk Love and Spanglish, this role is a significant step forward for him as a dramatic actor. He deserves an Oscar nomination as he continues down to transition to more dramatic roles as Tom Hanks did and Jim Carrey is also doing. In this role, he seemed to be trying to channel Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man. Although playing an autistic man is certainly very different than Sandler's traumatized character, both characters for different reasons are trapped in their own worlds of child-like isolation and confusion.<br /><br />Don Cheadle's performance is less surprising, but just as good. After Hotel Rwanda and Crash, we've come to expect remarkable nuanced performances from Cheadle. He has the qualities of sincerity and honesty that comes through in this role. But he, too, is also broken and struggling if not in the such profound ways as Sandler's character. Cheadle is struggling with difficulties in both his marriage and in his professional life as a dentist. Together the characters played by Cheadle and Sandler struggle to heal each other in the way that true friends often do (in a way that reminds me of Matt Damon and Robin Williams in Good Will Hunting). They are both searching for that part of the themselves that they have lost and trying to find again.<br /><br />Reign over Me is one of the best major studio films to be released this year. The soundtrack, which is almost another character in the plot is wonderful. The filming in the streets of New York - a city that suffered a great tragedy and has also had to heal itself - is also quite beautiful. The supporting roles by Jada Pinkett Smith, Liv Tyler, Saffron Burrows (in a very odd role), Donald Sutherland, and Mike Binder himself are all quite good.<br /><br />Writer/Director Mike Binder has really delivered a story that so many will be able to connect with on numerous levels. This is a story about grief, family, healing, male friendship, mental health, and the meaning of love. Reign over Me does not disappoint. The film is almost hypnotic as it draws you into the lives of its characters. Hollywood would have a much better reputation if it made more character-driven charming films like Reign over Me.

This is not a profound movie; most of the plot aspects are pretty predictable and "tried and true" but it was well-acted and made some interesting points about what we might regret (our "mistakes" as the movie calls them) as we look back over our lives. I had not read the book, so didn't know much other than it was the story of a dying woman who has strong memories from long ago that she hasn't really shared with anyone. Thankfully they got a top-notch cast....Meryl<br /><br />Streep's daughter, Mamie Gummer, plays the young Lila, and then Meryl shows up at the end of the film as the old Lila...in addition to an amazing resemblance (duh!) the younger actress did a great job (perhaps not quite up to her mom's caliber, but who is?) All others in this film were fine, although I wish there had been more of Glen Close and thought the Buddy character was alittle too dramatic. <br /><br />This is more of a girls' movie than for the guys, but a good one to see with your mom, or your daughter, and maybe start some dialog going. How hard it is to really know a parent as a "person"!

Cecil B. deMille's 1922 parlor-to-prison tearjerker Manslaughter finds the lovely Leatrice Joy as a good-at-heart but decadent young lady with more money than she knows what to do with. Her recklessness leads to imprisonment, which in turn leads to her regeneration. Thomas Meighan is the crusading district attorney who has made it his personal crusade to bring out the goodness and wholesomeness in Lydia (Joy) but he gets sidetracked by alcohol and once she is released, it is up to her to rescue him!<br /><br />If the plot doesn't sound too bad, you'll be floored by the woeful presentation. The quality of deMille's direction is very low, and he does not show any particular skill that is unique to him. The photography is standard and flat, and the editing is hardly more dynamic. One could easily classify it as a fashion show and be pretty correct. DeMille gets to dress Miss Joy up in so many different types of clothes (evening gowns, golfing costumes, motoring costumes, piles of furs) that it's subtitle could be 'Fashions of 1922'<br /><br />One thing more disappointing than the photography or editing or the direction is the acting, which is mostly flat and wooden. When it is not, it is merely routine silent gesturing, rolling eye balls, twitching eye brows and deliberate pointing and arm movements. What would have been enlivened for modern viewers by mugging and scene chewing of some of the worst silent films, is here merely dull to watch. The only member of the cast who succeeds in any form of excellence is Lois Wilson, who is not only beautiful but is able to play her role naturally. She is convincing and endearing in tearful close-ups, as long as you don't read the moralizing title card that follows once she opens her mouth to speak. Like I said, everybody else is droningly routine, Joy, Meighan, even Julia Faye. Her performance here makes a good argument for why she never attained true stardom.<br /><br />The worst and most amusing part of this movie is the heavy moralistic tone that carries through all of it. Meighan's character has plenty of intertitles where he drones on about how the youth of America is declining in it's moral stance, and going right back to the decadence of Rome. (insert absurd flashback) This movie's moralizing has been described as Victorian, but it's further than that. It has so little bearing in reality that I have a feeling audiences at that time didn't take it any more seriously than modern viewers could.<br /><br />This movie is exactly what the unknowing tend to think of as a 'typical' silent movie, with it's archaic moral structure, wooden acting and bad direction. DeMille shows that he could be a terrible director, with no sense of pacing, camera placement, or skill in handling either script or actors. I can't imagine anybody in their right mind taking it seriously. Boring, slow and idiotic, I recommend it to hardcore silent movie dorks like myself only.

Normally I wouldn't go to the trouble of commenting on a horror movie sequel, because it's usually assumed that they're BAD, and if you watch them with a healthy disrespect, they can be very fun and enjoyable to taunt/laugh at. However, this chapter of the ongoing Halloween saga came close to gumbing up everything the original stood for. In the very first movie, Dr. Loomis said (very pointedly I might add), that Michael Myers was evil, and this tries to explain why (doing a bad job of it I might add). In my opinion, he was much scarier when he was just a blood hungry freak. The whole goth/cult thing was unnecessary and a desperate attempt to throw a new curve into the Halloween equation. The result was a boring, predictable movie that was not scary and not bad enough to be funny.

The Calu-what now? Yeah, I thought it was a stupid name as well. Chris Carter remains blissfully unaware of the scum in his writing staff. Starting off with the usual cheery X-Files teaser (a baby getting run over by a train) this episode... well I can't really say it goes downhill because to be honest it was never going uphill. <br /><br />Poorly written, with us feeling no pathos for any of the characters (except maybe that baby at the start) the writer makes us hate characters before brutally killing them off, it's the worst technique ever. Are we supposed to feel sorry for the characters of hate them? Don't ask me. <br /><br />Not only is it boring and un-scary, but it's like watching a really bad Omen sequel with overblown and disgusting death sequences and rotten special effects (although to be brutally honest, that's the least of my worries). <br /><br />Sara B. Charno began her X-Files career with a whimper and thankfully ended it with one as well.<br /><br />Verdict: <br /><br />In the words of my maths teacher Mr. Laverack: "Horrible, Awful..."

Yes!!!! Fassbinder and Ballhaus are at the top of their game, back in 1973! It's about the same subject, but in my opinion it's a much better movie than THE MATRIX (1999), at least it was 200 times cheaper! Very nice camera work by Michael Ballhaus and the wonderful "Albatross" by Fleetwood Mac at the end. Fassbinder is creating a very moody tone for the whole film. It's a shame this movie was never released on DVD. But now after 37 Years they finally came to the conclusion, that this TV-Movie, is not only one of the best Fassbinder films (altough there are quiet a lot best Fassbinder films), it's a brilliant example for a science-fiction movie, done without much money. Buy it!! Watch it!!

This was a surprisingly very good movie, and an interesting idea.. However, it was just a little bit disappointing in that the 'Twist' was a little too predictable and just a bit too early on in the movie. Whilst watching, it started to get a little bizarre and confusing to the point that, the only reasonable outcome possible was the inevitable plot twist, but it certainly did not ruin this movies flow. There were superb performances, there was never a dull boring moment, so totally well worth watching this one. It kept me interested right up until the end, and for me there isn't many movies that can do that these days. I highly recommend people watch this terrific little movie.

I watched a made for television film about the destruction at Waco, Texas. It was obviously heavily slanted toward the claim that David Koresh was a murderous, child raping cult leader hell-bent on killing as many cops as he wanted and taking his people to the heavens on a blood stained stairway.<br /><br />The film was little more than propaganda further detailing what we had already read in the newspapers. I am more and more sure of that since I watched the great documentary Waco: The Rules of Engagment. Not that every assertion made in this film should be taken as God's truth, but it tells the whole story rather than regurgitating only what law enforcement decided to tell.<br /><br />For those who have forgot, Koresh was the spiritual leader of the religious movement named The Branch Davidians. Charges of drug use, kidnapping, illegal weapon ownership, and statutory rape (among others I'm sure) raised the suspicions of the local police, then later federal law enforcement. While attempting to serve a search warrant, the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) and the clan participated in a shoot out that left deceased and wounded on both sides.<br /><br />It was then that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) got involved. Communications between the two were spirited but eventually broke down. The FBI prepared for an invasion by assaulting the building with flash-bang grenades and gas. When the building burnt to the ground killing many within, including Koresh, the FBI refused to admit responsibility saying the "cult" inside must have set it on fire themselves. This hearkened images of Jim Jones and other violent religious organizations.<br /><br />The picture puts on many masks to tell its story. It begins with a sampling of the congressional hearings, perhaps the "truth," as far as the record is concerned anyway. What is eye-opening is how partisan the politicians remained even in a difficult and serious situation as this. The Democrats were concerned in nothing more than defending every single action taken by law enforcement. It was the Republicans that seemed open to the other side.<br /><br />It is impossible to relate all of the new information and analysis provided by this documentary. Additionally, a list would take away from the film opening up as it goes along. One example would be the heart-breaking fact that children died within the compound. The filmmakers probably side more with the Davidians in general but stay relatively open to either side. In this instance the feds seem at fault for mishandling a situation that involves innocent children. But on the other hand the parents also need to shoulder some of the blame for leaving their kids in this harmful situation when they could have released them to any number of local authorities.<br /><br />Probably the most damning new information comes late in the film and involves the FBI's claim they did not fire upon the building. This is left up to interpretation, and I will not reveal any more than to say it is disturbing and shocking what can and cannot be told.<br /><br />The federal officers are not held in a critical or corrupt light any more than Koresh. The largest condemnation seems to be leveled on the media, unwilling to tell both sides of a story. This element seems prevalent in recent documentaries, duly so I believe. It is time for the media to return to telling news stories and leave this relentless pursuit of what will draw the biggest audience and ratings.<br /><br />It is hard to mess up a documentary. In most cases switching on a camera and editing together interesting pieces of life is common and tells a terrific story. What few can do is shed such new light on a subject that the way you think about it is forever altered. Waco is that kind of film. ***.5 out of ****

The ultimate goal of Big Brother, that we know what to think before we think it, has been realized. Is it some kind of miracle, or sinister joke, that people don mental straight jackets of their own volition, twist themselves into contorted shapes, and grin like apes? Movies, art, no longer risk the unknown, but are forgone conclusions, drained of life.<br /><br />"The Notorious Bettie Page" is a bland case history, fit for a freshman college feminism course. Its lesson is schematic, right-angled and linear: "See how women are objectified, exploited, abused, then tossed on the trash heap, by a male-dominated society."<br /><br />Bettie Page, supposedly, was the "pin-up queen of the 1950's," the ass millions of men ejaculated to. (All reviewers repeat that phrase, "pin-up queen of the 1950's," like a choir of monkeys.) Her history as an American sex bomb is familiar: Southern, abused by her father, raped, etc. In this movie she is a naïf, an innocent unaware of the prurient interests she serves and shamelessly profits from. Although she believes in Jesus, she enjoys frolicking nude before a camera lens -- just the wholesome girl-next-door sex-slave American males supposedly fantasize.<br /><br />From the mouth of writer-director Mary Harron herself, Oxford-educated AND ex-punker (do you smell the combined rot of privilege and "hipness" as I do?): "I feel that without feminism, I wouldn't be doing this. ... I don't make feminist films in the sense that I don't make anything ideological. But I do find that women get my films better." What a cozy clique.<br /><br />The movie merely goes through the motions of telling the story of a human life, it's subject and purpose having been eulogized and interred well before the movie began. Ms. Page has a boyfriend, but we are shown next to nothing about their relationship. In fact, there are no intimate or detailed relationships in the film. <br /><br />One can't ignore its smug simplicity. In New York, where Ms. Page tries her best to fit into and appease a man's world, letting herself be tied up in the ropes of bondage and tightly laced into the black leather boots and bodices of S & M, the movie is black and white. But down in Miami, where she goes to get away from it all, gleefully takes off her clothes, and is photographed by a "liberated" female, the movie turns into color.<br /><br />Like hell Harron doesn't "make feminist films," doesn't "make anything ideological." Ideology has become so internalized, so assumed, so programmed, that it's almost invisible. Big Brother must be smiling.

Bit of a curate's egg, this one. I started off hating it, with it's predictable' Old Dark House' set-up, it's constant references to recent US horrors and regular trips up and down dimly lit corridors.<br /><br />But it does get going and has it's moments of originality.<br /><br />I began to wonder , once the killing started, how they were going to last out with only a cast of six but then we get flashbacks to a previous visit to the building and see a whole slew of gory killings which is pretty effective.<br /><br />Naschy is fine and by the end it's been an enjoyable enough movie. It just does not jump up and grab one, hard enough.

For starters I have always been a fan of the Batman cartoons because the theme is so universal, 'that everyone alive has an alter-ego'. This is true in the Mystery of Batwoman. While the overall story is good I'm disappointed that they haven't really done much for the franchise with this.<br /><br />Throughout the movie, you are trying to find out who the identity of Batwoman is, unfortunately you can find out by easily looking at the cast of credits posted on this website (so if you haven't seen it already don't go there). I was sort of disappointed that they didn't make the movie longer. 75 minutes is way too short for any movie. The secret identity of batwoman also comes far too early in the movie, sort of midway, and becomes anti-climatic afterward because you know the good guys will always win and that the new character known as Batwoman will disappear after the movie is over.<br /><br />I'm also not too sure about the new animation style used in this movie. I love the sleek new characters but there should be some more detail where detail is called for. Some parts of the animation look so awkward and rigid that it grabs your attention right away diverting your attention away from the storyline. I also didn't really like the bright atmosphere used in most of the scenes, it sort of loses its dark and gothic feel which is Batman. Similarly we should've gotten to know more about batwoman's personality so that we can build the same deep compassionate feeling that we do with Bruce Wayne. Also I think the fight with Bane should have been done better. In typical children's fashion the bad guy meets his demise too easily either by tripping, falling, getting electricuted or doing something dumb that works against them. Come to think of it there wasn't even one drop of blood spilled in this movie either.<br /><br />Bottom line, its a good entertaining flick and I recommend anyone who's a Batman fan to watch it. It has good storyline, universal appeal and even great acting to top it off. I just wish that they could have delivered more permanent change to the story by making Batwoman stay to make things more interesting. Not just introduce her and then kick her off once she's done. I'd also like to see someone else figure out the mystery for a change finally. To have some other than Batman solve the mystery and fill him in later with the details.<br /><br />I hope there are more animated movies to come and look forward to the time when we will actually be able to see the breakup between Bruce Wayne and Barbra Gordan. He's been stringing her along forever and doesn't even like her and I can't believe that she was dumb enough to fall in love with someone 20 years older. I also want to see the time when Tim Drake leaves because he is getting sick of the old man. In short I want to see all of the things that led the characters to where they will be in Batman Beyond. Otherwise the same repeated formula will just end it faster than if they just decided to move on with the story.<br /><br />

This movie had all the elements to be a smart, sparkling comedy, but for some reason it took the dumbass route. Perhaps it didn't really know who its audience was: but it's hardly a man's movie given the cast and plot, yet is too slapstick and dumb-blonde to appeal fully to women.<br /><br />If you have seen Legally Blonde and its sequel, then this is like the bewilderingly awful sequel. Great actors such as Luke Wilson should expect better material. Jessica Simpson could also have managed so much more. Rachael Leigh Cook and Penelope Anne Miller languish in supporting roles that are silly rather than amusing.<br /><br />Many things in this movie were paint-by-numbers, the various uber-cliché montages, the last minute "misunderstanding", even the kids' party chaos. This just suggests lazy scriptwriting.<br /><br />It should be possible to find this movie enjoyable if you don't take it seriously, but it's such a glaring could-do-better than you'll likely feel frustrated and increasingly disappointed as the scenes roll past.

These slasher pics are past their sell by date, but this one is good fun.<br /><br />The valentine cards themselves are witty, and well thought out.<br /><br />The film has one Peach of a line... "He's no Angel...." when he in fact IS Angel!!! Watching Buffy reruns will never be the same!<br /><br />The cast is a sizzling display of young talent, but the story does not give them enough real depth. Denise Richards on the DVD extras seemed to think the girls on set bonded well together and this would give the feeling that you empathised with their characters. Sorry but NO!<br /><br />The direction is very good, managing to show very little actual gore, and relying on your imaginations implied threat. Much can be said also for the similar manner in which Miss Richards and Heigel do not remove their clothes...:-(<br /><br />Essentially, the main directorial plus, lies within the "borrowing" of various other ideas from previous slasher flicks. Psycho's shower scene is tributed, along with Halloween's "masking". <br /><br />Murdering someone hiding in a bodybag though is a pretty original one as far as I know!!!<br /><br />Light viewing, not very scary but a few good jump moments. If it was a choice between The Hole and this though, choose The Hole. Slasher movies have had their day, and this is just another slasher. A very good slasher, but nothing groundbreaking!!!

According to John Ford's lyrically shot, fictional biopic of Abraham Lincoln's life his greatest faults may have been an obtuseness with woman and an ability to dance in "the worst way." Ford's camera has only praising views to reveal of Mr. Lincoln's early life. But for what the film lacks in character complexities it makes up for in beauty and depth of vision. Uncharacteristically beautiful compositions of early film, what could have been a series of gorgeous still frames, Ford has a unique eye for telling a story. The film sings of the life of a hopeful young man. Henry Fonda plays the contemplative and spontaneously clever Lincoln to a tee, one of his best roles.<br /><br />The film concerns two young men, brothers, on trial for a murder that both claim to have committed. In classic angry mob style, the town decides to take justice into their own hands and lynch the pair of them, until honest Abe steps into the fray. He charms them with his humor, telling them not to rob him of his first big case, and that they are as good as lynched with him as the boys lawyer. What follows seems to become the outline for all courtroom- murder-dramas thereafter, as Abe cunningly interrogates witnesses to the delight and humor of the judge, jury and town before he stumbles upon the missing links.<br /><br />The film plays out like many John Ford movies do: a tablespoon of Americana, a dash of moderate predictability, a hint of sarcasm that you aren't sure if you put in the recipe or if Ford did it himself. Despite the overtly 'Hollywood' feel of the film, and overly patriotic banter alluding to Lincoln's future presidency, the film is entirely enjoyable and enjoyably well constructed, if you can take your drama with a grain of salt.

Perhaps the most personal of David Lynch's works is his most accessible. This time, rather than the enigmatic thematic structures that may or may not involve a plot or represent anything more than vivid nightmares, Lynch provides a reflective, fragile meditation on the universal subjects of aging and family and finds reassurance in both. The simple true story of an Iowa farmer (Richard Farnsworth) who rides a lawn mower to Wisconsin to visit his estranged, stricken brother, there are still plenty of the unique and original visual dreamscapes (some rather striking aerial shots of the heartland, filmed by veteran cinematographer Freddy Francis) to make it an undeniable Lynch effort and characterizations that are some of his most unforgettable. Farnsworth is excellent in a stoic yet personable way, allowing the stories he hears on his journey to become a part of his life, and Sissy Spacek turns in some of her finest work in a smaller role as his mentally challenged yet observant daughter (whose painful secret is revealed in a poignant way through a gentle turn in the sensitive script by John Roach and Mary Sweeney) but the rest of the small cast to a person delivers indelible performances, one of the most notable being Barbara Robertson, whose accidental killing of a deer is both uproarious and sad at the same time. But that's vintage Lynch with his ability to engage and unsettle you at his best. To those unfamiliar with Lynch or know him only by his violent, disturbing reputation, this is an excellent place to begin; for those who know his work, this is one of the finest in his repertoire.

Although it's most certainly politically incorrect to be entertained by a drunk, there's such a charm to Dudley Moore's portrayal of lovable lush, Arthur Bach one can't help but feel for this unique and wonderful character. How can you not be entertained by that infectious laugh and giggle and utter silliness. Although I'm not really a Liza Minnelli fan, she was really excellent as Linda Marolla and I couldn't picture anyone else in that role. Sir John Gielgud was the heart of the film and deserved his Oscar. The rest of the cast also excellent and that great tune "Arthur's Theme", wow. Truly this was one of the Best Comedies of the 1980s. Great films get better with each viewing and that is the case with "Arthur."

Not good! Rent or buy the original! Watch this only if someone has a gun to your head and then....maybe.<br /><br />It is like claiming an Elvis actor is as good as the real King.

Hal Hartley has been likened to a modern day William Shakespeare, by virtue of the fact that he gets his actors to deliver their lines in an iambic pentameter. He certainly knows how to assemble a cast and once again Martin Donovan is sensational, whilst Thomas Jay Ryan plays his role with an intensity that is unforgettable. Although the film is only 1 hour, the time frame works wonderfully and keeps the audience on a fast tracked race right till the very end. Without a doubt Hal Hartley is one of the best directors to come out of America in the last 20 years, with a vision that is unique, funny and heart warming.

How viewers react to this new "adaption" of Shirley Jackson's book, which was promoted as NOT being a remake of the original 1963 movie (true enough), will be based, I suspect, on the following: those who were big fans of either the book or original movie are not going to think much of this one...and those who have never been exposed to either, and who are big fans of Hollywood's current trend towards "special effects" being the first and last word in how "good" a film is, are going to love it.<br /><br />Things I did not like about this adaption:<br /><br />1. It was NOT a true adaption of the book. From the articles I had read, this movie was supposed to cover other aspects in the book that the first one never got around to. And, that seemed reasonable, no film can cover a book word for word unless it is the length of THE STAND! (And not even then) But, there were things in this movie that were never by any means ever mentioned or even hinted at, in the movie. Reminded me of the way they decided to kill off the black man in the original movie version of THE SHINING. I didn't like that, either. What the movie's press release SHOULD have said is..."We got the basic, very basic, idea from Shirley Jackson's book, we kept the same names of the house and several (though not all) of the leading character's names, but then we decided to write our own story, and, what the heck, we watched THE CHANGELING and THE SHINING and GHOST first, and decided to throw in a bit of them, too."<br /><br />2. They completely lost the theme of a parapyschologist inviting carefully picked guest who had all had brushes with the paranormal in their pasts, to investigate a house that truly seemed to have been "born bad". No, instead, this "doctor" got everyone to the house under the false pretense of studying their "insomnia" (he really invited them there to scare them to death and then see how they reacted to their fear...like lab rats, who he mentioned never got told they are part of an experiment...nice guy). This doctor, who did not have the same name, by the way, was as different from the dedicated professional of the original movie as night from day.<br /><br />3. In direct contrast to the statement that was used to promote both movies "some houses are just born bad", this house was not born bad but rather became bad because of what happened there...and, this time around, Nel gets to unravel the mystery (shades of THE CHANGELING). The only problem was, the so-called mystery was so incoherently told that I'm sure it remained a mystery to most of the audience...but, then there was no mystery in the first place (not in the book), because the house was bad TO BEGIN WITH. It's first "victim" died before ever setting eyes on it.<br /><br />4. The way the character of Luke was portrayed was absolutely ridiculous. He was supposed to be a debonair playboy who was someday to inherit the house (and was a true skeptic of it's "history")...and in this one he was just a winey-voiced, bumbling nerd who couldn't sleep(insomnia remember) and was a compulsive liar.<br /><br />5. I was also annoyed with the way the movie jumped from almost trying to recreate original scenes word for word (the scene with Nel's sister's family, and Mrs. Dudley's little opening speech...) to going off into flights of fancy that made me think more of these other movies than THE HAUNTING. It's like it couldn't make up its mind what it wanted to do.<br /><br />6. I missed Nel's narrative through the whole movie. The original was so like a gothic novel in the way that the story was mostly told in the first person, through Nel's eyes, and we always were privy to her thoughts. That totally unique touch was completely lost in the new version. They also tried to make Nel much more of a heroine. The original Nel was not a bad person, but she was a bitter person (could she be otherwise after sacrificing 11 years of her life to a selfish old woman and a spiteful sister?) and she liked to moan, and she lost her temper... This one was almost too good to be true. This was never more apparent than in the climax of the movie where the writer's had obviously been watching GHOST one too many times.<br /><br />7. They changed the history of the house and it's occupents too much. There was no Abigail Crain (the daughter of Hugh whose legend loomed large in the original versions), there was no "companion", and there was no nursery. There was also no "Grace" (wife of the original doctor) and Hugh Crain's wives died in totally different ways. These changes, changed the story WAY too much. I don't know whether the producers of this movie should be glad Shirley Jackson no longer walks this earth or whether they should...BE SORRY (if ya get my drift!!! The hauntings she could envision are not something to be trifled with!!!).<br /><br />In conclusion, let me just leave you with some words from the original Luke (appropriate substitution of the word "house" for "movie"!): "This 'movie' should be burnt to the ground, and the ground sprinkled with salt!" My favorite movie of all time remains so. No competition from this one.

"I didn't want this to get complicated, Leese. I have to assume she's gonna read that." Fear takes flight at 30,000 feet in this taut, action thriller. An overnight flight to Miami quickly becomes a battle for survival when Lisa ( Rachel McAdams) realizes her seatmate ( Cillian Murphy) is planning to use her as part of a chilling assassination plot. As the minutes tick by, she's in a race against time to warn the potential victims before its to late.<br /><br />One of the many reasons I love this movie, is because of the chemistry between the two stars, McAdams and Murphy, who are also two of my top favorite actors. For example, the early scenes at the airport play more like a romantic comedy: two people keep running into each other.... I got to hand it to the two as well, for making a film like this work. Especially, Murphy's character.. Jackson who really seems to be sort of complicated in that way that he acts charming and innocent, yet he's trying to do his job and make Lisa feel trapped physically and mentally. I mean, in certain parts he really seems to be concerned for Lisa.<br /><br />A great thrill ride all the way through. A lot of films I would hate to see a prequel or a sequel about, but actually I wouldn't mind a prequel to this one, which would take place with Jackson surveilling Lisa. Favorite scene is probably that headbutt scene, because it was so unexpected. There was also that nice buildup to the famous 'pen' scene. When is she going to make her move? There was also that nice change in McAdam's Lisa, where she changed herself from being a victim into fighting back. I also loved the scene where she sits down in the food court and pretends to ask some ladies a survey about the food court. How great was Murphy with his whole weezing.....

I just have to comment on this movie because I gave it a 4 rating, and in my opinion that's pretty high for a softporn smut movie. The actual plot is kind of hokey (who would expect otherwise) but Hafron is so incredibly funny, and he delivers everything in a cyborgish voice so it's easy for him. Whoever wrote the script had some wit definitely! I must have laughed out loud ten times, and that's not a reason anyone would pick up this movie. The only softporn movie I've seen which had any merit other than beautiful women (and believe me, Emmanuelle is drop dead gorgeous...just look at the cover!)<br /><br />Any movie that can entertain me considering how poor the plot was and how bad the acting is, also considering the movie wasn't made to artistically entertain, so to speak, it gets at least a four in my book. I mean, who wouldn't watch this before Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot?

When I first saw this movie, the first thing I thought was this movie was more like an anime than a movie. The reason is because it involves vampires doing incredible stunts. The stunts are very much like the Matrix moves like the moving too fast for bullets kinda thing and the jumping around very far. Another reason why I the movie is good is because the adorable anime faces they do during the movie. The way Gackt does his pouting faces or just the way they act, VERY ANIME. I think that it's a really good movie to watch. ^_^ The action in this movie is a 10 (not to mention Gackt and Hyde too are a 10). ^_~ If you are Gackt and Hyde fans, you have to see it.

Almost no cinema experience can beat a good thriller with a sense of humor. Geena Davis is a schoolteacher housewife who suffers from amnesia. She'e even on the PTA! But then an auto accident awakens the woman she used to be, and it's HOT! Samuel L. Jackson is hilarious as the low rent private eye who tries to help Davis find her past, only to find out he's in way over his head. Davis has some hilarious lines too, and the interaction between her and Jackson works surprisingly well.<br /><br />Look for Brian Cox, the original Hannibal Lechter, and David Moorse finally managing to shed his St. Elsewhere TV image. The film is directed by Davis' husband, who almost seems to have built the whole film around her, but it works.<br /><br />I pull out this DVD and rewatch it often. I still love the makeup scene. Is Geena hot or what?

This Movie Is Excellent The passion between Jade & Billy is memorable and the acting was great, This is why you don't leave a 16 year old and a young man like that alone together! It shows why a single mother shouldn't date a younger man with a teen aged daughter in the house, cause he looked young enough to be Jessy's son.<br /><br />I give it ten out of ten, The acting was wonderful and the movements between the actors was correct.<br /><br />The age difference between Jenny and Rob was good too, because they were similar in age.<br /><br />Overall, its a fun movie but i think nobody under 13 should watch this movie because of the sexual scenes.

This movie was SO stupid I couldn't believe what I was seeing as I was watching it, it was like a huge train wreck -- I couldn't look away because it was just SO horribly awful! I can honestly say I've never seen anything this bad in my whole entire life. It was so cheesy and the acting was just so deplorable that I just kept thinking "this just has to be some kind of a joke, right? Nobody would actually make a movie this crappy on purpose, right?" I really hope this is all just a bad joke and these people don't actually expect people to watch this with a straight face, and I really hope the people who were in this movie were doing terrible acting on purpose and don't actually believe that they are good actors?! The drag queens are pretty funny to watch, though, and so are the cheesy special effects straight out of a bad 80's sci-fi movie.<br /><br />Only watch this if you've already seen every other movie in existence first and there is nothing left to watch at all! I would give this a "0" if it were possible.

For those of you still in the dark, I will not spoil this Christie, as it is definitely one of her finest works, and I stress that you should see it whenever you next have free time! If any of the adaptations are to be watched before (or in lieu of) reading the book, I would suggest "After the Funeral" for the following reasons.<br /><br />I wanted to praise the performance by Monica Dolan (Miss Gilchrist), whose employer-companion Cora is brutally murdered at the outset of the film. Her portrayal of a shocked, nervous, insignificant woman is actually moving, especially when she has a moment of personal connection with Poirot, another person who travels alone in "the journey of life." And when the murderer is being revealed in typical Poirot denouement fashion, Dolan's reactions to the revelation are acting at its finest: you feel as angry at the murderer as you do sympathetic to Miss Gilchrist... something uncommon in Christie lore.<br /><br />Although there are a couple of discrepancies between novel and film adaptation, as per usual (the business of the will perhaps making less sense in the film), the unbelievably lavish recreation of post-war England, thoroughly high calibre of acting and directing, and preservation (if not heightening) of Christie's mystery and intrigue render these discrepancies insignificant.<br /><br />Bravo Suchet, Dolan and the whole team for crafting this masterpiece of murder mystery theatre, and the producers who gave it the green light! Encore!

I remember watching this film back in 86' when it first came out & what an awful film. The acting was atrocious the plot was so flimsy it would or is that should have blew away in a breath of wind. I think it put me to sleep on more than one occasion & i was not tired that i remember. Please avoid at all costs better still have all your teeth taken out with no anaesthetic cos that would be more entertaining. It's just a pity i couldn't give it a zero or a negative score. I wish i had not wasted my money getting this one from the video shop all i can say was that the tape it was on was still brand new practically hardly surprising as the film was so poor. If i remember right i sat & watched it with a girl i really wanted to go out with & the fact she was sat next to me was still not enough to keep me awake thats how bad this film was.

Anthony Wong plays Lok,a husband whose wife is seriously ill.Poor Lok-due to her illness he has been going without sex for a long time.That's why he is plagued by a series of sleazy nightmares featuring nurses and schoolgirls."Erotic Nightmare" is a fun Cat III flick loaded with sleaze and voyeurism.There is also a bit of gore as the first part of the film shows some nasty killings committed by Wong character under the influence of the monk's mystical powers.The dream sequences are quite erotic and sleazy,so I'm not complaining.Of course those who expect gruesome Cat III horror in the tradition of "Diary of a Serial Killer" or "Red to Kill" will be disappointed,but fans of sleazy exploitation cinema should give this one a look.7 out of 10.

I'm a dance teacher and was looking forward to some good dance routines in this film. How sad to have been subjected to such a painful experience. <br /><br />I had major problems with Jennifer Beals and her character. I found Alex extremely repellent. Beals' face is so young, sweet and innocent, and this very incongruous with Alex's very disturbing lewdness, especially in that disgusting restaurant scene. She also has the temper tantrums of a toddler. It is very difficult to believe that Nick would keep coming back to such a moody teenager after her frequent rantings and ravings, especially after she opens the door of a moving car and chucks a stiletto at him, opting rather to walk home - in the middle of the road - with only one shoe!!!. And what about after her idiotic behaviour after the night at the ballet. In fact, the whole romance was very disturbing - the 30 something year old man going after a girl who looks about 16. Yuck. <br /><br />As for the dancing, I'm afraid this 80s style is totally dated. What on earth was that TV dance sequence about in the club? Who was supposed to be dancing? I wasn't even sure if it was a woman or a man in drag! And even that famous final sequence is pretty disappointing, especially given the context of an audition for a ballet company. The camera shots of her leap actually ruin it's effect because you can't see what she's doing. And what on earth was she doing when she went past each of the panel pointing at them? And as many other comments have pointed out, she would NEVER get into a ballet company on the strength of that audition - perhaps that's why they don't actually say at the end whether she was successful or not, the closure is the fact that she overcame her fear in the end. Of the 'Flashdancers', I actually thought the best sequence belonged to Cynthia Rhodes (Penny in Dirty Dancing). You could see that she was a real dancer, and her acrobatics were very impressive. This is of course if you can get past her appalling costume and makeup. <br /><br />There were two good bits in this film - the ballet dancers stretching when Alex goes for the first time to apply for an audition - they look so lovely and classy, and at least this helps to underline the difference between her current dance career and the one she aspires to. The other good scene was the break dancing in the street. I also liked the ice skater's parents, they were funny.<br /><br />Some other random points - who was Hanna and how did Alex get to know her? What was an 18 year old doing living in a converted warehouse all alone? How did she afford that lovely barre and all the furniture?Where were her family? Was that scene in the 'nude' club really necessary? The person who wrote in their comment that it was something like a Disney film needs their head examined. And anyway, what happened to the ice skater? <br /><br />Many people said the film was poor but they liked the message - don't give up hope, keep on trying, and your dreams will come true. Watch "The Little Mermaid" instead.

The action scenes was quite good. But the plot of the movie, I would have to give it a score of 1 out of 10. It seems that the producers and director of this movie didn't thought about it carefully?<br /><br />It doesn't give much value and values to it's viewers except for it's violence. The entire story was about revenge. A boy witnessing a rape and murder. I would even recommend it to be banned. Those who watched it, you've just lose some money. If you're thinking of watching it, watch something else. I would ask for a refund if I was on a movie theater. So for you guys and girls out there reading this article. Please don't waste time.

Let Freedom Ring was probably made with the best of intentions, but it sends out a curious mixed message in the final product.<br /><br />The folks at a western town where the railroad is coming through are overwhelmed by the arrival of immigrant railroad workers, working on the railroad being financed by robber baron Edward Arnold. There are a few ranchers and farmers whose land stands in the railroad's path and these folks are dealt with summarily by Arnold's hired men. One man who won't give in is Lionel Barrymore whose son is coming home from Harvard a lawyer and ready to take up the rancher's cause.<br /><br />Only Nelson Eddy decides the best way to fight is to go Zorro on the bad guys. But other than Charles Butterworth no one knows he's the Wasp (a very interesting choice of names by the way). <br /><br />What Arnold's done is used the tried and true methods of the political bosses of the east, getting the immigrants to vote. Nelson's idea is simple, if the immigrants only knew the truth about what a bad guy Arnold is, they'll vote with the original settlers and knock out the alien urban political machine in their midst. He kidnaps newspaper editor Raymond Walburn and takes him and the press to a mountain cave where some subversive newspapers are printed and distributed.<br /><br />The railroad workers are a real mixed bunch of immigrants, not the Irish working west or the Chinese working east as history has it. It's a real United Nations working on Arnold's railroad. The workers are kept in line by foreman Victor McLaglen and Nelson has the unenviable task of beating some sense into him like John Wayne did in The Quiet Man.<br /><br />Of all the films that starred Jeanette and Nelson and they certainly have come down in history as a duo, this was the worst of what they did at MGM. Nelson is about to be hanged along with Barrymore for crimes that are undefined at best, but certainly nothing worth being hung for. And Virginia Bruce who plays the Nelson's girlfriend saves the day with a rendition of My Country Tis of Thee that the immigrants join in with. In the face of a revolt by his paid for immigrant voters, Arnold quite rationally packs up and leaves town to build his railroad somewhere else.<br /><br />I kid you not, that's the ending here. Just what is the message, vote with the settlers and lose your jobs with Arnold? But somehow you'll get by here? <br /><br />I do wonder some times if 20 years from after the incidents of this film take place and the town as settled into a sleepy backwater of the west while some towns where the railroad has come through that are now cities, that the good citizens of that town haven't rethought about what Nelson Eddy did. If they did they're probably running him out on a rail.<br /><br />Nelson is of course in good voice and has a variety of concert and popular pieces to sing including a ballad to the immigrants written by Sigmund Romberg, Where Else But Here. The song is a heartfelt tribute from an immigrant who did make good in his adopted country. Too bad it didn't have a better venue.<br /><br />The almost platinum blonde Virginia Bruce I'm sure is dubbed here. And I'm sure Jeanette MacDonald was just as happy she wasn't accompanying Nelson on this trip west.

In the questionable comedy vein of Mel Brooks, "Wholly Moses!" tries to take the Bible story of Moses and make fun of it, resulting in the unfunniest Biblical spoof ever filmed.<br /><br />There is no real plot here, just excuses to trot out stalwart comedy talent in underwritten roles. Dudley Moore and Laraine Newman are on a bus tour of the Holy Land, when they stumble across an ancient scroll in a cave. There they read the story of Herschel and Zerelda, also played by Moore and Newman. Herschel's life parallels Moses'. He was sent down the river to be found by the pharaoh's family at the same time Moses was. Herschel's birth father, the late James Coco, becomes Herschel's slave after Herschel is rescued by idol makers and works as a sculptor. Eventually Herschel comes to work for the pharaoh as an astronomer, is banished, and ends up tending Moses' flock of sheep. Herschel and Moses are brothers in law, marrying sisters, and Herschel thinks God has chosen him to free his people in Egypt. Of course, Moses was receiving the Divine Word, but Herschel misunderstood. I'll pause here to laugh hysterically...pause...anyway, the rest of the film is a series of badly written scenes involving Moore and actors who are making "special appearances." These scenes do not propel the plot forward, they bring what little story there is to a grinding halt.<br /><br />Jack Gilford plays a tailor. Dom DeLuise has maybe three lines when he meets Herschel in the desert. John Houseman is an archangel, just giving the same line readings he gave in "The Paper Chase." David L. Lander is a fake blind man "healed" by Herschel. Andrea Martin is one of Zerelda's sisters. I was not sure who Madeline Kahn was supposed to be, she gives a ride to Herschel, and has about a minute and a half of screen time. John Ritter plays a very unfunny devil. Richard Pryor has one scene as the pharaoh, but it was obviously shot at a different time than Moore's scene because the two do not appear onscreen together! In the end, Zerelda turns into a pillar of salt after looking back on New Sodom's destruction, ha ha. Herschel writes the Ten Commandments, and gives them to Moses, who is basking in all the glory. In the final scenes, the screenwriter decide to try and salvage this shallow film by having Herschel bait God into an argument. God comes off as an all powerful bully who was leading Herschel around for his own amusement, speaking through him only to give him the Ten Commandments. We even have Zerelda quip "God works in mysterious ways," thereby excusing everyone's very unChristian behavior during the film.<br /><br />This film is not funny. There is nary a laugh to be found anywhere. At least Monty Python made fun of many established religious mainstays in "Life of Brian" in addition to their questionable take on Jesus' life, but here the humor consists of poo poo jokes and characters constantly bumping their heads. This makes Mel Brooks look like Merchant/Ivory. Churchgoers will be offended, not by the film's attitude toward religion, but by the smugness the movie exhibits, impressed with their own hoitytoityness (I know, not a word) on a subject they obviously know nothing about. "Wholly Moses!" is wholly bad, and an embarassment to all involved. I suggest you read the Book instead.<br /><br />This is rated (PG) for some physical violence, profanity, sexual references, and adult situations.

I had a VERY hard time sitting through this film. Unless you really are very pro-adultery and like to hear people ENDLESSLY talking about their sexual exploits, I can't see how you could enjoy this film. Geez--most of the main characters behaved like rutting weasels and their bragging about their MANY infidelities grew tiresome. About the only element of this I appreciated was the DISGUSTING scene where the one character was urinating and blood was splattering everywhere because he'd picked up an STD---BIG SURPRISE!?! Hmm.<br /><br />If you want a GOOD film, watch the sequel, Barbarian Invasions. Despite the general unlikable nature of many of the characters, the sequel is VERY involving and more realistic--well worth your time.

SPOILERS 9/11 is a very good and VERY realistic documentary about the attacks on the WTC.2 French film makers who are in New York to film the actions of a NYFD are being confronted with this event and make the most of it.Before 9/11 nothing much really happens which gives the movie an even more horror like scenario. On the day of the attacks it seems like just another dull day at work but this will soon change.As one the film makers goes on the road with the firemen he films the first crashing plane,this is the only footage of the first impact.He rides with the firemen to the WTC and goes inside the building.As the second plane crashes the people understand that this is not an accident.In the next period of time we see firemen making plans to save as many people as possible,in the meanwhile we hear banging sounds,these are the sounds of people who jumped down from the tower and falling on the ground,this is the most grueling moment in the documentary.Then the tower collapses and our French friend has to run for his life,you hear him breath like a madman while he runs out of the building.Then a huge sort of sandstorm blasts over him and the screen turns black,he was very lucky to survive and now he can film the empty streets of Downtown New York. Because this documentary has got so much historical footage and because the film was ment to be something totally different this documentary will probably stay in everybody's memory.I saw the attacks live at home because I had the afternoon of,so this makes it even more realistic to watch. 10/10

Note that I did not say that it is better...just more enjoyable. The lack of social commentary and realism helps keep things moving.<br /><br />I was actually sort of surprised that this was not a Troma movie, as it has all the Troma trademarks, including spewing acidic liquids, wisecracks from the villain after every murder, a ridiculous bathtub rape scene (which is sort of hard to get upset about, since the rapist is a snowman), and dumb deputies.<br /><br />There's a lot to love: <br /><br />1. A snowman, about whom it is remarked that he has no legs or feet, drives a police cruiser around town.<br /><br />2. Even though it is supposed to be close to (or below) freezing, nobody's breath shows and there are no signs of car exhaust when cars are running.<br /><br />3. The snow reminds you more of flocking or Styrofoam peanuts than actual snow.<br /><br />4. A teenage girl gets the hots for her boyfriend just a few hours after her brother is gruesomely murdered. She talks him into breaking into the sheriff's house, of all places, in order to get it on. But first, she tells him that he has to build a nice fire in the fireplace and open some wine.<br /><br />5. After teen-aged Jake's head is cut off by a sled runner, his father argues with the sheriff about whether Tommy, the sheriff's son, had anything to do with it. The sheriff maintains that Tommy wouldn't have been fighting with Jake because Jake "is at least two feet taller than Tommy." At that moment, someone in the background chimes in, "Not anymore!" <br /><br />6. When the evil snowman finally starts to melt away, the sheriff wrestles with a flat snowman made out of some sort of fabric for an extended period. This is much better than Tarzan wrestling with rubber crocodiles or gladiators wrestling with stuffed lions. If I were an actor, I would not have been able to keep a straight face at this point.<br /><br />All in all, a fun film. There's not really even that much blood.

Look, there's nothing spectacularly offensive about this film, it's just boring. It's a typical rom-com with an ending you can see coming before you've seen so much as the trailer. The key difference is that the classic rom-coms tackle their stories with wit and a lack of pretension. This movie has no pretension but it really has no sense of movement, you feel as though you could get up and walk away at any moment. The production of the movie also has the feel of a debut movie made about fifteen years ago. I'd recommend re-watching a classic movie like When Harry Met Sally instead of this shallow imitation. Oh, one other BIG problem...no chemistry. If you're used to seeing Michael looking all cute as Vaughn in Alias, you're going to be seriously disappointed with the way they've made him look here.

This very peculiar setting of Wagner's last opera definitely grew on me. When I first saw it, I was somewhat annoyed by many of the films surrealistic images, and felt that far too much was superimposed upon the story. However, if you can put up with a fair amount of rather recherché "gimmicks," I think you will find that the film DOES manage to capture the very strange, other-worldly atmosphere of the opera, and that there are moments which are particularly fine.<br /><br />Personally, I never really understood the role of Kundry until I saw how Edith Clever portrayed her. Her performance (a lip-synchronized mime of the singing voice of Yvonne Minton) is nothing short of dazzling, from end to end, and alone justifies the hours it takes to absorb the film.<br /><br />Another reason to delight in this film is that it captures the spectacular interpretation of Robert Lloyd of the crucial role of Gurnemanz, one which Lloyd has performed to a crisp at opera houses throughout the world. I have been privileged to enjoy him in the role of Gurnemanz on the stage of the Metropolitan Opera several times, and the lusciousness of his voice, and the warm, fatherliness of his interpretation of this noble character really needed to be preserved, as did his performance in the character's two major monologues, the Karfreitag scene and the recounting of the prophecy in Act 1.<br /><br />The version I have seen was a videotape made for America, and so there were subtitles which, alas, could not be done away with. This is especially unfortunate because the translation used is very inaccurate and forces an extremely Christian interpretation on a film which is already forcing layers of interpretation on the opera. This seemed to me to be quite contrary both to Wagner's clear AVOIDANCE of Christianity, and his very deliberate attempt to "generalize" the Christian elements of the story. (See footnote with spoiler at the end of this review.) I find it nearly impossible, when viewing a film with subtitles, to keep from absorbing them, and strongly recommend that, if in the DVD versions you have the ability to turn the subtitles off, you do so, and instead, if the opera is unfamiliar to you, that you read the libretto carefully beforehand.<br /><br />The bottom line is that there is much in the film which I dislike, and would just as soon have seen done differently...but it has risen steadily in my estimation over the years since I first saw it, and I find myself drawn to enjoy it again and again.<br /><br />__________________________________________________________________<br /><br />FOOTNOTE CONTAINING A SPOILER: A good example would be Kundry's famous line, "I saw him...him...and laughed." This gets translated, in the subtitles, for reasons which escape me, as "I saw the Savior's face." It is especially irritating to me, because throughout the libretto, Wagner very deliberately and carefully refers to this unseen character WHO NEED NOT BE THE BIBLICAL Jesus as "der Heiland," i.e., the German for "The Healer"--a reference to the wound of Amfortas, and to all wounds and maladies and the need for healing.

Two teenagers in the north-east of England are desperate to raise money and buy season tickets for their favourite football team. They go through a series of "comic misadventures" but come up smiling in the end.<br /><br />The trailer for this film sells it as a comedy and includes most of its light-hearted moments. However, the tone is increasingly grim and the end result is a depressing story peopled with familiar stereotypes. The two "heroes" have no problems with lying, cheating and stealing. Their adversaries are a callous teacher, a pantomime villain of a father, a psychotic skinhead and a well-meaning but incompetent social worker. The other female characters are a drug addicted teenager, a pregnant schoolgirl and a battered wife who seems to be smoking herself to death. There are no likable characters, and the audience can only feel either pity or contempt. Local actors Tim Healy and Kevin Whateley both play against type as baddies, but the writing and direction of their characters are so one-dimensional that they have no more than novelty value.<br /><br />Chris Beattie and Greg McLane give good performances in the two young leads. However, they are miscast, because they have the wrong accent. To anyone from the north east, it is obvious that they both come from the Sunderland/Durham area, and yet we are expected to believe they are natives of Newcastle. As a Geordie myself I can assure you that the accents are by no means the same. Take the phrase "Let the poor lad speak". We say "Let the pooa lad speek" while they say "piwer lad spiyk", with two distinctly different vowel sounds. This discrepancy creates a ridiculous double irony in a scene in Sunderland football ground, where the two lads are trying to disguise the Newcastle accents they don't have, and *pretend* that they come from Sunderland - which they clearly do. In a gentle comedy this kind of criticism might be seen as nit-picking. However, the film's bleak tone makes it clear that writer/director Mark Herman is aiming for gritty realism: that means "near enough" is actually way off.<br /><br />I had hoped for humour and optimism from this film, and instead found tired old clichés. Tyneside is not a grey wasteland populated solely by losers, and in telling us it is, Herman should have known he would cause offence. It's interesting to compare the film with the same director's "Little Voice" - also largely downbeat and populated by one-dimensional characters, "Little Voice" at least has a talented heroine and doesn't wallow in misery to the same extent. I've heard "Belter" ranked alongside this year's "Billy Elliot", but that film is a vastly more enjoyable and life-affirming experience.<br /><br />Incidentally, I may be just too old, but having lived on Tyneside for 42 years, I have never heard anyone outside this film use the expression "Purely Belter".

I don't know where to begin. This movie feels a lot like one of those cheap Saturday morning kids shows that they used to make back in the late eighties early nineties. Sort of like Captain Power or the Power Rangers. It's full of bad digital overlays and really cheesy sounding "secret agencies" and villains.<br /><br />The acting is so bad that it's not even funny. The direction is terrible and there is little to now continuity. It seems as if someone just threw a bunch of scenes together and forgot that there was supposed to be a plot.<br /><br />Perhaps one of the most ridiculous scenes in the movie comes early on, when several villains plant an explosive device in an agents car. For some reason, even though the device is clearly stated as being "remote detonated" the bad guys decide to chase her down on their motorcycles as she drives away. This chase carries on. all the while with the bad guys doing ludicrous and completely pointless bike stunts. Standing up on the bikes, doing wheelies and so on. At one point, a crash happens and one of the attackers is thrown from his bike, we see the bike (clearly cgi) thrown over the agents car but the rider has vanished. Then, a few seconds later the rider and bike return...apparently unscathed by the crash. At this point even though the car has an explosive device planted in it, the attackers choose to shoot the agent while driving past, then blow up her car. Which was also clearly done with cgi. Sound confusing? It is, and so is the rest of the movie.<br /><br />I might point out that when I say cgi, we aren't talking about Lord Of The Rings type cgi here. We're talking the cheap cheesy Power Rangers type cgi, actually I think it would have been done better on Power Rangers.<br /><br />Why Savini and Todd did this movie I will never know, I can only assume they did for money, as a favor to someone or because they were blackmailed into it...probably the last one.

Claustrophobic camera angles that do not help the movie: Too long face only shots where you most of the time get the feeling that the lower half of the film is missing (that the screen is cut off), because there seems to be important actions going on, but you cannot see them. There is anyway already too much confusion in the movie, so these viewing angles make it worse and do not contribute to artful visuals. <br /><br />I like artfully made movies and unconventional camera work. I can handle deep and slow movies. But this one is trying too hard to be something artful and fails in my opinion painfully.<br /><br />Nothing to get attached to, to any of the characters, because they are not worked out well enough. To work out characters more is needed, than just minute long face shots, at least with this set of script+director+actors.<br /><br />I wonder whether some of the not so good acting is due to the script and director or due to the actors. <br /><br />I will stay away from films both written and directed by Le You for sure in the future. <br /><br />What an annoying film even for someone who would be interested in that part of history, and for someone who spent time in Shanghai.

I was quite impressed with the narration by Martha and how it pulled on the emotional heartstrings of the audience as well as how it must have impacted the family. The forward-backward motion of the storyline was well-done, and normally I don't enjoy movies with the flash-back/flash-forward effects. I felt during the whole evolution of the movie that "surely Tommy did it". It leaves you with a sense of how these people lived their lives almost totally devoid of each other and the consequences of not having any desire to answer the question, "It's 10 o'clock. Do you know where your children are?" And furthermore, "What the heck are they doing?"!! Or "Do I care?"!! Rich, spoiled brats literally getting away with murder. Or so they thought.......

Anupam Kher is an excellent actor, he debuted at 28 playing a 50 yr old in SARAANSH<br /><br />Now he turns director with OJJ<br /><br />The film has a good plot but it's regressive<br /><br />The theme has been done to death and Urmila's character looks too put on while Anil-Mahima and Abhi- Tara tracks are too sudden and then forgotten<br /><br />The film moves a snail pace and begins to drag but there are several good scenes like the entire conflict between Anil-Fardeen and Abhishek where Fardeen says to sell the house<br /><br />Abhishek getting caught for a crime and Anil shouting at him<br /><br />The climax is too much though<br /><br />Directorally Anupam shows potential, but has some way to go Music is okay<br /><br />Anil Kapoor excels in his part like always Fardeen tries hard and is okay but needs to improve Abhishek is excellent, this was a turning pt, people realized he can act Urmila is okay Mahima and Tara are wasted Waheeda is good

During the cheap filmed in video beginning of Crazy Fat Ethel II, I wondered if it was the same film that was on the cover. Unfortunately, it was. The story itself is mindlessly simple. Ethel, a homicidal maniac with an eating disorder, is released into a halfway house because of hospital overcrowding. She is by far the most sane resident watching while one man puts dead flies into another's soup. Ethel is then teased by one of the halfway house employees with a chocolate bar after he hits on the cost cutting measure of feeding the residents dog food. Ethel retaliates by strangling him with a wire noose on the stairs and then....well, you get the idea. If this all sounds like fun, it isn't. This film was poorly made with cheap effects and even worse acting. The characters are so wooden when delivering their lines that they should be standing out in front of a cigar store. To make matters worse, half of the film consists of flashbacks to the first Ethel movie, Criminally Insane, which is little better. A VERY poor effort.

Ohhhh MAN this movie is awful!!<br /><br />This kind of tripe is what gives Canadian Cinema a bad name, or no name. Well, to be fair, I guess most Canadian movies give Canadian Cinema a bad name.<br /><br />Next to the characters (there's a couple that are the most grating in movie history), the most annoying thing is the editing and pace of the movie. It's like a drunken snail making its way to die.<br /><br />Thank goodness Melanie Doane is nice to look at. She's the only thing that kept me watching. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie kept interrupting.<br /><br />Good for a laugh, though, if you're having a bad Canadian Movie night, though.<br /><br />Did I mention Melanie Doane? The only good point (too bad they didn't have the sense to keep the camera on her for more than a blink at a time).<br /><br />Another addition in the Canadian Hall of Stinking Movies.

I did not like the idea of the female turtle at all since 1987 we knew the TMNT to be four brothers with their teacher Splinter and their enemies and each one of the four brothers are named after the great artists name like Leonardo , Michelangleo, Raphel and Donatello so Venus here doesn't have any meaning or playing any important part and I believe that the old TMNT series was much more better than that new one which contains Venus As a female turtle will not add any action to the story we like the story of the TMNT we knew in 1987 to have new enemies in every part is a good point to have some action but to have a female turtle is a very weak point to have some action, we wish to see more new of TMNT series but just as the same characters we knew in 1987 without that female turtle.

I feel conflicted about this film - it is one of the most beautiful films I've seen, and provides insightful looks into a lost culture. There was an early scene of men in caps and moustaches sitting around a table, with a woman serving, and an accordion playing, that brought tears to my eyes, just because of the way it captured a way of life that must be incomprehensible to many today. It presents the lives of the characters as being inextricably bound up with the life of the village, another lost concept in today's world. Symbolism is always fun but it seemed a little dated. The fatal flaws of the movie to me were the lack of any compelling dramatic drive, and a total lack of humor. I never felt like I knew any of the characters beyond very basic universal things like grieving over the loss of a loved one, etc. The people were stick figures in the director's tableaux involving natural disasters, war, etc. The film was just one beautiful tragic scene after another, with no involving narrative thread and no humanity. As a result, it seemed very abstract, irrelevant to the lives of real people. In the end, I was too bored to finish watching it.

If you have read the book - do not set your hopes high, if you have not - go read it, and never watch the film. It is strange to learn that Toby Young was actually involved a lot in the writing of the script (as he claims himself in the post script of the book). Because the film is very different from the book.<br /><br />What the film seems to be aiming at - taking a rather thought provoking and entertaining piece that combines philosophical ideas with plain funny sarcasm and simplifying it so that everyone would understand it - it achieves with perfection. The film is full of bad and cheap jokes suitable for a sitcoms, and has lost any meaningful message that it could have had.<br /><br />You are better off not seeing it.

Thanks to silly horror movies like "Troll" and the indescribably atrocious cult-favorite "Troll 2", it has become practically impossible to take movies with kobolds, gnomes and various other types of little green hobgoblins seriously these days. Only just recently I watched the 70's made-for-TV movie "Don't Be Afraid of the Dark", which is basically a quite terrifying and serious-toned film about domestic little goblin monsters, and yet I still couldn't help thinking back about the laugh-inducing potato headed critters dressed in garbage bags that were running amok in "Troll 2". Same thing happened to me now. As much as I tried going into "Inhabited" with a clear mindset, unconsciously I kept comparing the supposedly creepy and menacing garden fairies with the badly sculptured goblins of Nilbog! Still, even without all the prejudices, "Inhabited" is a remotely entertaining albeit unmemorable straight-to-video horror flick. It's a cheesy, soft and politically correct pastiche of family drama and Northern Europe mythology. The annoying and murderous little creatures in this movie aren't your plain average goblins; they are "The Huldre": wicked little Norwegian demons that live underground and attempt to chase happy families out of their houses through influencing the youngest children. This overcomes the Russell family as they move into their ramshackle dream house in a remote little town. The cherubic blond daughter of MILF-actress Megan Gallagher starts to behave strangely whenever she hangs out in the cute play house in the back of the garden. She claims her friends are fairies, and even though the sinister handyman also warns for strange occurrences in the past, Gina's parents simply think the girl has troubles adjusting to her new neighborhood. When she keeps rattling about fairies, they arrange an appointment with the acclaimed psychologist Dr. Werner whilst "The Huldre" are slowly coming out of their botanical shelter. Not much special to mention here. The pace is acceptable and the attempts to build up suspense are pretty cute. You understand this is a family-friendly horror movie, so no bloody murder sequences are graphically being shown here. Heck, even the cadaver of the family's pet cat is kept off-screen. This is the umpteenth nonsensical horror movie in which Malcolm McDowell pops up and he practically always depicts an unreliable, greedy and self-centered authority figure.

I don't usually write a comment when there are so many others but this time I feel I have to. I have spoken of taste in another review, saying it's all in the eye of the beholder but when it comes to this film, if you like it, it simply means you have bad taste.<br /><br />I love films. I loved "Isle of the Dead" which is pretty much an unknown B&W film. I even liked "Scream" and "Scary Movie" I liked these films because they have, if not a lot, at least something good about them. I appreciate 99.9% of the films I've seen because they tell a story which I haven't heard before, and most directors only make films with a good storyline. Throughout this film I was thinking "Where is this going?" (even near the end) "Where did they get these awful actors from"? "Was that supposed to be a joke?" and suchlike. With the obvious twist looming I was sceptical, but hoped it would perhaps "make" the film and prove I hadn't wasted my time. I was sadly mistaken. The storyline was bad to begin with and the twist actually ruined any glimmer of hope there was. Here's a rundown: Storyline – much like the first film, which was alright, this one is slow and sparse with no audience relation to the characters or the situations. The situations are cringeworthy and shallow and completely boring and predictable. The twist was terrible, it didn't make me feel a thing, like excitement or WOW. Just "My GOD." There was nothing in the bulk of the film that you could look back to and think "Oooo wasn't that clever" because it wasn't. In "Fight Club" there are flashbacks at the end showing bits where Tyler's true identity was cryptically shown, and when you watched it again you saw more, it really was a work of genius, how it was written, laid out and directed. This was a meaningless attempt at an awesome twist. I think it was "wild things" that had like a pretty poor double twist and I still liked the film because the rest was OK and it wasn't trying too hard to be a big twist. Its like the CI2 writer thought it was gonna be the best twist ever. But really, its just a bad story with a bad twist dumped on the end. The film ended almost immediately afterward, with the whole film void by Sebastian's whole story build up meaning nothing and a horrible half forced, paedophilic ending with a particularly young and innocent acting girl. Acting – the actors in this film are appalling. Almost as bad a "Sunset Beach." - Extremely corny and badly performed. It's not even so bad it's good like "Hunk". The worst acting I thought came from Amy Adams who played Kathryn, it was a rigid, pathetic and badly thought out performance by her. Robin Dunne was also poor. I haven't seen "American Psycho II" yet, but no doubt his laid back "cool" style has ruined that film also.<br /><br />I can't even say it is a good film for teens, as its not. If my son or daughter liked this film I'd be ashamed. But they wouldn't anyway, as they would take into consideration all the things that make a good film, which this film has none of. Really. I'm disappointed that some have said "you might not be in the age bracket for this film, and so dislike it" I like all the films now that I liked as a teen and had very good taste. Also, do you really think that when you reach 20+ you suddenly don't like any teenish story lines? No. I liked "Mean Girls" and other generic teen films, and watch "Beverly Hills 90210" all the time. There's no excuse for poor directing, acting and screenplay I'm afraid. Besides, I was 16/17 when I first watched it. If anything, being older just makes you a better judge of a terrible film. I can't believe anyone can give it 10/10 either, one of my favourite films is "Memento" and I gave it 9 as I know there can be better. It is a shame for this site that people do that, give 10s flippantly, or don't get the films/show, and so give it 2.<br /><br />Anyone who liked this film really should vary their taste, and perhaps their lives, and with this realise that this is the worst film EVER made. (worse than "Loch Ness")<br /><br />If you aren't a teenager with bad taste, or simply don't have bad taste you will absolutely hate this film.

The only thing I knew about this film prior to seeing it was Robby The Robot. My preconception was that it was another in a long line of cheesy sci-fi flicks that the 1950's was noted for. How wrong I was. Big studio, big budget and big production values make this a strong contender, at least visually, for the best sci-fi film coming out of the era. I qualify with the word visually, because "War Of The Worlds" is a lot darker and scarier than "Forbidden Planet", and probably fits the mold better as a foray into alien territory.<br /><br />What impressed me immediately was the color rendition of the cinematography, followed by the intricacy and scope of detail involved in Dr. Morbius' (Walter Pidgeon) home and laboratory. But that was only the prelude to the icing on the cake, the labyrinthine underground that served as the Krell stronghold. It appeared that Krell technology was even more advanced than say, that of "Star Wars". Which made me consider, audiences for this movie back when it was released probably sat in the same kind of awe that theater goers experienced in 1977 with SW, or in 1986 with "Aliens". Watching it on a large screen TV in my living room offered me the same effect, and I'm fairly resistant to hyperbole.<br /><br />It's not too much of a stretch to imagine "Forbidden Planet" as a direct antecedent of the 'Star Trek' TV series; Gene Roddenberry himself stated that the movie had a great impact on his vision for the show. Followers of that short lived series will readily recognize plot elements used here that turned up in 'Star Trek'. I had to do a double take when the men of United Planets Cruiser C57-V headed for a transporter room, while the conundrum presented to Robby that created an impossibility to respond was an element used at least two or three times in the ST series.<br /><br />Where the movie definitely took a cerebral turn had to do with the whole idea of 'monsters from the Id'. That Morbius himself was using his subconscious mind to defend Altaire IV was certainly a unique concept for 1956, when every other sci-fi flick of the time was dealing with Martians or other grotesque space creatures. The film worked it's subtle magic on this viewer by helping me understand that Morbius was the protector of Altaire IV some time before Commander Adams (Leslie Nielsen) explained it.<br /><br />You know, looking at the calendar, the year 2200 isn't that far off. This movie may be the one that actually gets it right relative to exploring and living on other planets. I think though, that they'll have to come up with a sleeker looking version of Robby.

I thought this was a really great movie especially since it was jut filler for me. I was bored, I got it from the library and I really enjoyed myself! I've watched it twice in the two days and the more I watch it the more I like it.I thought that the plot was going to be really corny but in the end it really could be said that it would be true. I liked the main characters and I thought that they were well cast and you could see true friendship. I thought they all did an excellent job. The ending was good.And you really hate the bad guys and you really like the good guys. Which is what a movie is supposed to be like.

Dominion Tank Police is without a shell of a doubt, one of the most amazing shows ever produced, but not just in the field of animation. While the first part (Acts 1 and 2) mostly consists of action and fun, the second part is more serious and one should not treat the second part in the exact same way as first part. The subtleties are truly out of this world and the characterization is beyond brilliant. You must have an extra degree of intelligence to appreciate the intricacies of the second Part (Acts-3 and 4). I do have some complaints though. In the first part, the Tank Bonaparte quite literally jumps over a tank shell and it did not make any sense at all. One might also question the plausibility of Bonaparte jumping on the wing of Helicopter Gunship even though it was cool. Buaku rules.

From the pen of Richard Condon (The Manchurian Candidate 1962) comes this muddled tale of political intrigue and assassination. The story, told in almost comic book fashion is difficult to swallow. All-star cast considered, this poor effort is not entirely the fault of the cast and crew: the novel was replete with the same short-comings. It seems as though at times the story is actually mocking the more sincere effort put forth in "Manchurian Candidate." A disappointment on all counts.

Franco Nero stars as Cole a ninja who comes to the rescue of his war buddy Frank Landers (Alex Courtney) and his fetching wife (Susan George) to protect them from a mobster (Christopher George) who wants the land. Things get even more complicated when the mobster hires Cole's old nemesis (Sho Kosugi) who is also a ninja. Inept martial arts actioner, while having better production values then most ninja movies, fails to inject any life into the surroundings, or for that matter actionscenes. A poor effort all around.

The movie had a cute opening, I truly believed I was in for one of the best romantic comedies i've seen in a while... there was something particular "foreign" about the way the movie was set up, realistic yet somewhat abstract and mystical. But then the story line started becoming more and more unrealistic. To say that the ending was CORNY and PREDICTABLE would almost be an understatement... The most typical romantic ending where everything goes great for every 'likable' character. A scene where the main character realises that he has made a mistake and chases the "woman of his dreams" only to confess his love for her in front of a sympathetic crowd of on- lookers. Come on. In the end, the 'good guys' win, 'bad guys' loose... You get the picture. A WASTE of a potentially interesting movie.

Jim Belushi is having a mid life crisis, nothing is going right, when his car goes out on him..he goes into an empty bar where Michael Caine shows him what life wouldve been like if one event in high school had come out differently.. A good premise with some moments..but mostly flat and uninteresting. on a scale of one to ten..3

This movie was very disappointing in that several elements of the book were wrongly done. The main story is the same but there are several flaws that hurt the movie.<br /><br />1) Boobie Miles gets injured in the beginning of the story in a preseason game at Texas Tech. This means he won't get anything done during the season at all and Chris Comer comes up sooner on the team.<br /><br />2) The game against Marshall was lost at Marshall. The team depicted as Marshall was actually Midland High one of Permian's main rivals and here is the proof- Marshall High is the Mavericks colored Scarlet and Silver, Midland High is the Bulldogs colored Purple and Gold. Look at the jerseys and you will see who it is. Also the real Marshall High's football roster is overwhelmingly Black, the team shown was racially mixed like Midland High. <br /><br />3) Permian only loses to Midland Lee by one point in district play. Midland Lee loses to Midland High and Midland High loses to Permian. These are the teams that set up the coin toss as such.<br /><br />4) Boobie comes back on the team as a reserve to Chris Comer and after not getting any playing time in the Midland Lee game, he quits the team completely at half time and never stands on the sideline or goes to any games again. <br /><br />5) Brian Chavez was a Tight End and Defensive End who wore #85 not a Tight End and Strong Safety. In addition, Boobie wore #35 and Ivory Christian wore #62. <br /><br />6) The coaches end up liking Chris Comer as a player more than Boobie because he has a better lifting ethic and runs more straight up plays the way the staff prefers him too, this is in part why Boobie quits the team. <br /><br />7) Dallas Carter is played in Austin at Darrell K. Royal Memorial stadium where UT plays in the state semi-finals not the state finals. Carter wins the state title but is forced to forfeit due to an ineligible player.<br /><br />The acting is done pretty well but if you read the book, you will see these flaws are pretty true. I am also tired of hearing all the PC hypocrites out there complain about the depiction of Dallas Carter's football team. The team according to the book is as large, monstrous, talented, and black as the movie shows. People say it is a racist depiction but reading the book, you see a true depiction of the team. The story is very altered giving this movie a score of 3.5/10.

It's Valentines Day and we decided to stay in, have a nice dinner, and watch this movie on TCM instead of going out. We're in our 40's - 50's, love romance, and are both "softies" but this movie just bombed for us (it's hard to imagine that it was nominated for Oscars, etc. but I guess that was then). The cinematography was beautiful but for the most part the movie as a whole is terribly dated. Jennifer Jones' character made so many references to her being Eurasion that we started counting and after a while we were giggling every time she said it. Add to that the "theme song" played incessantly throughout the film and we couldn't wait for it to be over so we could watch the evening news.

Laughable.<br /><br />Clichéd.<br /><br />Overdoses on style to compensate for poor writing.<br /><br />Remember when MTV actually used to air music videos and other shows besides Reality Shows? Aeon Flux (2005) is based upon one such show – a cartoon from the mid-90s – featuring a superhuman female protagonist in black latex clothing. Aeon, played by the lovely Charlize Theron in this adaptation, is a cold detached rebel who is as dexterous as a line-dancer and as deadly as a viper-snake. She needs to be, if she expects to kick the asses of the totalitarian government.<br /><br />I love science fiction, but hate the sudden influx of half-assed futuristic dystopian technology-overdosed films like The Island (2005) and Equilibrium (2002) (bottom of the pile). Aeon Flux has all the problems that are present in these films, but amplified. That is, there is nothing original left to show so they compensate for it with the sleek style that Matrix (1999) catalyzed. The special effects are therefore sensational in Aeon Flux which earns it a few points, but scratch the surface and there is literally nothing there.<br /><br />To make matters worse, all performances in this film are atrocious and some actually wound me to watch. Charlize Theron's character Aeon Flux is interwoven with the most cheesy tough-chick schtick and it seems as though the director Karyn Kusama cannot quite decide where to go with her next – should she make her more detached or more emotional? She doesn't know! Let's go both ways! Imagine you take a shotgun, load it chock-full of character developments of different sorts and there fire into a random mess. This is the character of Aeon Flux.<br /><br />The film Aeon Flux puts forward all the 'mandatory' ideas in a dystopian society - individual vs. society, nature vs. science, emotion vs. cold reason, etc. You've seen all of this before, and better done at that. Go read Orwell, Bradbury or Huxley, or even watch Logan's Run (1976) or Blade Runner (1982)... anything! Avoid this viciously uninvolving cheese-fest for as long as you can.<br /><br />3/10

Love it, love it, love it! This is another absolutely superb performance from the Divine Miss M. From the beginning to the end, this is one big treat! Don't rent it- buy it now!

This was a fantastically written screenplay when it comes to perceiving things from another perspective. The comedy was timely and not overdone, the acting was generally terrific, and the plot line served a greater purpose of generating misconception when we think about people solely based on their external appearance. The plot twists as the brother/sister character of Amanda Bynes tries to play soccer on the boys team finding instead a new love interest along the way. Tatum Channing is where the real misperception lies and he does a fine job of acting disinterested at first, later coming to realize the most important thing in life is friendship, not attitude.

Silent historical drama based on the story of Anne Boleyn, newly arrived lady-in-waiting to the Queen who catches the lustful eye of Henry VIII, bad-tempered King of England who loves to feast, drink, hunt, be entertained by his court jester, watch jousts, and chase around after young beauties who jump out of cakes and assorted attractive females around the castle. Well, he's soon annulled his marriage, married Anne, and telling her it is her holy duty to produce a male heir. She fails on that score and he soon has his eye on yet another lady-in-waiting. Meanwhile, Anne spends pretty much the entire film looking hesitant, perturbed, or downright ready to burst into tears. She just doesn't come across as a happy camper (or is it just bad acting?!).<br /><br />This film is a solid piece of entertainment, with an absorbing story that held my interest for two hours - plus I enjoyed seeing the very lavish medieval costuming featured here on a gorgeous sepia tinted print. Emil Jannings is quite striking and memorable in his well-done portrayal of King Henry the Eighth - he really seemed like he WAS Henry the Eighth. I am not so sure about the performance given by the actress who plays Anne, seemed a bit over the top. The DVD of this film features an appropriate, nicely done piano score that perfectly suits this story. Quite a good film.

Coming of age movies are quite usual these days. For 1980, "Foxes" really gives its meaning. Jodie Foster plays her character straight out. Ever since she did "Taxi Driver" four years earlier, she has a stronger character in this movie. She's Jeanie, a high schooler who has plenty of guts, and seems to get out of any situation she's in. Scott Baio plays Brad way before Chachi on "Happy Days". He's deemed immature by the other girls. Cherie Currie is Annie, hangs with the wrong crowd, chased by her policeman father. Jeanie and her three other friends decide to live on the wild side until they move into a rented house where a party get totally out of hand. Exploring life on the other side of the tracks can be either fun or dangerous. Annie is rescued by Jeanie and Brad all the time whenever she gets wasted. Reality comes back hard where she is killed in a automobile accident. And one gets married to a much older man. Growing up isn't easy, sometimes we got to explore life how it is. In reality, you got to be careful about the people surrounding you. For me, I was my own person, and I tend to stay that way! Great music, great plot, this movie's a gem! 4 out of 5 stars!

Hi, I have to say you got some wrong information about the series here. The main author was Richard Carpenter, he created the series. Later on there were some other authors but they only did a few episodes.<br /><br />The first director who did most of the series (I think complete series 1) was Ian Sharp who created the distinct look of Robin of Sherwood.<br /><br />Clannad did indeed see some of the material and they read the scrips. I know this for sure because Richard Carpenter told it on a Con in England last year.<br /><br />I think this is a masterpiece of Television-Entertainment, because it has great characters and cast, good costumes and great story lines. For me still one of the best TV-series ever!

Fay, the sister of the notorious Nobel prize-winning smut poet Simon Grim, still loves Henry Fool. Their son receives an ingenious orgy-in-a-box from an undisclosed sender and a chase across three continents ensues, involving a supremely sad-sack collection of government agents, terrorists, flight attendants, and bellhops.<br /><br />Parker Posey delivers a perfectly timed comic performance, including some brilliant physical work. With strong contributions by Jasmin Tabatabai and Saffron Burrows, Fay Grim proves in the best Billy Wilder tradition that nothing is funnier than a beautiful woman in trouble.<br /><br />Another good score by Hartley (and thanks in the credits to the American Academy in Berlin, where Hartley served as a fellow in Fall 2004).

You don't see the meaning of the title till much later, but you get the point of it in the first few minutes. This directorial debut from Golden Globe nominated (for actor) Danny DeVito, also playing Owen/Ned 'Little Ned' Lift, is a terrific Hitchcock-like film about one man's hate for his wife's book (she stole his), and one man's hate for his mother. Basically, Owen wants to be a good writer, like his teacher Larry Donner (Billy Crystal), and he inspired by murder stories. Larry suggests he see a Hitchcock film, quite ironic, and that is when Owen has the idea to kill Larry's ex-wife, Margaret (Star Trek Voyager's Kate Mulgrew). Owen is inspired by 'Strangers on a Train', swapping murders, so Larry must kill Owen's horrible Momma (Oscar and Golden Globe nominated Anne Ramsey). Larry was convinced Owen killed Margaret, and also that he had to/wanted to kill Owen's Momma, but there is a happy ending when months later both Larry and Owen bring out books, Momma died naturally, and they went on a holiday with Beth Ryan (Kim Greist). Also starring Rob Reiner as Joel and Oprah Winfrey. With hilarious moments, a great director/actor and his support, this is a must-see comedy. Very, very good!

This Harold Lloyd short wasn't really much; not one of his funnier efforts. Of course, I never see bratty kids as anything hilarious. That's what the bulk of this story is, Harold and his wife, Mildred Davis, babysitting his in-laws two young kids. One is a baby who is constantly crying and the other is a four-year-old terror who does everything but demolish the house. Letting the kid create havoc over and over was not entertaining to me.<br /><br />The best part was the last four or five minutes when the couple thinks that this big goon (Noah Young) is burglarizing their house. Half the time it's the pet cat scaring the couple, but overall, that segment is fun with some good sight gags, reminding me of another Lloyd short, "Haunted Spooks."<br /><br />However, the good ending doesn't save the whole picture, which I probably wouldn't watch again. Lloyd has done too many other good things to waste even 25 minutes on this one again. It just isn't that funny.

SEPARATE LIES is such an elegant, intelligent and thought provoking film and I could have watched Tom Wilkinson forever on the screen. The locations in the English countryside, the marvelous London locations, the interiors, smart wardrobes and of course, the writing and dialog made SEPARATE LIES a thrilling adventure.<br /><br />With that said, and perhaps this is just an American viewpoint, as the British are so much more sophisticated in handling sexual escapades, I found it hard to watch Tom Wilkinson just stand by, as his wife goes merrily on her way in a sexual journey that really brings her very little joy, creates much despair for her husband, with the cad that is Rupert Everett. Yes, I saw the failings of Wilkinson's character-his aim for perfection, the desire for everything in its place-but in Emily Watson, she should have looked deeper into his true character and solid goodness, to realize what she has thrown away.<br /><br />Tom Wilkinson makes SEPARATE LIES into a powerful film by watching him experience all the pain, embarrassment, and despair on the screen as his wife goes off with another man. And he himself makes the journey in SEPARATE LIES by understanding his faults, embracing his wife, despite all that has gone on, and leading her back to London. Bravo, Tom!

Pathetic is the word. Bad acting, pathetic script, cheezy dialog and hip hop music & fashion...what the hell was up with that? The directer of this movie acts as bad as the movie he made. If someone would have taken some time and effort to rework the whole thing, it may of had a chance. Bet the studios are still trying figure out how they could screw up up so badly.<br /><br />The absolute best thing about this movie was Stacey Dash...the Asian chick wasn't too bad neither. These too gals carried the whole movie. If it weren't for them I would have destroyed my copy of this movie.<br /><br />If any of those who have not seen this yet and had a notion to, don't waste your time...you'll only regret it later.

All the elements for a bad night at the movies are in place: dialog riddled with biological techno-babble, chintzy sets, balsa-wood acting, a horrific late-'80s Casio score, and an overall look that suggests anything on the Sci-Fi Channel's programming schedule, circa 1993. Though "Metamorphosis" starts off with a lot of promise, the film unravels into bland idiocy and MST3K-style cheese as Clark Kent wannabe 'Doctor' Peter Houseman (Gene LeBrock) is pressured into releasing information on his secretive projects. But when he tests his vague experiment on himself, he transforms into a vaguely-defined creature (that bears more than a passing resemblance to 'Dr. Freudstein' from "House by the Cemetery"). The FX work is fairly good for such an obviously low-budget production (though I suspect most of it is kept in shadow for a reason), but overall, "Metamorphosis" leaves a bad retro aftertaste in your guts, in spite of its hopes to sway us otherwise. I can't help but agree with one character's closing remark: "(It was) A nightmare...from the past!"

Suggesting nothing less than a movie-length version of the 1970s TV hit "Love, American Style," decked out with flashes of nudity, "Superchick" (1973) is a lighthearted piece of fluff that somehow still manages to entertain. And the lead character here, Tara B. True, really IS some kind of superchick. A stewardess (not flight attendant) who's so good-looking that even her plane's autopilot has made a pass at her (!), and with a hunky boyfriend in every port, this wingin', swingin' gal really does put the "lay" in "layover." What with her germaphobe surgeon beau in New York, her playboy with gangster problems in Miami, and her creatively challenged rock star dude in L.A., Tara sure does keep busy. And when she's not draining these guys of all their manly energies, as the viewer learns, she's liable to be taking a karate class, mile-high clubbing, fending off flashers and rapists, attending groovy pot parties AND stopping a hijacking attempt on her airplane. As I said, lighthearted fun, and surely good for a night when you're feeling somewhat brain-dead and just want to veg out in front of the tube. Future astrologist Joyce Jillson does bring some vacuous charm to her role as Tara, and the film looks handsome enough to please. Disappointingly, buxom '70s faves Uschi Digard and Mary Gavin (aka Candy Samples) are wasted here in very small roles, but still get to do what they do best--show off their chesticles! Though the picture is never laff-out-loud funny and doesn't really have many thoughts in its metaphorical head, it does succeed in being consistently amusing, and I suppose that is something. Strange that the end credits should call attention to Ms. Jillson's body double, however; don't think I've ever seen THAT before!

...........as I was when I saw this movie) I will never watch this movie again, not because it is a bad movie, but because it scared me so much! As I said, I was 14 when my English teacher decided to show it to us; the reason for this is that we had read an extract from the book.<br /><br />All the girls in my class were TERRIFIED when the Woman in Black comes through the window and floats over Kidd's bed, although, just before that there is something that also frightened us, which was when Kidd finds the toy soldier underneath his pillow, and he hears a child's voice say "It's for you". That scene still haunts me to this day, nearly 7 YEARS after I saw the film.<br /><br />If you are easily scared, AVOID THIS FILM!!!!!!!!

This one is just like the 6th movie. The movie is really bad. It offers nothing in the death department. The one-liners are bad and are something that shouldn't be in a NOES movie. Freddy comes off as a happy child in the whole movie. Lisa Wilcox is still the only thing that makes this one worth while. The characters are extremely underdeveloped. All in all better than the 6th one, but still one the worst movies of the series. My rating 2/10

After watching "The Bodyguard" last night, I felt compelled to write a review of it.<br /><br />This could have been a pretty decent movie had it not been for the awful camera-work. It was beyond annoying. The angles were all wrong, it was impossible to see anything, especially during the fight sequences. The closeups were even horrible.<br /><br />The story has Sonny Chiba hiring himself out as a bodyguard to anyone willing to lead him to the top of a drug ring. He is approached by Judy Lee, who is never quite straight with Chiba. Lee's involvement in the drug ring is deeper than Chiba thought, as the Mob and another gang of thugs are after her.<br /><br />The story was decent, and despite horrible dubbing, this could have been a good movie. Given better direction and editing, I'm sure this would have been a classic Kung Foo movie. As it is, it's more like another cheesy 70's action movie.<br /><br />Note: The opening sequence has a quote familiar to "Pulp Fiction" fans, and then continues to a karate school in Times Square that is in no way related to the rest of the movie.<br /><br />Rating: 4 out of 10

This would probably be a good film to see....provided you've already seen every other film in existence, and thoroughly explored the bellybuttons of yourself and those around you. God, this movie was unbelievably insipid, with some of the worst (or is it nonexistent) writing ever captured on film. There is no saving grace to this film; even the animatronics are kind of lame, and it's just a complete waste of time and money.<br /><br />Run. Fast. It's beyond horrible.<br /><br />

As a girl, Hinako moved away from her small village to Tokyo, leaving behind her two best friends, Fumiya and Sayori. She returns as a young woman, surprised to find that Sayori died when she was a teenager. She reunites with Fumiya and they are horrified to learn that Sayori is mysteriously being resurrected via the island of Shikoku. Oh boy. I rented this because I like Asian horror and I think Chiaki Kuriyama a nifty actress. Unfortunately, if I had to describe Shikoku in one word, it would be "fruity." This movie is silly, boring, poorly filmed, unimaginative, and most of all, unscary. Kuriyama has minimal screen time as the resurrected Sayori, and her character is given little to work with.

like i'm sure other people have said this guy isn't a very worthwhile subject. sure, our society has a morbid fascination with death, and it's funny hearing him talk about how much he smokes and how much coffee he drinks, but he's into giving himself an unworthy mystique. anyway, the bottom line is that he's a moron racist using feeble methods to try to disprove the mountain of evidence of the holocaust, and as such he should be forgotten by time. but Morris is in love with any kind of curiosities, which normally i wouldn't fault him for.

Gandhi My Father is a well made movie. It nicely portrays the life of Gandhiji's Eldest Son Harilal. His character, his differences with his father, his love for his family, his desire to stand on his own, his failure, his ego.. Akshaye Khanna completely justifies the role of Harilal. Just not him, everyone did well in the roles they played. Darshan Jariwala is the best on-screen Gandhiji I've ever seen. But I will cut three points as there were few shortcomings.<br /><br />First, movie was fifteen-twenty minutes longer than it should have. Second, the movie needed more research into Harilal's character. Somewhere, the character looked incomplete. Also, his relation with his brothers was not shown. There was no mention of any other child of Gandhiji in the whole movie. I believe the character like Harilal should be having at least some differences his brothers as well, considering the egoist nature of Harilal.<br /><br />Anyways, despite some shortcomings, I liked the movie. Recommended...

The story is derived from "King Lear"; the setting is a farm in Iowa. Here's a test for this kind of thing: if you find yourself asking, "Why did so-and-so do such-and-such," and the answer is, "because that's what happened in 'King Lear'," you know that the film has failed. Well, that IS what happens here. The father figure in this story isn't living his own life, he's mimicking a fictional one. But there's more wrong with the film than this.<br /><br />Jocelyn Moorhouse is ambitious - far more ambitious than I think she realises. She's trying to take the King Lear story and completely change the setting. This is a task in itself. The likeliest result is that the transplanted story will die, and nobody will quite be able to work out why (although there are enough successful transplants, like "West Side Story", to make it worth trying). But she's ALSO attempting a revisionist retelling. In the version of "King Lear" she wishes to create, Reagan and Goneril command our sympathy, and Cordelia is a villain. This is a task in itself, too.<br /><br />Succeeding at either task is hard; succeeding at both at once is impossible. In fact, succeeding at one while so much as attempting the other, is impossible. If we are to look on the very same events from a different moral perspective then the events must BE the very same events - which means there can be no tampering with setting. If the story is to be transplanted, alive, into a different setting, its moral heart must keep beating the whole while - which means there can be no tampering with ethical perspective. Moorhouse was bound to fail in not just one but in both of her endeavours. And so she did. ...Naturally, it's possible to attempt both tasks, fail at both tasks, yet by some fluke hit upon a work of art that's good for independent reasons. I mention this because I haven't read Jane Smiley's novel, which, for all I know, IS good for independent reasons. But the film isn't. If there was nothing else wrong with it, there would still be no getting around the fact that it's just so thoroughly, excruciatingly DULL. The very fields of corn are even more boring than they would be in real life - which needn't be the case, since off the top of my head I can think of four films ("The Wizard of Oz", "North by Northwest", "The Straight Story", "Kikujiro") in which the cornfields aren't boring at all.

Putney Swope is the story of a token black man on the board of directors of a large advertising firm who is accidentally voted Chairman of the Board when the owner of the firm keels over while trying to stutter out an idea that he was apparently quite excited about. Putney, of course, takes his new role to heart and fires most everyone in the agency, hires a new crew (all black except for a token white guy) and proceeds to crank out the most offensive and non-PC commercials one could ever ask for. Now it's a rather motley crew he has and despite that they somehow manage to be successful while raking in the cash. I rather like the scene where potential advertisers are being relieved of bags of cash and then told to "get out". And their commercials will follow later, like them or not. The story is good but of course the highlight here is the nasty commercials themselves, especially the one for "Face Off" acne cream. This is rather dated, but still a fun movie, and full of hilarious moments. Robert Downey Sr. was working for an ad agency doing experimental ads at the time and I guess this was his middle finger to Madison Avenue agencies. Very good and pretty damned funny. 8 out of 10.

Thank God for the Internet Movie Database!!! When I first got this movie I watched it every night just before before bed and was getting something different out of it every time. But no matter how I sliced it, it came up disturbing. The black and white and all the twitching really freaked me. You stare at the screen unsure of what you are looking at, and just when you think you got it, it becomes clear and it's something completely different. The imagery is VERY disturbing, twitching and straight razors do not sit well with me in any movie. Still everytime I watched it, I was interpreting it somewhat differently (there is no dialogue, ya know), so I decided to check the IMdB for the plot summary. Boy that throws me for a loop, I had no idea that was supposed to be God. Now I'm going to watch it with this in mind and see what happens....

Brilliant technology. But what good does it do if the content is hollow and foolish. I have left after < than 30 minutes of watching, being bored and irritated. <br /><br />The theatre administration returned my money, but the time waisted and aggravation remained. I have been had and no thanks to the stars whose names were the main attraction. <br /><br />George, Meryl, Bill - I hope you were well paid. You might have even liked it. So I apologies for my limited mind. A lot of people seemed to like it too. Look at the comments. Oh well...<br /><br />Wish to know - what is remotely redeeming in a story about Mr Fox the husband, the father, the citizen, the ...whatever.

About time they released this movie on DVD. I know some say WB rush the release of this movie because of The Dreamgirls movie. But, how can you rush the release of a movie that's been in you catalog since 1976.<br /><br />I'm very disappointed with the DVD release of this movie, no special feature, no 5.1 DD sound. come on WB, you can do much better then this. The audio and picture quality on this movie needs some serious help.<br /><br />Seem WB didn't place as much time and attention to this movie because it is a black movie and my have okay sales. They could have kept the CD which by the way dose not have all the songs the original CD has. <br /><br />Would I recommend this DVD for purchase. Yes, because it is a classic film. But WB need to go add some more special feature. Take notes from other group movies, The Five Heatbeats, or The Temptation were you may view just the performance, and the sound on both are much, much, much better than this DVD.

I saw this movie, just now, not when it was released and hailed as best picture of the year here in Israel. and to summarize everything right now, I will just say: this is not a good film.<br /><br />This is Dror Shaul's second feature film, and I have to admit that his first and the TV drama he made before this picture are much better. further more, this is his first attempt at directing a drama. the early works were comedies, and were funny and effective.<br /><br />The first thing you have to know if you'll ever see this film: Israel of the 21st century hates the kibbutz and the values it represented since the formation of the state of Israel. the real situation of the kibbutzim is very dire, and some of them disappear one by one. the kibbutz, Hebrew word for collective, was a sort of village for members only, where the values of equality and socialism were the dogma for everyday life. with the change in social values with time, it seems now that the kibbutz was a place where the human spirit was repressed, locked within the dogma rules, with no ticket out. the entrance of capitalist values and way of life in the 90's and so far made it very hard on the kibbutzim to survive. the crazy mother in the film is the central metaphor for that.<br /><br />But, I regard this film as having nothing to do with nostalgia for the good old days of the kibbutz. once, it was a dream of every young couple to live in a kibbutz and raise children in this quite and beautiful environment. but the film shows the opposite. that the kibbutz, with it's socialist dogma, was a place sort of like a cult of crazy people, with crazy ideas that undermine the freedom of each individual within the collective. this is the central philosophy of post modern capitalism: your individuality is the most important thing. you must place yourself in the center, and no one else but you is the matter. this is the philosophy the film stands for, and that's just it's first sin.<br /><br />If you disagree with me on the political side, I'm sure you will agree that the acting, the tone of the film, it's script and it's direction are the four sins that follow. the film has no real visual text and none of it's shots is something to remember. it is also very "delicate", a delicacy that is no more than artsy fartsy attempt to provoke emotions, which do not surface, not in the film and not with the viewer. it brings nothing but boredom.<br /><br />Can someone please explain: why this film won so many prizes? maybe because it shows that Israel is in line with the rest of the world, hating socialist and human values? or maybe it shows that Israel is a "delicate" place, not giving in to dogmas and fanaticism? that we are basically very human and good people, capable of emotions, especially when they are fake ones, just like capitalism expects us to be? or maybe because it tells one of the biggest lies of Israeli cinema in recent years, a lie that undermines the justification of the existence of the Jewish state? no matter what the answer is, it's not a good one. not for the world, not for human values and not for the Jews.

I came to Nancy Drew expecting the worst...because of everyone else's bad reviews. I thought: Even though I don't read the books, that doesn't look anything like the Nancy Drew I've heard of. But I was wrong. Sure, it wasn't a carbon copy of the books, but when you make a movie out of something, you have to modify it to become big-screen entertainment. The plot was enjoyable and thrilling with a lot of actual scares and I thought that Emma Roberts was really believable in her own way of portraying this classic character. There were several funny moments and on the contrary of many statements, at no point in this film does Nancy come off as a ditz. She was intelligent, conservative, polite and genuine. One thing this movie also did well was balance the whole thing out with a mix of comedy, romance, suspense and heartfelt moments. I loved this movie. What a flick, what a flick! And if you are wise and decide to trust me and go see this, be prepared for some SCARY as heck moments because I was, like, freaking out! Go see it or be a bum-bum and just let other people decide what you think of this movie for you...a mistake I almost made. I love it, I wanna own this movie! I love Emma Roberts now, too. She's like a mini-Bree Van De Kamp from DH. Love it, love it.

SPOILERS THROUGH: <br /><br />I really am in the minority on this one but I liked this movie. It's not a classic but it's definitely involving and quite an adrenalin fueled ride. I definitely thought it was worth at least a 7 rating.<br /><br />Perhaps the reason I liked it is because I haven't seen the original.Something tells me that with a movie like this it's strongest fans will be the people who have not seen the original version and thus, have little to compare it to. This was not a masterpiece but I did get into it quite a lot and it actually made me want to see the original.<br /><br />There were a few things I liked about it. One was the casting of Kowalkski. Viggo Mortenson was superb and really brought a lot of charisma to the role. Since the bulk of the movie fell on his shoulders, he really needed to be excellent and he was. This was a great role for him.<br /><br />Another interesting thing about Vansishing Point was the fact that it's made for television. I had no idea this was the case when watching it. It sure seemed like a major motion picture and I would never have guessed this was not a big screen release.<br /><br />I also found the story to be very absorbing. I'm not one for action movies but I got sucked into this. Plus it was a lot more then an action movie in that there was drama, mysticism, a love story, quirky people every which way you turned. (I didn't even recognize Priestly.) And it was touching. This was not a great movie but it is watchable.<br /><br />And then there's the ending. It packs a strong punch and if one's been involved in the story up to that point, it's very difficult not to be transfixed at the very end. I am not sure how I feel about the ending. The implication was that Kowalkski survived and though I'm highly skeptical of HOW that would be possible, it is a movie and realism isn't an ingredient that's always in the mix when making a movie.<br /><br />So I'd have to say I found the end incredibly unrealistic but very touching in a manipulative kind of way, which I don't usually like but for some reason, is almost forgivable in this movie. Admittedly, a lot of things were just props for the plot(could the villains have been anymore stereotypical?) But the makers got a lot right even if they got many things wrong as well. However, having said that, I will admit I can understand why someone who's a major fan of the original would hate this version because, though I have not seen the original, I have seen many original movies I loved being remade with terrible results. (My big dislike is actually sequels.) But I can understand the low ratings if the original is of that high a quality.<br /><br />People have compared this to Smoky and the Bandit. How about a road version of "Legends Of The Fall" meets "Thelma and Louese" as well? I sure felt touches of both films(both of which I'm a fan of.) I do not think however, that this was a great film. It was better then average to me but far from great. But it was an absorbing, adrenalin fueled, touching movie with excellent casting of the main character. My vote is 7 of 10.

Someone else called this film a "fable-horror" movie, and I think that fits pretty well. That's the concept at least. A group of teenagers, each with their own vice, catch the eye of a twisted sideshow barker. He decides to teach the teens a lesson by making them part of the freak show. A cool idea, but could have been executed better. The fate for some of the teens is shoved in your face too obviously, while other characters could have been fleshed out more. Also, the ending was a serious let down. No resolution or big twist or anything. <br /><br />But as a low budget horror movie, it's pretty fun to watch. If you're into cheesy spookfests, you should have a laugh watching this one. I think one of it's faults though... that it takes itself too seriously. It's a silly movie, and if it was a little more self-aware when it comes to that, I think it would have been better. But at least there's enough neat carnival themes and b-movie monster makeup to keep you watching.

This Is Pretty Funny. "Saturday The 12th", a?... Great Work... I Laughed Every Minute of the movie... This Is Like "Scary Movie" for the 1980's. great STUDENT BODIES-styled gags...<br /><br />Too Bad This Isn't On Video... But You Can Still Watch It on FLIX...

I bought this movie for 1 euro, not knowing what it was all about. I thought "hmmm, a movie named mutilation man must be if not very funny at least filled with gore". It wasn't funny alright. It was disturbing. Very disturbing. And I don't mind disturbing movies but this one just didn't mean anything, except that child abuse is not a good thing to do. hmmm... The quality of the images were terrible. The acting...there was no acting. Just some fcked-up fcker mutilating himself for over 90 minutes. This is probably material for sicko's jurking off on extreme gore.<br /><br />Don't watch this. It's not worth your time. Its just awful. I wish i never bought this.<br /><br />They should mutilate the guy who made this

Fellow Giallo-fanatics: beware and/or proceed with caution … for this movie isn't exactly what it appears to be. It surely looks like a Giallo, with its juicy VHS cover (showing a busty naked girl and a big bloodied knife), rhythmic title and the names of two veteran Italian actors in the cast (John Phillip & Fernando Rey), but it's basically just an erotic thriller without much of a plot. The version I watched is presumably harshly censored – with a running time of barely 77 minutes – but then still there's a severe lack of suspense, character development and most of all sadistic (and typically Giallo) carnage. "Eyes Behind the Wall" can briefly be summarized as the gathering of a bunch of perverted characters and the extended depiction of their sexuality issues. It's an interesting effort notwithstanding, because writer/director Giuliano Petrelli (his only film) clearly attempted to do something special, but the overall result is unsatisfying and regrettably tame. Inspired by Hitchcock's "Rear Window", the main character is a frustrated elderly and wheelchair-bound writer. He and his much younger lover get their sexual kicks from spying on the single male tenant living across the road. The tenant, respectively, likes to perform gym exercises around the house whilst being naked and clearly has bisexual desires. Wheelchair guy sends his wife over and they have sex. Then, there's also Ottavio the butler who repeatedly rapes schoolgirls. Are there any normal characters in the story? Well no, of course not! The film benefices from a continuously ominous atmosphere, with a moody soundtrack and nifty photography, but none of it ever leads anywhere so it's all just sleaze & sex without significance. There's a truly bizarre twist/revelation at the end of the story, but it comes too late and too randomly to boost up the overall quality. Not recommended to fans of Italian horror/cult cinema, but maybe it is great viewing for psychology students, to analyze the characters Freud-style.

What's in here ?! Let me tell you. It's the presence of (Alec Baldwin). He's not a great actor but maybe a nice star with some good movies which this is not one of them. He did nothing here more than anything he did before or after. So not to mention (literally !) the matter of (Steve McQueen) being at the same role in the original because I don't want to make that comparison in the first place. I'm not a big fan or even a fan of (Kim Basinger), she got a lot of bad movies on her and even at her best she looks average ! And it gets on my nerve indeed whenever they talk about her seductive rare beauty !!?? Well, if being a blond would make anyone captivating then I'll dye my hair in yellow as soon as possible ! And what is it with all the craziness over miss Basinger's Legs ??!! It's surely insanity or bad tasting ? As I don't see them both as not sexy only, but UGLY too ! And if you hate that so shoot me down but you know what ?! I've just watched this movie so I'm dead already !. Yet, what would make you really suffer in unbearable way is that nothing of the credits goes to the one she deserves the most…And of course I mean (Jennifer Tilly)..Now we're talking about a true genuine seductive chick with such unforgettable body and one unique sense of allurement like a nasty brunette (Marilyn Monroe) however much more healthier !! (I can't help it, she was the only new and watchable thing in here !). (Michael Madsen) as the bad guy was much appealing as well as effective more than the good guys, (James Woods) is here to summarize the early events beside the pool (so the trailer would be by his voice later !) and he knew before all that this is a whole Hollywood's stuff so "Do your thing, take your cash, and good luck as an actor in other movies !", the editing gave the movie a serious personality along with violent atmosphere done by suitable shining cinematography, so the main goods of it (The action, The thrill, ..) are here and fairly well-made, though any echo for deep meanings about (the kinds of betrayal) as the main dramatic motif of the whole thing is not that strong so don't wait for it. OK, it's all in all another remake without anything special (Except Jennifer Tilly's spicy moments !) so I think I tried to be objective as much as I could therefore I shouldn't end my review saying that (Basinger) or anyone here did better than this movie.. It would be an insult because frankly.. Anything is better than this movie!

This is a romantic, albeit cheesy movie that is one of my all time favorites. It is one of the many CLASSICS of the 80's genre like "Pretty in Pink" or "Some kind of Wonderful".<br /><br />Nic plays the traditional punk guy in love with the traditional valley, preppy girl Julie. It is a heartwarming love story that makes you root for him to win the girl in the end.<br /><br />True, most of the acting sucks but ...<br /><br />I have been in love with Nic since seeing this in the theaters and have seen nearly every movie he's been in since. He's really grown as an actor but it is obvious in this early movie of his that he had a LOT of potential.<br /><br />If you love 80's movies, you will LOVE this classic.<br /><br />Go rent it!!!!!

I found this early talkie difficult to watch and I'm a Norma Shearer fan! It's not her fault, but the primitive production values of this film would cause any viewer to become bored. 90% of the movie is filmed with "medium shots," and it's very similar to watching a dull play.

I've seen a great many films, but 'In Cold Blood' stands alone in a class by itself. It excels in every department. The fact that it contained few big stars helps push it over the top as you pay closer attention to the characters and their story, rather than the name on the marquee. Blake and Wilson turn in stellar performances of the killer duo. The fact that much of the films is filmed in the actual locations where the crime took place, even inside the very house, add additional chills. The black/white photography darkens the mood and the photography is magnificent. There are many outstanding cinematic works out there, but if I could only vote for one to top the list, it would most probably be "In Cold Blood".

Back when musicals weren't showcases for choreographers, we had wonderful movies such as this one.<br /><br />Being a big fan of both Wodehouse and Fred Astaire I was delighted to finally see this movie. Not quite a blend of Wodehouse and Hollywood, but close enough. Some of the American vaudeville humour, the slapstick not the witty banter, clash with Wodehouse's British sense of humour. But on the whole, the American style banter makes the American characters seem real rather than cardboard caricatures.<br /><br />Some inventive staging for the dance numbers, including the wonderful fairground with revolving floors and funhouse mirrors, more than make up for the lack of a Busby Berkley over the top dance number. They seem a lot more realistic, if you could ever imagine people starting to sing and dance as realistic.<br /><br />The lack of Ginger Rogers and Eric Blore don't hurt the movie, instead they allow different character dynamics to emerge. It's also nice not to have a wise cracking, headstrong love interest. Instead we have a gentle headstrong love interest, far more in keeping with Wodehouses' young aristocratic females.

Of all the film noirs of the 1940s and 1950s, this has to rank as one of the strangest, and most fun to watch. I say that because of the four main actors: Orson Welles, Rita Hayworth, Everett Sloane and Glenn Anders. <br /><br />The first two names are familiar to everyone but it was the last two that made this movie so entertaining to me, especially Anders. His character, "George Grisby," is one of the strangest people I've ever seen on film. His voice, and some of the things he said, have to be heard to be believed. Slaone isn't far behind in the "strange" category. Hayworth is not as glamorous with short, blonde hair but still is Hayworth, which means a lot to ogle if you are a guy. Welles' is as fascinating as always. One tip: if you have the DVD, turn on the English subtitles. His character in this movie is an Irishman and you need the subtitles to understand everything he says. <br /><br />Welles also directed the film which means you have great camera angles and wonderful facial closeups. You also have a unique ending, visually, with a shootout in a house of mirrors. Great stuff! As bizarre as this film is, I still thought the buffoon-like carnival atmosphere at the trial near the end was too much and took away from the seriousness of the scene. Other than that, no complaints. <br /><br />This is great entertainment, which is the name of the game.

Even the first 10 minutes of this movie were horrific. It's hard to believe that anybody other than John Cusack would have put money into this. With a string of anti-military/anti-war movies already being destroyed at the box office, it's almost inconceivable that a studio of any kind would want itself associated with this script.<br /><br />At first, it may have seemed like some kind of politically motivated derivative of Grosse Point Blank with Akroyd and Cusack(s) all over again. But only about 90 seconds into the movie, it becomes obvious that this is a talentless attempt at DR STRANGELOVE.<br /><br />I liked so many of Cusacks movies that I thought I would risk seeing the DVD of this one. I have to say that I don't know if Cusack is sane enough for me to even watch another feature starring him again unless somebody else can vouch for it. Cusack seems to be so irreparably damaged by his hatred for George Bush and the Iraq war that he is willing to commit career suicide. Tom Cruise was never close to being this far gone. Not even close.

I just realized why the colors and sets in "Sakuran" were so flashy and gaudy, and just painful to look at. The story is about a high-class prostitute known as an oiran in Japanese. Their kimono were always flashier and gaudier than other kimono so that the oiran would stand out. But the director, Mika Ninagawa, had to make sure that the director stood out even more than the main character, or even the story. <br /><br />What Anna Tsuchiya did in the movie just gave me the creeps. You couldn't call it acting. It was nothing more than catering to her flipped-out, high-school-girl fan base. Hey Anna, good luck on that one as you get older. Yeah, right, an oiran as a crude and vulgar, prone- to-violence, biker chick. Didn't we already see you portray this character in a more appropriate movie?<br /><br />The story was painfully boring and predictable. What is the story of "Sakuran"? An obnoxious little bitch ever remains true to her self which is just that: an obnoxious bitch. She finds that, inexplicably, men are attracted to her and that she has an unexplained ability to manipulate men and becomes a successful, high-class prostitute even though she talks and behaves like she's a member of a female biker gang. This so-called seductive ability of hers is talked about but we never see it in action, probably due to the ineptitude of the main, pretend-phony-biker chick, I mean "actress." <br /><br />The main character of the movie makes a wealthy and powerful man angry at her because she keeps him waiting while she services a much more lowly customer. Not very oiran-like, is it? How could such a woman ever become an oiran? Oh, because the previous oiran got herself killed and the house needed a whore that could demand a high price. Who would pay a high price for a slut so cheap? Rumors get around. How could there be no repercussions for what she did to the powerful guy? Because the screenwriters are dolts. They just made up a bunch of crap.<br /><br />Then an even more wealthy and powerful guy falls for her (why?) and she throws him over for a penniless guy who is generally cold and distant toward her but respects who she really is (which doesn't make sense. How can anyone respect someone so worthless?).<br /><br />Speaking of crap, it's like the director squatted down and took a huge, psychedelic-colored dump on the aesthetics, culture, and society of the Edo Period. What of such things as sabi, mono no aware, wabi, subtlety, elegance, a rigidly hierarchical society? All shat upon by a director who comes off as a senseless, nouveau-riche parvenu. The amazing thing is that so many other Japanese, in watching this movie, squatted down around the director and took steaming spoonfuls of this blazing-colored stinking crap and exclaimed how tasty it was.<br /><br />Argentinean tango music with violin and bandoneon as backdrop for the Edo Period when Japan was totally isolated from the international world (except for the 3.7 acres of Dejima)? Why not just have Anna, the bad-ass-biker oiran, answer her cell phone and the rich and powerful daimyo character drive off in a hissy fit in his red Ferrari? The music we had to listen to was jarring and anachronistic (the same as the art design). <br /><br />Near the ending, I liked that there were only two or three tiny flowers on the shrine cherry tree. But, earlier, the second she said she would leave the quarters when it bloomed, we all knew exactly what would happen. How boring, to telegraph the ending so clearly. But what's the point of the old tree blooming? That rich and powerful guy already made the pleasure quarters bloom in cherry blossoms like the mountains of Yoshino in spring. That didn't impress her at all? No, of course not. I already know that about whores. The guys that treat them nicely get kicked in the balls. Maybe it bugs the whores to have people idealize them when they themselves know the truth of who they are: just cheap and worthless.<br /><br />Considering the director's obsession with goldfish, the second to last scene should have been of a goldfish bowl on a verandah accidentally knocked over. Two fish tumble into a stream which carries them off to escape beyond the walls of the pleasure quarters, belying how goldfish are stuck in their bowl and can't survive outside (just like the denizen's relationship with the pleasure quarters). Otherwise the talk of the fate of goldfish has no meaning.<br /><br />In the final scene the cherry trees were full in bloom, but the brevity of the blooms is one thing special about cherry blossoms. I couldn't help thinking that soon enough dusk would wipe away all the soft pink color and warmth from the scene. The sky would go quickly from hints of shadow, into an ever- deepening gloom, and night would fall. It would become cold, very cold. And dark. That really wasn't a happy ending, was it? Romantic love (in the Edo Period?) could survive in the face of terrible poverty and being ostracized for about as long as those cherry trees bloomed. Maybe a few days, unless it rained sooner. But the unconsummated romantic love we see here? It's existence in this period is incomprehensible.<br /><br />Anna Tsuchiya walking in the shoes of an oiran? She couldn't do it. Literally. Check out the scene of her "promenade" where she seems to have the correct footwear on but she has to hold on to some guy's shoulder to keep from tumbling on her ass.<br /><br />I was going to give this movie two stars for the art direction but then I realized what that was all about: sick dominance on the part of the director. Those colors and sets are just the way the director has of screaming, "I'm the most important one here! Me! It's all about me!!!!"

I was fortunate to attend the London premier of this film. While I am not at all a fan of British drama, I did find myself deeply moved by the characters and the BAD CHOICES they made. I was in tears by the end of the film. Every scene was mesmerizing. The attention to detail and the excellent acting was quite impressive.<br /><br />I would have to agree with some of the other comments here which question why all these women were throwing themselves at such a despicable character.<br /><br />*******SPOLIER ALERT******** I was also hoping that Dylan would have been killed by William when he had the chance! ****END SPOILER*****<br /><br />Keira Knightley did a great job and radiate beauty and innocence from the screen, but it was Sienna Miller's performance that was truly Oscar worthy.<br /><br />I am sure this production will be nominated for other awards.