Datasets:

srivatsavaasista

/

textgenerator

like 1

I don't care what anyone says, this movie is hilarious! It combines the bleak seriousness of Threads with an anarchic blend of alternative comedy, and the results are a severely dark, but outrageously funny satire on the brinkmanship policies of both the Western and Eastern blocs at the time. You gotta give the filmmakers credit for even attempting to top the real life lunacy of "Duck and cover" or "Protect and survive"!<br /><br />Imagine someone made a movie based on the Dead Kennedys track 'Kinky Sex Makes The World Go Round', and you're pretty close to Whoops! Apocalypse. Add Rik Mayall on top form as an insanely OTT SAS commander and you've got it exactly. A worthy companion piece to Dr Strangelove, and that's saying something.

"Antwone Fisher" tells of a young black U.S. Navy enlisted man and product of childhood abuse and neglect (Luke) whose hostility toward others gets him a stint with the base shrink (Washington) leading to introspection, self appraisal, and a return to his roots. Pat, sanitized, and sentimental, "Antwone Fisher" is a solid feel-good flick about the reconciliation of past regrets and closure. Good old Hollywood style entertainment family values entertainment with just a hint of corn. (B)

The female hot numbers on this show are breathtaking. They can also talk like there's no tomorrow. Otherwise, this show would go into the toilet quickly. How much money do they make on all the people who text in, with that hope to be called back to win, $100.oo, or whatever. Boy, now that's a scam!!! Can I buy stocks in this money maker??? Let's face it, with the technology of now, thousands of people could be calling every minute. And, with ten thousand channels and nothing worth a crap on, thousands of people watch this show. "Oh, I know this answer!", is probably a super common line among the listeners. With these super hotties constantly saying the 'lounge' needs callers, I think it's a bunch of B.S. Frequently, someone who does get through, sounds amazed that they're actually talking to the host. Many of them sound depressed and worn out by probably waiting so long and trying so many times to get on and score some pocket change. Wow, the producers must be just raking it in. No wonder there are so few commercials. Commercials are only on to give time for more (primarily losers) to text in and wait, and hope, and dream, and fantasize about--- what? --- winning enough money for a tank of gas and a dinner at Mc..something? I only watch it now & then on my brothers TV, because he likes to watch it when he's on the computer. I'll sit there for 15 to 20 minutes and look at Mel (one of the tastiest looking women on TV) and laugh at the scam that's in front of me. Then, I have to leave; even if I don't! People who have an active life, can only take this show in extreme moderation. Mel, get yourself into the movies, or TV sitcoms, or something. Many of us are infatuated with you! Even with the super cu-ties, I'm amazed this show is still on!

I thought this was a wonderful way to spend time on a too hot summer weekend, sitting in the air conditioned theater and watching a light-hearted comedy. The plot is simplistic, but the dialogue is witty and the characters are likable (even the well bread suspected serial killer). While some may be disappointed when they realize this is not Match Point 2: Risk Addiction, I thought it was proof that Woody Allen is still fully in control of the style many of us have grown to love.<br /><br />This was the most I'd laughed at one of Woody's comedies in years (dare I say a decade?). While I've never been impressed with Scarlet Johanson, in this she managed to tone down her "sexy" image and jumped right into a average, but spirited young woman.<br /><br />This may not be the crown jewel of his career, but it was wittier than "Devil Wears Prada" and more interesting than "Superman" a great comedy to go see with friends.

I am really shocked that a great director like Chuck Jones started out making some of the most incredibly boring cartoons I've ever seen. I did not laugh once throughout this short, and it's a Bugs Bunny cartoon, for Christ's sake! Bugs Bunny cartoons are always funny, not boring! Alas, this short turns out to be Good Night Elmer (another incredibly boring Jones short) with the addition of Bugs Bunny.<br /><br />The first warning sign of a dull cartoon is always no gag payoff. Good Night Elmer was boring because it dragged on the same two gags forever with predictable payoff. This cartoon, on the other hand, is afflicted with the second warning sign of a dull cartoon: there's too much dialogue. The cartoon at least has more than two gags up its sleeve, but most of them seem longer than they are thanks to the immense padding of the dialogue. At one point, Elmer finishes eating dinner, and comments, "That was weawwy awfuwwy good weg of wamb," possibly the most redundant dialogue I've ever heard in a cartoon (characters reading text out loud in the later-era Woody Woodpecker cartoons doesn't count in my book). Even though this cartoon is only 8 minutes long, it feels like 20 thanks to redundant dialogue like this.<br /><br />Elmer's Pet Rabbit was not a fun cartoon for me, but if you've sold your soul to Chuck Jones and are unable to acknowledge that he directed a few clunkers during his career, you might enjoy it.

Surprisingly well made little movie. Short in length at about 90 minutes. For a low budget movie, very well made. Plot is slow to unravel. Cast is excellent especially Elizabeth Van Meter as the girlfriend with Tourette's Syndrome.

Wow, what a total let down! The fact people think this film is scary is ridiculous. The special effects were a direct rip-off of "The ring." The story? Was there one? Not in my opinion..Just a bunch of flashy imaging. The entire film was a boring, stupid, mess. I guess there is always a market for bad films with good marketing campaigns. However, this is the worst horror film I have seen in years. And that Buffy chick? Well, she's a bad actress! As plastic as Barbie and just as talented..No, wait, that would be an insult to the talents of Barbie! I suppose many kiddies helped this film at the box office as it was PG-13, and had it been rated R, it would have bombed IMO! Stupid movie!

This must be the worst thriller I have seen in a long long time. The directing, the acting and the adaptation of the story leave what could probably have been a good plot into a meaningless waste of time. Within a few minutes of watching the film it was easy to figure out the whole plot and then there are more obvious clues very early on leaving no mystery. I guessed this within the first few minutes and I kept hoping I was wrong and much to my dismay I was not.<br /><br />The film starts off with two FBI agents who drive to a remote town to investigate a murderous spree which has left three witnesses, a young girl, a drug addict and a cop. They are interviewed under surveillance cameras separately and each tells their account of the day. Each has something to hide about themselves and the day unfolds as they tell their accounts. This part is probably the saving grace and if developed could have made this film better.<br /><br />Spoiler: The whole story ends in the FBI agents being the actual killers and the young girl is the only one who has figured this out and so left unhurt by them.<br /><br />Why do they go through the whole charade of interviewing three witnesses and bonding with the young girl if their idea had been to kill them in the first place? How did they get away with pretending to be FBI agents (when you discover that real FBI agents had been killed and their badges were found on them)? How did they know how to set up and use the surveillance cameras?<br /><br />Bill Pullman and Julia Ormond are so unconvincing from the beginning to the end. Maybe the idea is to develop their characters for the revelation at the end. Come on, they both look ridiculous, stupid and not sinister in the least. The character of the young girl is also wasted potential. There is no meaning to her actions and no meaning to whom she prefers to bond with in her ordeal. She does not appear distressed, but rather detached which again is not explained. <br /><br />Awful film on the whole.

What a clunker!<br /><br />It MUST have been made for TV or Cable.<br /><br />Look: forget the screenplay - forget the bunch of forgettable actors. Excuse me? Continuity? The NSA/NIA/whatever or whoever he is (an agent) takes-off in an F16 - is shown in an F18 chucking his guts up and, later, the aircraft shown taxiing is an F4 Phantom! Oooh, wish that I could be so cavalier.<br /><br />Apart from the male actors(!?) The women are WASPS: blue-eyed and long-legged and, eventually, get to cry about the heroes who save them. Even when a solid weld could save most of the cosmo- astro-nauts, the blond drops the welding tool. Duh!<br /><br />As an SF movie one out of ten. As a movie per se: 1/2 (that's a half point). They should have ditched the space station and headed for Mars.<br /><br />Major raspberries.

I remember seeing this one in the theatres when it came out, having no idea what it was going to be about and being so pleasantly surprised that I vowed to buy the video when it came out. <br /><br />While I won't go too far into dissecting this film, I will say that I gave it an 8/10, for all the reasons you can read in the other user's reviews.<br /><br />What I will say is this: <br /><br />The first 10 minutes of this film are incredible. It's as close to a textbook audience grabber as I've ever seen. I once put this movie on at a party, where everyone was winding down and getting ready to leave. I just wanted to see what would happen if I showed them the first ten minutes.<br /><br />Everyone, who watched the opening, stayed to the end.

It just goes to show how wrong you can be. I had not expected to like this film. I was disappointed by both the Kill Bill films (although i preferred the second) and Death Proof (although it was better in the shorter cut of the double-bill release). I love Reservoir Dogs, admire Pulp Fiction and think that Jackie Brown is Tarantino's most mature piece of film-making - technically his most superior - including the last great performance elicited from Robert De Niro. Since then it seems to me while his films have been okay (i haven't hated them) he has been treading water in referential, reverential, self-indulgent juvenilia.<br /><br />Then i read the script last year for Inglourious Basterds - and i hated it! Sure it had some typical QT flourishes and the opening scene was undeniably powerful. There were a couple of great characters. But on page it was more juvenile rubbish, largely ruined by the largess of the uninteresting Basterds of the title. It made me seriously contemplate not seeing the film. The trailers did nothing to convince me. I only changed by mind when i had the opportunity to see the film with a Tarantino Q&A following in London. I figured it would be worth enduring to hear him in Q&A as i know from interviews how entertaining he can be in person.<br /><br />So little was i prepared for the sheer exuberant fun and brilliance of Inglourious Basterds.<br /><br />Easily Mr Tarantino's best work since Jackie Brown it is a triumph.<br /><br />Yes the references are there but they do not interfere with the story, they are not the driving force. Yes Eli Roth is stunt casting but he works fine, with little to do but look aggressive, and does nothing to hurt the film as i had feared. While i admired Mr Tarantino for using stuntwoman Zoe Bell as herself in Death Proof in order to amp-up the exhilaration of the major stunt scene her lack of any acting ability in a key role was a problem for the film. The same could be said of Tarantino's own appearances in several films, especially Robert Rodriguez's From Dusk Till Dawn, which Tarantino wrote.<br /><br />What really makes this work is how BIG it is. The spaghetti western vibe to much of the style, dialogue and performances is wonderfully over the top without descending too far into the cartoon quality of Kill Bill. The violence is so big. The audacity so big. Brad Pitt is so big! In the trailers the Hitler moment and Pitt's performance bothered me but in the context of the film they are hilarious. Pitt is actually brilliant here, exactly what he needs to be. He is Mifune's blustering samurai in Yojimbo, he is Robards Cheyenne from Once Upon a Time in the West, there is a very James Coburn vibe to him, and of course a suitably Lee Marvin edge.<br /><br />Christoph Waltz (who i did not previously known) and Melanie Laurent (who i first noticed in a brilliant French-language British short film by Sean Ellis) are sensational and i expect to see both used a lot more in the future. Tarantino has clearly not lost his eye for casting, which seemed to desert him in Death Proof. Waltz is equally large in his performance. Chilling, yet theatrical. He is Fonda from OUATITW, Van Cleef from Good, The Bad & the Ugly. And Laurent is suitably Cardinale innocence but tough, a fighter. They both dazzle here.<br /><br />That every member of the cast gets the fun to be had from what they are doing while not indulging themselves in just having fun and trying to get laughs helps tremendously. The laughs - and there are loads - come organically. Only Mike Myers comes close to tipping the wink and pushing it too far but his scene is reigned in just enough - with the help of a fantastic Michael Fassbender who seems pulled directly from the mold of Attenborough's Great Escape leader.<br /><br />All the actors shine and Tarantino throws in wonderful flourishes, but ones that work with the story. The introduction of Schweiger's Hugo Stiglitz is a riot. After a sensational slow-burn opening and a glorious intro to those inglourious Basterds the pace never lets up and over two and half hours flies by.<br /><br />It also looks beautiful, marking this as a return to real film-making rather than just self-indulgent silliness. The musical choices, as always, are inspired from Morricone on.<br /><br />The film is audacious and hilarious. After a summer when nearly every film has disappointed me it came as a huge surprise that the real fun and entertaining, but also involving and impressive film should be this one, when i would never have believed it from script form. Welcome back QT.

Now don't get me wrong, I love seeing half naked chicks wiggling around. It's part of the fun of a Moroccan restaurant: ogling the belly dancers. But it doesn't make much of a plot.<br /><br />My first major problem is the music. I have the feeling that when Ann Rice wrote "The Vampire Lestat", the Cure was more the style of the music he would have liked (though I could be wrong). I know relating to current "goth" music might have seemed like a good idea, but they did a horrific job incorporating it. Lestat was an actor with presumably a pretty good singing voice. That they chose Jonathan Davis to be his stage voice is heartbreaking.<br /><br />Second, and someone else said it, mashing two very intricate books into one crappy movie is a bad idea. "Lestat" could have been a movie in it's own right, and a damn good one if done right. I honestly don't think "Queen of the Damned" lends itself to a movie very well. Though I would love to see a movie that incorporates a creation story, there's too much, how to word this, "inaction" in the book for it to be a very interesting movie. And the retelling they did soiled it pretty badly. Now mind you, it's been a long time since I've read it, I always thought "Lestat", "Tale of the Body Thief" and "Memnoch the Devil" were much more action packed and would have made better movies.<br /><br />I know a lot of people (hey, myself included) who like a lot of cheesy vampire crap that thought this was absolutely the worst of the genre to be a major motion picture. I tend to agree with them there. Aaliyah had a nice body though.

Frailty is a non-gory horror film that achieves its chills by following the logic and impact of a man's delusion/obsession straight into depravity. Dad (we never learn his name) is a gentle man and loving father who's raising his sons alone after Mom died giving birth to the youngest son, Adam. The family's world flips upside down late one night when Dad rushes into the boys' room and tells them God has given him a vision. And what a vision – the entire family's job is to destroy demons, who, of course, are disguised in human form.<br /><br />Proceeding from this premise, the movie is unflinching in following it. Dad kidnaps people/demons whom God has told him to destroy, binds them, lays his hand on them to see a vision of their evil, then kills them – while making his young sons watch. Fenton, the older boy, is horrified, seeing only a father who's turned into a crazed murderer. Adam, the younger, is uncomfortable, but trusts that Dad is following God's will. Eventually, Dad takes his sons on missions to abduct the "demons" that God has put on Dad's list, and finally, invites them to fully participate in God's mission for the family.<br /><br />This is not, you understand, an abusive father. He loves his children. He is only following God's instructions: "This is our job now, son. We've got to do this." When Fenton, terrified and convinced his father has gone mad, says he'll report him to the police, his father explains, "If you do that, son, I'll die. The angel was clear on this." The pressure that the children are under is unbearable and tragic, and warps their entire lives.(1) The movie's structure is similar to the one used in The Usual Suspects: a story in flashback, told in a police station to a FBI agent. The moody lighting, the stormy weather, and the eerie calm in the present day add to the menace of the backstory. I wanted to believe the unfolding horror was just a story, until I remembered the real-life parallel of Andrea Yates, who believed she was possessed by Satan and could save her children by drowning them. Even then, I wanted to believe that I was watching a human tragedy, rather than a story of divine retribution.<br /><br />The movie gave me no such comfort, though, as it gave strong clues at the end about the veracity of Dad's vision. And this, as much as some plot holes, posed a problem for me. Regardless of the accuracy of Dad's visions, regardless of the evil that his victims may have committed, where does anyone derive the authority to act as an angel of death? (1) Roger Ebert review, 4/12/02

I love the beach boys and their music. So, being that I am a filmmaker, I thought, wow, a Beach Boys Movie sounds great. Well, WRONG! I just actually turned off HDNET, the channel the movie was playing on, because it was so bad. Someone above mentioned about editing... well, they should have at least looked at the monitors while they were filming. I don't know if anyone else caught the mustache falling off the face of one of the guys after he kissed his wife and then he smoothed it back on with his hands. Ever heard of re-taking a scene! Acting was terrible. Direction was terrible. Make-Up was TERRIBLE!!! Possibly the worst make-up job I have ever seen. Brian Wilson's "fat" cheek's looked like pl-ado. <br /><br />This is honestly the first time I have ever commented on IMDb, and I know it really doesn't make a difference... but come on, what the hell were the producers thinking?!?!!?

In retrospect, the 1970s was a golden era for the American cinema, as demonstrated and explored by this documentary directed by Ted Demme and Richard LaGravenese. This IFC effort serves to illustrate and clarify the main idea of what that time meant for the careers of these illustrious people seen in the documentary.<br /><br />The amazing body of work that remains, is a legacy to all the people involved in the art of making movies in that period. The decade was marked by the end of the Viet Nam war and the turbulent finale of those years of Jimmy Carter's presidency.<br /><br />One thing comes out clear, films today don't measure against the movies that came out during that creative decade because the industry, as a whole, has changed dramatically. The big studios nowadays want to go to tame pictures that will be instant hits without any consideration to content, or integrity, as long as the bottom line shows millions of dollars in revenues.<br /><br />The other thing that emerges after hearing some of America's best creative minds speak, is the importance of the independent film spirit because it is about the only thing that afford its creators great moral and artistic rewards.<br /><br />This documentary is a must see for all movie fans.

OK, as everyone has pointed out, this film is a complete dog. To some degree this is because it was a gory sexploitation film that had a lot of material excised (or darkened down to near invisibility) to escape the censor's X-rating; but the film has many other flaws as well.<br /><br />To begin with, the scriptwriter seems to have got his werewolves and vampires mixed up. The baddies in this film are furry and don't like silver but in every other respect they behave like vampires. Now you just can't do that with a crappy genre flick, you've got to stick to the rules of the genre or the fans get all confused and annoyed by suspending disbelief in the wrong thing. In fact the whole (confusing and poorly presented) plot is something that has already been done for vampires, but doesn't make any sense in a werewolf movie.<br /><br />Secondly, the werewolf costumes are the lamest you have ever seen. Anybody in the werewolf movie business ought to know that the werewolf costumes and transformations are something the fans assess critically, yet some of these werewolves are just plain goofy.<br /><br />There are a couple of slightly good bits. I actually quite liked the score. Others have mentioned Sybil Danning's tits. And...<br /><br />(***SPOILER***, if such a thing can exist)<br /><br />I also quite liked the plan for attacking the werewolves' stronghold. There are so many horror movies that rely on characters behaving stupidly, but in this case they first acquire a very sensible and effective anti-werewolf arsenal and go slaughter the monsters. I mean, you can kill werewolves with silver bullets, and we have some pretty powerful firearms these days. Shouldn't be too hard to put two and two together, hmm? But in typical style this movie goes over the top and adds some other very zany and amusing anti-lycanthrope weapons.

I bought this game on an impulse buy from walmart. I am glad I did. It was very entertaining listening to Sean Connery and playing the game. I thought the graphics were the best I have ever seen in a movie/game remake. The bonus levels were very hard! The sniper one I think was too hard, it made me so frustrated I didn't play the game for a week and a half. There were too many people shooting at you with nothing to hide behind or life to handle it. <br /><br />The only thing I might change was the upgrade system. I didn't notice any difference from un-upgraded equipment to the upgraded, such as buying an armor upgrade didn't seem to make the armor stronger or more filling on my life meter. I really liked the Q copter. I think the developers did a good job.

I just got done watching "Kalifornia" on Showtime for the fourth time since I first saw it back in July of 2001. You would think that with the recent wave of serial killer films, that "Kalifornia" would be amongst some of the earlier films worthy of mention but hasn't. Perhaps if this film had been released sometime between like 1996-1999, maybe it might have been more successful. In my opinion, "Kalifornia" is much different from most serial killer films released during the late 1990s. It has an almost completely different atmosphere from most of today's serial killer films like "Seven" or "The Bone Collector". Many serial killer films have shown a killer but that person is always behind a mask or we never see enough of them to actually learn anything about them. "Kalifornia" is a film that actually tries to break through that barrier and actually understand the criminal mind. It tries to answer questions like "why do they do the things they do? Is it because of something that happened in their past? Does it make them feel superior or powerful? Or do they do it because they like the thrill of the kill?" These are some of the things that "Kalifornia" tries to answer but also leaves room for us to try and figure things out for ourselves. Brad Pitt makes an everlasting impression as Early Grayce. When we first meet Early in the beginning of the film, we see that he is obviously one disturbed individual. When we first see him, it's late at night. Early is possibly drunk. We then see him pick up a rock, throw it off a bridge, and it later lands on the windshield of a passing car. Pitt is fierce in this film. It is always good to see him when he plays psychos or really bad people. It's funny that this would later lead him play a true loon like in "12 Monkeys" and that he would be on the other end of the spectrum in David Fincher's "Seven".

Claudine is a movie that is representation of the american system at it's worst. The welfare system was initially set up as a stepping stone for those families who needed that extra hand to get back on their feet.The movie showed an accurate portrayal of how the welfare system breaks down the family unit. In other words if the father or any male figure is in the lives of the women and children their financial support from the system would be jeopardized if not terminated. The struggles of the poor can be seen throughout the world. I would like to see a reproduction of this movie back in the stores for all to rent or buy for their library collection.

Not as bad a film as i thought it would be.<br /><br />It has a good cast.Nice to see Roger Moore back on screen as well as the use of other British actors.<br /><br />Would like to see more of Olivia D`Abo in future projects.Maybe starring opposite her cousin the sexy Maryam D`Abo.<br /><br />Also a good use of unseen locations such as Luxembourg.<br /><br />Hopefully we will see more UK-European co-productions like this.

One of the worst movie I have seen in 2009 so far: The story hesitates between a silly thriller or a dumb comedy.<br /><br />As nothings happens, the void is filled with long, boring dialogs that don't make any sense! <br /><br />The cast is famous but doesn't bring any emotions except to fast-forward the play! <br /><br />And it happens in a plush seaside hotel that looks really gloomy. In comparison, the one of the "Shining" is funfair! <br /><br />NB: a lot of users think that it is located in the French Riviera! They are wrong! It isn't the south of France (Nice, Cannes) but totally the opposite: Cabourg & Normandy, to be simple the beaches of the D-Day! That's why the sea is as grey as the sky and there isn't sun!

This movie starts out a little slow but kicks into comedic gear quickly. Each of the three "teenage girls" offer their own believable, distinct, assertive and entertaining personalities. I particularly enjoyed the dialog and interaction between Keith and Lisa. If one looked beyond the superficial "action" that was taking place, Keith's character treated Lisa's "deflowering" with tenderness and consideration. The comic development that followed was also pulled in expertly in my opinion. David Boreanaz gives a wonderful performance as the adult male who clearly gets himself into more trouble than he can handle. Dialogue was sharp, quick and flowed nicely. The director and writer of this film clearly showed how none of the main characters got to claim the moral high ground after all the shenanigans they pulled. Although the movie appears light on the surface, it reflects all the gray areas of becoming an adult, human emotions and desire.

Few films have left me with such a feeling of unease, and this is not a compliment. Since I saw it in a theater (How it ended there I can only wonder) I was subjected to 90 mn of hateful, derivative garbage, the main impression being a bit like this other sick-o movie "Don't answer the phone" - but worse. The nastiness of it all, rape and all, is shown without any distance (unlike strong stuff like "Last house on the left") and utter contempt for the (perfect ?) victims and everybody involved, leaving the viewer to be treated as a sadistic voyeur. At the end I felt like taking a shower. No credits to the director

An introspective look at the relationship between Hawking and the space/time contingent. This film expores the Gallilean and Newtonian laws and there relation to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.<br /><br />The film is methodically directed, exposing details of the man (Hawking) as well as his work (Black Holes). Interviews with his family are a little too long so sadly there is less development of his theories and ideas. <br /><br />A Philip Glass soundtrack superbly compliments the film. Only one other man could compose such haunting instellar melodies (Jean Michel Jarre).<br /><br />Overall I would highly recommend this movie on the basis of Hawking's 'nuggets of wisdom' and his adequate explanation of an Event Horizon!

Uneducated & defiant, beautiful TESS OF THE STORM COUNTRY is the daughter of a fisherman squatting on a rich man's land. Spirited & bold, she captures the heart of the millionaire's son, but violence, terror & sudden death are what will haunt her immediate future before she can claim the sweet peace of happiness.<br /><br />Mary Pickford is utterly charming in this splendid, heart-wrenching film. She considered Tess to be her favorite role and she fills it with all the spunky joy & enthusiasm which made her for years the world's most popular movie star. The story has all the essential elements for a modern fairy tale, with Mary the lovely, distressed heroine beset by all manner of dangerous, stressful situations. The atmospherics are first-rate, with the outdoor fishing village sets being particularly well-conceived.<br /><br />In the supporting cast, Jean Hersholt stands out as the vile villain who tries forcing Pickford to marry him. Hersholt, a very gentle soul off screen, manages brilliantly to depict his character's complete moral corruption.<br /><br />This was actually the second time Pickford filmed TESS. A 1914 version had been one of her first important films, but its production values were a bit antiquated by the standards of the 1920's (no close-ups, for instance) and Mary, producing her own films & powerful enough by 1922 to make whatever film she wanted, decided for the only time in her career to remake a film. The end result certainly lived up to her expectations. Both films were very popular at the box office.<br /><br />A fascinating study for some future film researcher would be the influence of Christianity in Mary Pickford's life; it certainly runs like a golden thread through the silent movies she produced. Although the romanticism inherent in the very nature of silent cinema might cause these spiritual sentiments to appear somewhat awkward today, we are compelled to accept them as sincere reflections, by their very repetition, of Mary's heartfelt beliefs. In TESS, one beautiful scene in particular stands out in this regard: Pickford is teaching herself to read using a Bible. She indicates to Lloyd Hughes (who plays her sweetheart) a word from near the back of the Book that she does not understand. He mimes it for her (the word is obviously `crucified') and, eyes turned Heavenward as the full meaning of the Sacrifice dawns upon her, Mary's face becomes positively beatific.<br /><br />A splendid new orchestral score for TESS has been supplied by Jeffrey Mark Silverman which perfectly underscores the beauty & pathos of this wonderful film.

An unusual, revisionist western, well worth watching. Despite a slow start, the film builds – with scarcely any dialogue and no subtitles – an increasingly involving and intense, almost existential portrait of life in the harsh environment of the Western desert. The growth of the lead characters is worth waiting for, and the strong central cast bring a real sense of desperation to the struggle for ownership of the all-important horse. How interesting that this was made by a British director. I hope he's smiling now: I get the impression the film was largely ignored by contemporaries; but time works its usual alchemy, and hidden gold shines out as it inevitably must. One note jarred for me: the revisionism is only carried so far. Sam Waterston as an Indian? - granted he plays his part with real emotion and intensity, but really, couldn't one American Indian actor be found to do the job? But his scenes with Caroline Langrishe have an intimacy which contrasts nicely with the immense landscape around them.<br /><br />Forget big, bankrupt Hollywood versions of the past, men with big chins and swirling music; this one is all about a primeval struggle between protagonists who, stripped of all the trappings of 'ordinary' life, come to understand what is worth fighting for. Impressive.

It's very simple to qualify that movie: "A PURE MASTERPIECE". This opinion is formulated for the following reasons: the performance of the actors, they seem to be citizens of that epoch, 1100 B.C. They personalize perfectly the characters. A second reason is that the poetry expressed by Homere in his poem is well given by the production. Among others the narrations made by the chorus give a particular atmosphere that makes us party of the artistic rendition. Third reason: the reconstitution of the decor is absolutely perfect, in Mediterranean regions, where the action of the poem occurred. And most of all, the emotion is on the rendezvous. I repeat my appreciation: "A PURE MASTERPIECE".

Jeff Fahey has such alert eyes and a smudgy, insidious smile that every character he plays seems villainous; therefore, it doesn't really work to cast him as the good guy of the piece, the audience is just waiting for his character to crack and start blowing people away. Drew Barrymore, fresh off her acclaimed role as "Poison Ivy", must have done this film simply as a favor to director Phedon Papamichael (he was the cinematographer on "Ivy"); playing a character named Daisy Drew (!), she's bumped off right away, which leaves us with no one to look at but Jeff Fahey and Sean Young (who hasn't had a single subtle moment on camera since "Blade Runner"). This witless script, by Michael Angeli, concerns a police sketch artist who draws his own wife's face from a murder witness's testimony, and while that's not a bad idea for a plot, it would be much better suited to an hour-long TV series. This cable-made movie is short on inspiration (beginning with the casting) and shorter on surprises. * from ****

American-made final entry in the "Blood Island" series of Filipino horror films concerns Abdul Amir (Reed Hadley), ruler of a fictional country. He dies of cancer, yet it's figured out how to bring him back: put his brain into a donor body. The mad doctor in charge (Kent Taylor) puts it in a highly unlikely body: the facially scarred giant manservant named Gor (John Bloom). A doctor friend of the ruler tries to remedy matters and put an end to the mad doctors' plans.<br /><br />Film-making partners Samuel M. Sherman (producer) and Al Adamson (director) corral several actors they've worked with before, including Taylor, Adamsons' sexy wife Regina Carrol, Angelo Rossitto, Zandor Vorkov, and Vicki Volante. They tried to go for the feel of the previous "Blood Island" entries but one can tell this was made stateside. While not necessarily a "good" film, it's got a bunch of amusing elements to add up to an entertainingly trashy whole. A malevolent dwarf (Rossitto), gory operations, a rather unconvincing makeup job on Bloom, the political intrigue subplot, caverns full of cobwebs, etc. The narrative is actually pretty coherent, with plot twists thrown in here and there. I think it could have been trimmed a bit; some scenes drag. But it's got its fun moments and an ending people might not expect.<br /><br />For this kind of thing, the acting isn't too bad. Both Taylor and Rossitto are fun; the latter seems to be having quite a good time in his role. Volante is appealing enough, and Williams is O.K. in the heroic role. In any event, it's nice to see all of these familiar faces in one of these films.<br /><br />Absolutely nothing special, but as a trashy B "horror" (I use the word loosely, none of this is exactly scary) film, it certainly amuses.<br /><br />7/10

hi for all the people who have seen this wonderful movie im sure thet you would have liked it as much as i. i love the songs once you have seen the show you can sing along as though you are part of the show singing and dancing . dancing and singing. the song ONE is an all time fave musical song too and the strutters at the end with the mirror its so oh you have to watch this one

When I first watched Robotboy, I found it fresh and interesting, but then I noticed, that with each episode this show is trying to teach you how to behave yourself, what is good/bad. Episodes became predictable. And main characters are not interesting. Again we see a hyper-smart boy, beaten by his older brother, parents who don't understand their kid, and his friends: girl and fat boy. Also this show has no logic. A super-modern robot who works on two AA-size batteries, and can use a lot of weapons. But the biggest problem is the difference between activated and super-activated modes. We see two different robots, and it declines main idea of the show: "Robot must learn how to behave himself in human society"

The lead characters in this movie fall into two categories: smart and stupid. Simple enough.<br /><br />Jiri Machacek (Standa) plays a hapless, dopey guy who gets arrested for a crime he did not commit. When he tries to get financially reimbursed by his evil, former boss, the situation gets out of control.<br /><br />While Standa is genuinely (but endearingly) stupid, his buddy Ondrej is an absolute blithering idiot who bungles everything and manages to say and do the wrong thing every time. Without Ondrej, Standa might stand a chance of going through life with some modest degree of success. With Ondrej, life will never be boring, but it sure won't be without a lot of headaches!<br /><br />Ivan Trojan plays Zdenek, an evil genius type who degenerates into some Hitler-esquire delusional tyrant. Zdenek and his henchmen try to kill Standa to keep Zdenek's secrets safe.<br /><br />I am very impressed with the high quality and imagination of Czech films. For a relatively small country, the Czech Republic certainly has produced more than its share of superb entertainment. The best Czech movies I have seen are: 1) Pelišky and 2) Tmavomodrý Svet (Dark Blue World). If you see these two movies, you have seen the absolute best of Czech cinema.

I saw the long day's dying when it first came out at the cinema, I thought the film gave a good soldiers point of view, it gave a realistic account, of men at war. The storyline moves at a nice pace, showing a group of men behind enemy lines, and trying to return back to their own lines with an enemy prisoner. The characters are well developed, and believable.<br /><br />David Hemmings is a good actor and plays the leading role with conviction, as does Alan Dobie (as German Helmut) I was surprised, that i have been unable to find this film on VHS or DVD, and I feel it has become the forgotten film, which is sad , as it is superior to many other war films I have seen.

I watched this movie recently mainly because I am a Huge fan of Jodie Foster's. I saw this movie was made right between her 2 Oscar award winning performances, so my expectations were fairly high. Unfortunately, I thought the movie was terrible and I'm still left wondering how she was ever persuaded to make this movie. The script is really weak. The story itself may have been somewhat believable if someone like Mel Gibson had played the role of the hit-man. The idea of Jodie running off with Dennis Hopper and his irritating accent was impossible for me to buy into. I did think that Jodie looked great throughout the movie, which was probably the only reason I watched the entire thing. Maybe parading Jodie around with as few clothes on as possible was the only reason the movie was made. I saw a TV biography of Jodie where basically all of her movies were commented on in chronological order, and this movie was the only one never mentioned. After seeing it, I can now see why.

Rachel, Jo, Hannah, Tina, Bradley and John are all on top form here. They deserve oscar nominations for their performances. I am a great fan of the tv show aswell. Their music rocks and they're all so talented! I am also a great exponent of SARCASM!!!!!!<br /><br />IF YOU'RE AN S CLUB FAN DO NOT READ THIS!!!!!<br /><br />The performances are terribly weak, the dialogue is terrible and the jokes are not even executed properly (i feel sorry for the director). The jokes are so unbelievably bad that 8 little, passionate S Club fans weren't laughing. They thought they could do it better. And they did. They conquered the world. They became S Club Juniors. Paul, "the fat, ugly one who started a mosh band" must be thanking his lucky stars that he left when he did. One of the worst movies ever made. BEWARE OF THIS MOVIE! DO NOT GO AND SEE IT! YOU WON'T LAUGH! YOU WILL CRY! 0/10 RJT

The film belongs to Inventor - Underdog genre. Jake Gyllenhaal, Laura Dern and Chris Cooper bring a little acting verve to story with several standard elements. Well filmed, well edited, with plenty of well acted secondary roles.<br /><br />Some have declared this movie to be classic American hokey. It is that and more. I agree with those who say "The movie celebrates the thrill of youthful inspiration." <br /><br />The film is a pleasant reminder that achievement may be born of ordinary roots.<br /><br />

My father insisted I should watch this film with him and I regret that I wasted my time watching--I want that approximate hour and a half back! The "funny" little film concerns the elderly Don Ameche staying with his son, Tom Selleck. It turns out that Ameche isn't just "forgetful" like he's been told, but has dementia (it seems a lot like Alzheimers). And, because Dad is so frequently "out to lunch" he gets into so much trouble again and again--almost like the adorable tyke from BABY'S DAY OUT. The problem, though, is that you know BABY'S DAY OUT is all fantasy and the baby is going to be fine. Plus, you aren't laughing at the baby for having a deformity or illness. But, in this case, you are being encouraged to laugh at a man who is slowly losing his mind--and where's the humor in that?! If this film had been more successful, would the producers have then made films making fun or people with Cerebral Palsy or a Flesh-eating Virus?!?! There are a lot of people who should have felt ashamed at having made this film.

One: Richard Pryor and Jackie Gleason, two great comics turned into saps for a bratty kid. They've both sold themselves out in this one, worse than Pryor's character. Two: Horrible, overly sentimental script that could have been used in a Harold Lloyd movie its so cliched. Three: Choice of a black actor as the toy; the racial subtext of this is unbearable, as its never addressed. There's no message here, Pryor's part could have been played by any comedic actor. Four: That kid...I wish I could go back in time and prevent him from ever acting...that would mean movies like this one and Kid Co. might not have been made...and my childhood would have been free of their mind-warping power. So if you want to watch a couple of great comics defile themselves in a sickly sweet kiddie flick, go ahead. If you want to see them in something good, see Pryor's old standup act and Gleason in something better, like the Honeymooners.

An awful B movie at best with video quality similar to Dead Alive. I challenge anyone who is a "Aliens (James Cameron 1986)" Movie fan to count how many times either lines or almost entire sequences were ripped off from the first two Alien movies to make this classic piece of garbage.<br /><br />Cast members such as R. Lee Ermey and Ray Wise were the only two actors with any talent and the lead "Jack Scalia" was really absolutely horrible. I think they cast him for his massive cleft chin. I was also annoyed with the stereotyping of the only black male on the set John Toles-Bey who must look at this movie and just wonder. Look him up sometime as he has done a lot of interesting movies.<br /><br />But on this movie: The script as I said earlier was a rip-off of Aliens tweaked and turned into a submarine "thriller". It included such lines as "I got a bad feeling about this" and "Kill me" as one crew member is infected by one of the mutants and his belly starts doing the "alien hop" just before it pops out of his stomach. There is also a rip-off of the classic "get some!" via Bill Paxton. We also have a bunch of navy grunts running through caves with creepy crawlies popping out of walls. Even the explosions of the mutated creatures is very similar to the popping of aliens as they charge marines in the movie "Aliens". And the kicker is that some of the mutants spit acid (as opposed to having acid for blood). There are many more major examples. So if you want to see this script done well watch the first two classics Alien and Aliens (With Sigourney Weaver). You'll have a more enjoyable time.<br /><br />The plot could have been interesting and done better if not for confusing sequences in the start of the movie and generally poor editing. Camera shots were pretty dull and honestly it wasn't very hard to stop watching it and walk around the room to get a snack or check email. Many of the interactions between characters made little or no sense and went nowhere more often than not. The whole command structure between crew and Capt. was poorly done. I'm not even sure if there are Captains in the military that have full control over nuclear subs. In general this just shows that there was little research done for background information to make the movie seem at least a little respectable and there are many other similar examples (like dive depth etc..).<br /><br />If you like horrible movies or are a big fan of Alien and Aliens and want something to just laugh and shake your head at then this movie may be for you. As for me this one is going back on the shelf...permanently.

An adult, realistic, cruel, dark story, like a second part of "les roseaux savages" (the wild reeds), plenty of beauty and sadness, ellipsis and silences, shadows and little sparks of hope. a man searching for a warm companion, a better life, a sincere attitude.

The dominating conflict is between a couple of fine actors (Huppert and Dutronc) and the horrible script. Evidently, the actors lost, since the director/screenwriter Claude Chabrol eventually forced the leading couple to follow this worthless piece of sick imagination to the letter. Fortunately, the powerful performances by Huppert and Dutronc dramatically improve the overall quality of the movie, which miraculously gains the depth and humor. As for Chabrol's persistence in keeping the film bland and illogical, it reaches the climax in the final scene, which is so incredibly poor that you will wonder which pills he was taking himself while directing it.

Ghoulies 4 is pretty ghoulish sequel. The ghoulies look very different from the first three ghoulies, but there still cool. There are some nice flash backs, from Ghoulies the first movie. Jonathan is back once again in this one. He wasn't in parts 2 or 3 though. The movie is low budget at times, but fun to watch. You've got Tony Cox as the Dark Ghoulie and Arturo Gil as the Light Ghoulie. The ghoulies in this movie are actually good guys, instead of evil like in the first three movies. Both Ghoulies are pretty funny characters in the movie. Then you've got the very hot Alexandra! It's a great dark comedy and funny! Any fan of the ghoulies movies will enjoy watching Ghoulies 4. The DVD is finally coming out this July 2007! Hopefully one day Ghoulies III will be on DVD in the USA. I'd really like to see a sequel to this movie one day too. I doubt it will happen though. It's 2007 now and no sign of a sequel yet. If there ever is a sequel I hope Jim Wynorski will make it.<br /><br />I give Ghoulies IV a 9/10

Suppose you've been on a deserted island the last ten years. Haven't heard of Scream and left when Halloween part 1 entered the cinema. Then this movie would have been a blast and a completely new vision on the horror scene.<br /><br />At the moment, a 2.7 rating is on IMDb and it doesn't deserve a that low appreciation. Slashing all the way, like "I know what you did", and a who-is-it that when getting to the end convinced me of that who-and-why.<br /><br />No big surprise, just a nice flick to watch with a cola, popcorn and no urge to get a difficult plot, deep characters. If the video rental is out of the top titles, you can take it without a risk, but don't expect a masterwork. I've seen a lot worse.

The book that this movie is based on seriously changed my life. But saying this movie was a disappointment is an understatement. The acting, directing, cinematography, and storyline were all horrible. I would never recommend this movie to anyone. I've told countless people about the book but will now be telling them all that they should definitely not see the movie! I did not expect the plot to follow the book exactly, but they have left out too many key components of the book. The movie tried, but failed, to deliver a powerful and inspiring message and only demeaned the central theme of the prophecy. While putting myself in the position who had not read the book, I saw the Celestine Prophecy as a bunch of hoaxy B.S. I am thoroughly disappointed with Redfield for the way this movie turned out.

I went to this movie at a cast and crew show cause my friend, whom is a producer on the movie invited me. Forget what you have seen in the commercials, forget what you have heard, go see this film for yourself. I was more than surprised by it. In a world of The Grinch, Charlies Angels, The 6TH Day, Unbreakable, here comes a film that is worth your hard earned bucks! Glorious scenes, wonderful cinemtrophy and a cast you want to eat with your heart. I found this to be one of this years most orchestrated powerhouse films and with reason. Robert Deniro deserves an oscar nod. If you could give an oscar to everyone involved as a package, this would be the film.

When I first heard about the show, I heard a lot about it, and it was getting some good reviews. I watched the first episode of this "forensic fairy tale", as it so proclaims itself, and I really got hooked on it. I have loved it since. This show has a good sense of humour and it's fun to see a good show like this. The cast is excellent as their characters, and I wouldn't want to change them in any way.<br /><br />For those unfamiliar with this show, Pushing Daisies centers around a man named Ned (aka The Pie Maker, played by Lee Pace) who discovered a special gift when he was a boy: He could bring the dead back to life with the touch of a finger. He first did so with his dog, Digby. However, there is the catch: If he keeps a dead person alive for more than one minute, someone else dies. He learned this when he brought his mother back to life, and his childhood crush's father died in Ned's mother's place. The other catch is if he touches the person again, they're dead again, but this time for good. He learned this when his mother kissed him goodnight. His father took him to boarding school, and when he left, Ned never saw his father again.<br /><br />Almost 20 years later, Ned owns a pie bakery, cleverly titled "The Pie Hole." A co-worker of Ned's, Olive Snook (Kristin Chenoweth) has a crush on Ned, but Ned rejects her moves, trying not to get close to anyone, learning from past experiences. Private Investigator Emerson Cod (Chi McBride) discovered the gift that Ned has, and decides to make him a partner in solving murders. Ned touches the victim, asks who killed them, and when the minute is up, he touches them again, and they solve it. That's how they usually solve it. Throughout the episodes, the murders have very interesting plots and be what people least expect.<br /><br />One day, Ned discovers that his next murder to solve is his childhood sweetheart, Charlotte "Chuck" Charles (Anna Friel). He brings her back to life and decides to break the rules and keep her alive. In her place, the funeral director, who stole jewelery from the corpses, died. When Emerson finds out, and when Chuck wants to help with solving the murders, he doesn't agree a bit--for a while, we hear him call Chuck 'Dead girl'. This is all kept in secret from Olive, Chuck's aunts Vivian and Lily (Ellen Greene and Swoosie Kurtz, respectively), and everyone else for that matter, in case anyone recognized her from obituaries, the news, etc. Vivian and Lily, formerly synchronized swimmers, hadn't left the house in years. Emerson, Ned, and Chuck agree to work together. Ned and Chuck grow to love each other, though they can't touch each other ever again.<br /><br />This show is funny, has terrific characters, contains great plot twists, and will definitely get your spirits up. I hope it doesn't get cancelled at 13 episodes.

Okay like most Steven Seagal fans I know I not going expect a masterpiece every time he makes a film but I do expect the film to at least have some sorter budget. The main problem with the copy I watched was the terrible over dubbing I know that in some films this has to be done and I accept that but when they overdub with a totally different actors voice and keep doing this thru out the film it does take the magic of overdubbing away. Also the sets seem to be built with no care as in one scene the sliding glass top in a top secret lab has a massive crack going thru it. I was truly disappointed with this film and only hope Stevens next project will be more finished off before sending the film out for buying/renting. The story of this film had me wondering if I was watching a sci-fi film or not some parts seemed alien like but they never fully explained what was going on I found it very confusing.

this is the worst movie in the world. the only reason i gave it a 2 was because the first 10 minutes were hysterically funny in a "is this for real??" sort of way. it was so cheesy and low budget...they should not have even bothered. there was nudity and violence for the pure sake of having nudity and violence, and the effects were just so so bad you would not believe it (think ketchup as blood, and cabbages for severed heads). do not rent this!!

Great 1980s Comic Strip comedy set in the South West of England. It is a tale of sex, drugs, cream teas and murder by the seaside. Adrian Edmondson, French and Saunders, Nigel Planer (hilarious in drag) and Robbie Coltrane play a part. Dennis (Edmondson) tries to impress girlfriend by boasting he is involved in a multi-million pounds drug deal. This leads to complications with hilarious results. I am trying to find out the original picture ratio for this film but it does not appear under 'Technical Aspects' of the IMDb site. I spotted the DVD in the shop and it appears to be in 1.33:1 (full screen) format. Was the film shot in this ratio or was it originally a widescreen film with a pan and scan DVD? It would be useful to know as I hate pan and scan films. So come on IMDb. Could you find out for us?

I just love Malle's documentaries. They are so effortless and simple but still so fascinating. I have no idea why this documentary works. It is about Glencoe, Minnesota. 5000 people live there and nothing happens, really. But still Malle manages to make it fascinating and interesting. His love for humanity, even racist or homophobic people, is so overwhelming that you just can't help but also to fall in love with them too. <br /><br />Malle filmed most of it in 1979. He came back 6 years later to see what had changed. This would have been a good film without the material 6 years later but this small addition makes it great. It may sound like Malle was just doing what has been done in the Up series but in fact it is not. The Up series are about people. Malle's emphasis is not so much on what happened to each person but what has happened to this community. And the change is great. 1985 is the Reagan era and the farmers are suffering. Once a proud community, now no one sees much future at all and parents hope their children will educate them self and do something else than farming. <br /><br />This documentary is quite relevant today. Our financial crises today started because of what was happening then. Just take a look to these final words in the film, spoken by an older lawyer from the town (in 1985):<br /><br />"Well I have high hopes for this country because the things that are going on right now can only be characterized in my mind as an obsession with greed. And a nation doesn't live long with that obsession. And particularly a democracy that... There's good - there's good - a lot of good in this country and a lot of good people and they aren't gonna - they aren't gonna subscribe to this philosophy of greed that's going on now. It's horrible."<br /><br />Unfortunately it took more than 20 years and a hell of a headache before that happened.

Almost 20 years before Frank Marshall brought tears to your eyes with his mesmerizing epic "Alive", there already was the legendary Mexican exploitation director René Cardona who used the same drama as an outline for his ambitious film "Supervivientes de los Andes". The unforgettable fatal flight of Fairchild 571 that crashed in the Argentinian Andes on October 13, 1972. This terrible accident cost the lives of many passengers, most of them members of a professional rugby team. But 16 people of them were eventually rescued thanks to their strong will to survive and because they fed on the mortal remains of their unfortunate fellow-passengers. Of course you can't claim that this cheaply made and roughly edited film is better than the famous 90's version but I definitely appreciate and respect this film more. After all, an exploitation film demands a lot more input from both cast and crew while the big-budgeted Marshall film, although intense, feels more like routine money-making. The sets and special effects naturally can't compete with "Alive", but "Supervivientes..." delivers an equally impressive sentiment of hopelessness and creates an even more nightmarish hell of snow. Cardona's film is ambitious, surprisingly compelling and easily one of the most remarkable Mexican productions ever. I am really astonished that Cardona's take on this story isn't more exploitative and explicit. The scenes where the deceased passengers are cut open and consumed are nevertheless hard to digest, but they only serve to increase the credibility of the catastrophe and to stress the inhuman conditions of the survivors. Rather praiseworthy for a vicious director who gained fame with his notoriously bad films like "Night of the Bloody Apes" and the Santo-series. The unknown young Mexican actors do a great job and the musical score is endearing. The story is well-known, of course, so the screenplay doesn't offer any unexpected shocks. Either by history or previously having seen "Alive", you know which kind of dramas these people still have to endure before being rescued and you can only await them. Still, this is a good film that shouldn't be bashed like too often is the case.

The Great Ecstasy of Robert Carmichael is bad film in every way. The script, the dreary pace, the lack of depth in any character, the pointless sub-plots, the dreadful acting, the needless climax all make this possibly the worst film I've ever seen. I found nothing likable, enjoyable or intellectually stimulating in any way.<br /><br />I imagine the film makers thought they were making something clever and dark, with its moody lighting, long protracted silences and vaguely haunting classical soundtrack. If so, they failed utterly. It just bored me, and I wish I had never watched it.<br /><br />Avoid at all costs.

This is the kind of film they used to make, amusing, heart-warming, troubling, authentic, with convincing performances by people without nose jobs, boob jobs, eye jobs, in other words real people. Shauna Macdonald plays the female love interest, and she is so real you want to give her a cuddle at the very least. Imagine that, a real girl in a movie, whatever next? Hollywood would hate her, because her freshness is a sharp rebuke to every false starlet in Tinseltown. This story has the same hilarious feel as Sandy Mackendrick's classic 'Whisky Galore', with the gnomic humour of remote Scottish islanders puncturing the pretensions of intruders from outside and enjoying a wee dram from time to time (the actual intervals between those times often being rather short). Director Stephen Whittaker displays a rare skill in pulling this off just right, and it is shocking to discover that he died before his film's release, aged only 56, which was clearly a substantial loss to the screen. Ulrich Thomsen does very well at playing a German rocket scientist who in the late 1930s goes to Scarp in the Isle of Harris to build a small rocket to carry postal packets between the islands. There he falls in love with the alluring Macdonald lass, and she reciprocates the affection. Some wonderfully colourful local characters decorate the tale, and the film is pure delight. There is of course the threat of imminent war with Hitler, and we learn that Hitler executed 1000 rocket scientists who refused to build weapons of war, which is a shocking statistic. Tragic love is never far from view, but lips must remain sealed in a review as to what happens in the end. This film is a magnificent example of just the kind of films which people in Britain should be making. But are they being properly released? In a nation whose tastes have been so corrupted by reality TV shows, where repulsive nonentities have become the national heroes, is there even a market anymore for a film like this? After all, there is no grunting sex, there are no close-ups of suppurating wounds or of anyone's genitals, there are no drugs taken, there are no mindless celebrities prancing around wanting to be looked at, and so one wonders whether there is anything to interest a public which has become so decadent and jaded that only the most extreme sensations can briefly alleviate the tedium of their pointless existence. Anyone who is looking for an antidote to the vacuity of contemporary Britain can take refuge in this refreshing and honest film.

This movie was a complete waste of time.<br /><br />I viewed this movie with a group of cinematic enthusiasts, who have varied taste in movies yet always a keen eye for a work of "genius" (as one of my fellow commenters on this site had the gall to label this steaming pile…); not one of them found a single redeeming quality. We ended the movie with a rousing chorus of expletives I will not reprint here.<br /><br />I can only guess that the positive reviews provided here were written by Sir Anthony Hopkins, himself. Afterall, as one of those reviewers will tell you, he financed the film himself – because no one else in Hollywood or anywhere else in the world, for that matter, would risk a single penny or their good name in association with this film. Don't let the semi-famous actors who appear in the film lure you into its clutches – as Christian Slater admits in the special features "making of" he signed on to the film without reading the script or knowing any details (a folly I am sure he will never repeat).<br /><br />I pity the hapless individual who stumbles into this quagmire of self-indulgence written, directed, produced, and financed by a man who is too famous to admit to himself that not everything he creates is a masterpiece (and if you don't believe me please google "Anthony Hopkins" AND art).

For a scientifically-engineered super-dog that was supposed to be the answer to petit crime, CHOMPS was a chump.<br /><br />All I ever saw Chomps do was sit, or walk, or run. Or run, then walk, then sit... and then get back up again and stretch, and then walk, and then jog to K-Tel dance hits. And sometimes it had all the answers to the daily Jumbo. But mostly it just sat a lot.<br /><br />All I am saying is: In a Celebrity Death Match, Chomps couldn't take out Mr. Bigglesworth.

before seeing this film, the 1998 version was my only experience of this dickens story. i didn't enjoy that film very much, but this 1974 adaptation moves on in a particulary tiresome fashion.<br /><br />the actors don't shine, the main couple michael york and sarah miles are especially wooden cases. the only character of real interest for me was anthony quayle's intelligent jaggers.<br /><br />the so called plot is ridiculous, but the story itself is a great one. it's a real lesson on how your distorted values and obsessive principles can destroy you. live with an open mind and don't care what other people say, you are what you are, if others can't take it, **** 'em. pip was told this early on, but he didn't listen.<br /><br />the girl adopted by the weird old lady reminded me a little of the old kaspar hauser story, not in that same horrible level, but in the way she molded the child to create the executor of her personal vendetta against the entire opposite sex she thought had deceived her. pip's childhood didn't appear much better. the ending didn't seem to fit the rest of the story's style. the sets looked cheap, and coming to imdb i'm not surprised to see that this was indeed a tv-movie (which i had no idea of when i borrowed it from the library).<br /><br />live and learn. so many good movies, so little time. that's why the reviews are here. so YOU wouldn't have to waste your time on this sort of movies.<br /><br />3/10

What a shame that some good talent was wasted. This is a tedious and overly self-conscious movie, that could tell its story in half the time. Is that Derek Jacobi under that beard doing two roles? Gosh, who would have guessed.<br /><br />The emotional payoff a the end was weak and unsatisfying. Certainly not worth enduring the padded length of the movie for. I felt quite let down.<br /><br />The sound was dreadful. First, they used stock music. Second, it was so loud during some of the dialog, that the words were hard to make out. Only three sound crew, and a trainee? There were more people listed in the credits for either the accounting or the legal.<br /><br />Some of the camera work was quite good though, and the actors did a good job with a mediocre script.<br /><br />Not a good use of viewing time, at least for me.

Saw this at Sundance one of the first years I attended the festival - blew me away...<br /><br />It went by much too fast, and I've never been able to find it again. I figured it would show up on a compilation somewhere, but still no joy. My memory's foggy on the details - I just remember being surprised over and over again, and on the edge of my seat.<br /><br />Anyone reading this have any leads? Online, DVD, beat-up VHS copy - I'd try to make it worth your while...<br /><br />Over the years, I've probably seen over 200 short films (used to live near Aspen where they have an incredible Shorts Fest in April). This definitely ranks among my favorites, and I hope to see it again!<br /><br />Many thanks to anyone with leads on how to see it :)

I am amazed with some of the reviews of this film. The only place that seems to tell the truth is RottenTomatoes.com. This film is awful. The plot is extremely lazy. It is not scary either. People out there who think that because it stars Sarah Michelle Geller it is somehow like The Grudge should forget about it. This film is more like Dark Water, except it is even more predictable and slow moving than it. I was extremely disappointed with this film. It didn't scare me nor interest me either. Let's face it , this type of plot has been flogged to death at this stage e.g. the dead trying to contact the living - Dragonfly, What Lies Beneath, Ghost Story, Dark Water, Darkness, The Changeling etc.etc. It seems to me that the only ones writing original horror films nowadays are the Japanese and the Koreans. The films that are coming out of Hollywood, like this, are cynical exercises in money making without a shred of respect for the viewer. They're just being churned out

I will admit I didn't pay full attention to everything going on in this film, but to be honest, I don't think it would have mattered. Basically local councillor Sidney Fiddler (Sid James) persuades the incompetent Mayor Frederick Bumble (Kenneth Connor) of Firecombe to hold a beauty contest, to improve the town's image. They face opposition from women's liberationist Augusta Prodworthy (June Whitfield) trying to sabotage the contest, but they do have publicity agent Peter Potter (Bernard Bresslaw) and Palace Hotel owner Connie Philpotts (Joan Sims). Soon enough the young, beautiful wannabe models show up, including Hope Springs (Barbara Windsor), Paula Perkins (Valerie Leon), Dawn Brakes (Goldfinger's Margaret Nolan), Debra (Sally Geeson) and Ida Downs (EastEnders' Wendy Richard). When the girls have cat fights, it does draw away regular residents, but after quite a while of some plodding not that funny innuendos and William (Jack Douglas) having over-active twitches, it does finally reach the competition, and it's just afterwards I couldn't be bothered. Also starring Patsy Rowlands as Mildred Bumble, Peter Butterworth as Admiral, Joan Hickson as Mrs. Dukes, David Lodge as Police inspector, Angela Grant as Miss Bangor, Arnold Ridley as Councillor Pratt, Robin Askwith as Larry, Patricia Franklin as Rosemary, Jimmy Logan as Cecil Gaybody and Dad's Army's Bill Pertwee as Fire brigade chief, Charles Hawtrey had obviously quit the Carry Ons, but where's Kenneth Williams? I suppose seeing Babs and young, beautiful looking Pauline Fowler in bikinis, but for comedy value, this fails miserably, and the overuse of the swanny whistle just gets on your nerves. Pretty poor!

As I am a fan of hospital and medical shows, I have found this one gripping and sometimes humorous (especially the scenes with Dr Whitman) which brings a bit la light relief. However, I was looking forward to the last episode because I expected that the bad ones would be punished and the good ones reinstated. Instead of that, the hospital management are making even more fools of themselves in an unbelievable manner and it's getting worse and worse for the good ones. You can't help wondering what the unions are doing or doesn't Rob, Donna and Maria know what unions are there for ? Besides, never seeing the outside, trees, grass, sunlight is a bit oppressive. Anyone understood what the last words were ? i.e. the answer Rob Lake gave to Mrs Strawberry's children question "Why are you telling us all that?" It was very frustrating not to be able to understand it.

Ostensibly a story about the young child of Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day. The kid gets kidnapped to keep his parents quiet. They know something about a plot to assassinate the ambassador of an unnamed country during a performance at Albert Hall in London.<br /><br />The movie is rich in Hitchcockian incidents. A friendly but opaque Frenchman seems to grill the innocent Stewart -- a doctor from Indiana -- a little too intensely to be merely idly curious. Later the Frenchman shows up in Arab disguise, a knife in his back, and whispers some information about the murder plot to Stewart. Stewart tells his wife -- Doris Day looking very saucy indeed -- but refuses to cooperate with the police and risk his son's life.<br /><br />Instead the couple try to track down the assassins, buy them off, and get their son back, taking them from Morocco, where Hitchcock has given us his usual tourist's eye view of the customs, locations, and food, to London. There is a hilarious wild goose chase involving a set-to between Stewart and the staff of a taxidermy shop. The staff are more concerned about guarding their half-stuffed specimens than anything else, and they shuffle around protectively holding the carcasses of a leopard and a swordfish. In the course of the scuffle, Stewart manages to save his throat from being cut by the swordfish bill, but is bitten on the hand by a stuffed tiger, the action boosted along by Bernard Hermann's bumptious score. The scene ends with Stewart rushing out the door. Hitchcock ends it with a shot of a lion's head gaping at the slammed door. There is also a running gag, well done, about some visitors waiting around the couple's hotel room in London, waiting for things to be explained.<br /><br />There are two serious issues that are lightly touched on. One is the relationship between Stewart and Day, which is not as rosy as it ought to be, considered as a bourgeois ideal. She's been a stage musical star for some years and is internationally known. And she's given it all up to marry an ordinary guy who happens to be a doc. That's understandable in, say, a nurse or a flight attendant or almost any woman other than an international star with a promising career in her own right. It isn't delved into, but the edginess is noticeable, as it was not in the original version. It reminds me a little of an exchange between Joe Dimaggio and his then-wife Marilyn Monroe, who had just returned from entertaining the troops in Korea. "Oh, Joe," she gushed, "did you ever see ten thousand people stand up and cheer?" "Seventy thousand," muttered Joe, former hero of the New York Yankees.<br /><br />The second problem is one of allegiance. Who is of greater social value? One's own young son? Or an unknown ambassador. Do we put ourselves or our loved ones at risk for the sake of national stability? Day is faced with this dilemma in its starkest form at the climax in the Albert Hall. Her solution opts for allegiance to political stability, although her motives are problematic. Does she scream to save the ambassador's life, or does she do so just to release the anxiety that is overwhelming her? (Cf: Alec Guiness falling on the detonator at the end of "The Bridge on the River Kwai.") The photography is extremely good, and the settings can be menacing, even on a quiet street in a residential neighborhood of London. It's mid-day, and Stewart is alone and determined, but frightened too. There are footsteps echoing on Gulliver Street from someone, somewhere. Is he being followed? Is his life in danger? And where the hell is everybody who lives on this street? Hitchcock pays such close attention to location details that we can make out the garden wall bonding of the bricks beside him.<br /><br />The director had a rare disagreement with Francois Truffaut while being interviewed for Truffaut's otherwise laudatory book. Truffaut argued that the earlier version of "The Man Who Knew Too Much" lacked the depth of the later version. Hitchcock replied, "It seems to me you want me to make films for the art house audience," but finally agreed that the 1930s version was the work of a talented amateur and this version was the work of a professional. No argument there.<br /><br />This is Hitchcock pretty much near his zenith.

A remake can be successful. An adaptation can be successful. It isn't relevant whether its a remake or an adaptation.<br /><br />A good movie is a good movie and a poor movie is a poor movie, regardless.<br /><br />Sarkar, I am afraid, was a very poor movie. First of all, just by making characters look dangerous, or macho, they don't bring in an aura about them.<br /><br />What was so brilliant about Nagre(Amitabh Bacchan's character) that we should have been in aura of his 'power' and what showed the 'benevolence' of the character? Nothing.<br /><br />This fact was said by a commentator and Amitabh kept giving facial expressions. Now Amitabh can give brilliant facial expressions but why should it mean any thing if there is no history or story to go with it.<br /><br />There wasn't proper charecterisation of the characters who worked under 'sarkar' too. Just because a man had spectacles, why should we assume he is wise. ] The flow of the movie was generally dullbecause scenes from the Godfather were created (like the policeman slapping Abhishek Bacchan), the older brother being killed by Abhishek (like Fredo was killed on instructions of Pacino) but too much was sought to be packed into the movie with too little story and depth to go with it. That was indeed the problem.<br /><br />If you try to pack 3 hours of intricate detail like a Godfather in 2 hours and that too with few dialogues, what you get is a highlights show from a cricket match, never making the full impact watching a full match will make.

I was truly and wonderfully surprised at "O' Brother, Where Art Thou?" The video store was out of all the movies I was planning on renting, so then I came across this. I came home and as I watched I became engrossed and found myself laughing out loud. The Coen's have made a magnificiant film again. But I think the first time you watch this movie, you get to know the characters. The second time, now that you know them, you laugh sooo hard it could hurt you. I strongly would reccomend ANYONE seeing this because if you are not, you are truly missing a film gem for the ages. 10/10

This movie has successfully proved what we all already know, that professional basket-ball players suck at everything besides playing basket-ball. Especially rapping and acting. I can not even begin to describe how bad this movie truly is. First of all, is it just me, or is that the ugliest kid you have ever seen? I mean, his teeth could be used as a can-opener. Secondly, why would a genie want to pursue a career in the music industry when, even though he has magical powers, he sucks horribly at making music? Third, I have read the Bible. In no way shape or form did it say that Jesus made genies. Fourth, what was the deal with all the crappy special effects? I assure you that any acne-addled nerdy teenager with a computer could make better effects than that. Fifth, why did the ending suck so badly? And what the hell is a djin? And finally, whoever created the nightmare known as Kazaam needs to be thrown off of a plane and onto the Eiffel Tower, because this movie take the word "suck" to an entirely new level.

The word 'classic' is thrown around too loosely nowadays, but this movie well deserves the appelation. The combination of Neil Simon, Walter Matthau (possibly the world's best living comic actor), and the late lamented George Burns make for a comic masterpiece. It is interesting to contemplate what the movie would have been like had not death prevented Jack Benny from playing George Burns' part, as had been planned. As it is, the reunion scene in Matthau's apartment is not likely to be surpassed as a sidesplitter. Definitely one of my desert island films.<br /><br />"Enter!!!!!!!!!"

This movie should not be watched as it was meant to be a flop. Ram Gopal Verma first wanted to make this a remake of classic bollywood movie "Sholay", but after having problems with the original makers decided to go ahead with the project and... i guess leave all the good parts of the movie (acting, script, songs, music, comedy, action etc) out and shoot the movie just because he already happen to hire the crew. Waste of money, waste of time. After making movies like Rangeela, Satya, and Company he pulled a Coppola (Godfather) on us; What were you thinking RGV? Anyways, the story is, though hard to follow, is almost like the Old sholay. Ajay Devgan playing Heero (Beeru, sholay) and Ajay, new kid on the block playing Ajay (Jay,sholay). Both "bad yet funny" friends help a cop capture a bad guy first. Later in the movie, now Retired cop hires them as personal security and safeguarding from the hands of a very most wanted Bubban played by Amitabh Bachan. In case you haven't been watching Bollywood movies, the Good guys win in the end. There I just saved you 3 precious hours of your life!

I too saw this movie when it first came out. I was a teenager at the time, and I saw it with my girl friend who later became my wife. I remember the movie made me feel it was possible to beat the odds. The cinematography was very well done if memory serves me correctly. The boy was a little much, but the girl character was very interesting. I thought it was very romantic and that might have been the intro to the first time with my then girlfriend. I have not seen the movie since and I wander why it has gone to the wayside. I would love to watch it again to see if it was as good as I remember. The Elton John sound track was excellent.

Ah, Batman Returns, is it possible to have a sequel to be almost as good as the original? With Batman Returns, it came pretty close! We have terrific actors and a great plot with the dark knight and two new villains, Catwoman and The Penguin. We have Michael Keaton back as Batman and he's still awesome than ever. Michelle Pfieffer, the perfect choice for Catwoman and was perfectly cast into place. As much as I love and is such an incredible actress Annette Benning, she couldn't have been Catwoman, she doesn't really have the look. Danny DeVito, who could have imagined him as The Penguin? He was just great and terrifying! <br /><br />Batman returns with a more loving community of Gotham City, they are celebrating Christmas time with, Max Shrek played by a creepy Christopher Walken. The perfect villain who mistreats his lovely secretary, Selina who happens to hear too much at his office causing him to push her out the window in hopes that she dies and will never reveal the information of knowing the Penguin and the attempt to make him loved in Gotham. When she survives and is awakened by cats, she wants revenge and is ready to go at it with her cats! But there is also another active villain, The Penguin who is in search of his parents that abandoned him and now he is looking to be the new mayor of Gotham City! Can Batman be able to stop both super villains from creating their hanous acts and stop the mayor from destroying the city as well?<br /><br />You'll have to see! Batman Returns is just as good as the original Batman, despite the first one remaining the true classic, this one still takes you for a ride. And come on, I mean we've got Michelle in leather! Her classic moment of just meeting Batman and The Penguin "Meow" is classic! There are memorable characters, lines, and sets! You'll have a blast! Trust me! <br /><br />9/10

In a time when Hollywood is making money by showing our weaknesses, despair, crime, drugs, and war, along comes this film which reminds us the concept of the "Indomitable Spirit". If you are feeling beaten down, this movie will free your mind and set you soaring. We all know how tough life can be, sometime we need to be reminded that persistence and courage will get us through. That's what this film did for me and I hope it will for you.

I think this TV film was first aired the same week that Manchester Utd played in the Champions League Final (1999), they run a lot of football related items that week and this one was an absolute standout.<br /><br />It played on all the clichés that are churned out every season during the FA Cup ie, plucky underdogs, lucky clothing/mascots, name on the cup etc and turned out to be brilliantly funny.<br /><br />I'm surprised it has never been repeated prior to other big football occasions, even now with the world cup just getting underway. <br /><br />A few previous posts from non-football fans have said they still love it, but a football fan will find it hilarious imho.

Wow. We watched this film in the hopes that it would have at least some decent rock climbing scenes. We were disappointed there, but it was still a great movie! It was soooo cheesy it was great! I haven't laughed so hard at a movie in a long time. If you are into rock climbing, and you enjoy cheesy movies, then this one is absolutely for you!

This deceptively laid-back, low-key, casually paced Aussie crime thriller unravels with a casual ease and relaxed self-confidence that's a delight to behold. Eager beaver working class kid Jimmy (an appealingly feckless Heath Ledger) yearns to make something out of his unrewarding ordinary life. Jimmy gets his big break when local crime kingpin Pando (an outstanding Bryan Brown) assigns him an easy courier gig which entails delivering $10 grand to an old lady. Jimmy finds himself knee deep in serious trouble when he loses Pando's money. Writer/director Gregor Jordan's engagingly simple tale of how things aren't always what they're cracked up to be, young love, all actions having consequences and that hoary old chestnut about how crime doesn't pay works like a charm thanks to a wonderful wealth of well-observed minor quirky details, a strong subtext concerning man's duel capacity for both good and evil, a nice sense of unforced irony, the chillingly matter-of-fact way the violence is presented, and the marvelous grounding of the assorted complexly drawn warts'n'all low-life characters in an instantly recognizable and totally believable banal day-to-day reality (e.g., Panda is shown playing Scrabble with a flunky and at one point interrupts a business conversation with a fellow hood to talk with his son over the phone). Judging from his finely shaded and two-fisted portrayal of the cunning, not to be trifled with Pando, Bryan Brown undoubtedly qualifies as one of the finest actors to ever grace celluloid. A sturdy and satisfying little sleeper.

I did not really want to watch this one. It seemed to be an old Raj Kanwar movie which disgusted me even before I started watching it because I don't consider him even close to being mediocre as a filmmaker. The only reason I took this one is obviously the Shahrukh Khan appearance in the film. I had not even known what the film was all about because I was sure it would be just an ordinary fairy tale. So I just imagined a love story between Shahrukh Khan and Divya Bharti with a substantial supporting role by Rishi Kapoor who I thought would be playing her father or uncle. And to my complete shock, Rishi Kapoor is actually the hero! He is the one who romances the young Divya! I was saddened to find out that Shahrukh had a small part of no substance and that too, only in the second part of this idiotic film.<br /><br />Just let me repeat the question: why would a 17 year-old lovely Divya have fallen for a 40-plus long haired, chubby, swollen piglet like Rishi Kapoor? Rishi Kapoor should be ashamed of taking this part; the only thing he did is ridiculing himself. He romanced a girl who could logically be younger than his own daughter and to make things worse -- acts like a teenager at his forties. On top of that, just to make himself more pathetic, he plays a pop-star...<br /><br />To make things clear, I have no problems with actors romancing ladies much younger than they themselves are. As long as they make a convincing couple, there should be no problem. In fact, leading actors have always been cast opposite young girls (Amitabh Bachchan-Sridevi, Mithun Chakraborty-Madhuri Dixit, Shahrukh Khan-Deepika, Salman Khan-Sneha Ullal) and made the pairing pretty well. Also, I have nothing against Rishi Kapoor, I think he is a good actor, and his act in Bobby is still well-engraved in my heart, but it's not that he looks in this film like, say, Shahrukh Khan, Salman Khan or Aamir Khan look today.<br /><br />That was such a disappointment. Oh, and as for the reason every person actually watched this film, Shahrukh Khan made a good debut. He excelled in the very little his part allowed him to do. The late Divya Bharti made a promising debut as well. If you want to watch this film, go for the second half only. Personally, I would not do even that.

The filmmakers apparently had enough money to be able to afford decent makeup effects, but not enough for a creature that would move around and attack convincingly. We never get a chance to see the "monster" move from one place to another - whenever that happens (supposedly), the camera focuses on the "terrified" reactions of the humans that are nearby. And when a man is attacked by it, he simply seems to be holding an inanimate object against himself so that it won't fall to the ground. This is still not the worst "Alien" rip-off around (the two "Xtro" films are even worse, for example); it's actually sufficiently entertaining if you've got 68 (!!) minutes to spare. (*1/2)

Medellin is a fabulous place to live, work, and study. I've been there twice, and never did I hear anything about guerrilla activities, paramilitaries taking tourists hostage, or anything of the sort. There are "invisible police," but it is *not* a Big Brother system. There are just enough police so that they are visible in everyday life, but they do not hassle someone without good reasons.<br /><br />La Sierra is an interesting documentary in that the youths it depicts in the movie essentially become its characters. The directors of the movie carefully carve out plot lines among the daily actions of the inhabitants of La Sierra, and when a "character" dies, there is genuine pathos. It is difficult to imagine, however, that the three youths are all members of the Bloque Metro, a gang that used to terrorize La Sierra before the Colombian government began to restructure the country.<br /><br />La Sierra is not an accurate depiction of life in Colombia; there are, of course, things to be wary of such as petty crime, but when one considers pickpocketing happens in "modern" cities such as London, New York, or Tokyo, Colombia doesn't seem that different after all. Colombians are eagerly awaiting their chance to show to the world that the once war-torn country is now prospering more than ever.

Buster Keaton was arguably at his most enjoyable when he did short 20 minute films, and they don't come more rib-ticklingly funny than this gem. The dead pan comic gets involved in a photographic mix-up with a wanted felon. This leads to his elaborate evasion of several street cops and fellow passengers who recognise the his face from the "Wanted" signs. The Goat is choc-a-bloc with brilliant site gags, from the opening scene at the bread queue, right up to the wonderful elevator chase at the end. A Keaton film never feels as though its silence is lacking, as sound is never something you needed with him. His movies explain themselves through the wonderful (yet incredibly dangerous) things he did to himself. It isn't hard to see just how influential he really was - the man is every bit as thoroughly amazing today as he was in 1921.

"Subconscious Cruelty" has to be one of the most beautiful films I have ever seen.Still it's extremely grim and gory at times,so fans of politically correct mainstream horror garbage shouldn't bother.The film mixes many wonderful visuals with plenty of sleaze and gore.It is extremely odd,vicious and disturbing,so fans of bizarre cinema won't be disappointed. My favourite segment from "Subconscious Cruelty" is "Human Larvae" which shows us a twisted relationship between a young man and his pregnant sister.The birthing scene is particularly nasty and not easily forgotten.The last segment "Right Brain/Martyrdom" has to be seen to be believed.It's incredibly harsh and blasphemous with scenes of genital mutilation and grisly torture.We see Jesus Christ captured by three naked females who mutilate him,ripping flesh from his chest,licking a wound on his knee and pissing on him.There is also a Jesus statue with a projection of a swastika on it."Subconscious Cruelty" is a truly memorable film that should be seen by fans of extreme cinema.Check it out.

Recap: Since the warrior queen Gedren raised and slaughtered most of Sonja's family, she has trained in the art of sword fighting. Now, Gedren has taken a very powerful talisman, that threatens to destroy the world if not destroyed, killing Sonja's sister in the process. Now Sonja is out for revenge, and to save the world. Along the way, she meets the very Conan-like (but not Conan, no!) Kalidor, the child-prince Tarn and his bodyguard Falcon. At first Sonja declines all help, but is later forced to accept it, and together they go to save the world.<br /><br />Comments: When you watch a movie like this, and you think that it is the story that the is the best element in this movie, the movie is in big trouble. Because 1) a movie like this should draw its strength upon good swordfights and effects, and 2) the story is really, really bad. It is simple, and uncomplicated and really offers nothing in way of character development or even suspense. It is predictable and boring, and the obvious couple, Sonja and Kalidor, has no chemistry at all. And the kid is just annoying. And most of the scenes is drawn out so long that they become boring. Though the movie is not very long, it has not material enough to fill its time. And so back to point 1). The fighting is slow, uneventful and really bad. It clearly shows most fighters clearly blocking the opponents strokes far ahead of the opponent has even begun to strike. In my honest opinion, I believe most kids, fighting with sticks, creates more exciting fights playing knights than this movie did. All in all, this is a really bad spin-off, that should be avoided by all who liked the Conan-movies.<br /><br />2/10

I liked this movie, Although halfway through it, I was able to tell who the secret admirer was.<br /><br />I am also wondering if it was based on a true story since it told about the "real" people at the end of the movie. I guess I will have to research it and let ya know.<br /><br />Does anyone remember what state this happened in? I believe they moved to North Carolina if I'm not mistaken.<br /><br />Of course the states could have been changed to protect the innocent.<br /><br />You would think that this man could have figured it out as easily as I did. Was he stupid or what?

Naach would have won an Razzie for the Worst Film in 2004 (may be overall too) if it were global. When it comes acting badly (aka showing attitude/yawning/over (not) acting) Halle Berry is no match for Antra Malli. While the catwoman had storeline, supposedly hot actress in microscopic costume, and some action sequences, Naach had nothing at all.<br /><br />One of those movies which makes me wonder why IMDb does allow one to rate a movie as 0/10. Yet again, I think that movie does not even deserve a 0. It has to be something negative or minus infinity.<br /><br />OK what about the plot outline? It is a funda-giving, arrogant, full of attitude choreographer meet an useless, skill-less, loafer who aspires to be an actor tale. The story is so short that if just another sentence, IMDb might ban me for writing a spoiler. About the story-telling? Its like a bunch (sorry 2 people for the most part) of people moving in super slow motion. Don't try this movie if you have bought new DVD-player. You would end up believing that either DVD is in bad shape or DVD-player is struck. Not its fault at all.<br /><br />At the end of it all, you end up giving some credits to the director. At least he realized that both Antra Malli and Abhishek Bachan (at least at that time) can't speak dialogues convincingly, so there are not too many dialogues in this movie. So, you can at least sleep your way through the movie, with some annoying noises from those Antra-malli song sequences.<br /><br />Do watch this movie if you are new to Bollywood Cinema. Once you have tolerated this movie, you would be able to see any Bollywood movie and enjoy it.<br /><br />There can't be worse 3 hour torture than this!

Charlie Wilson (Two time Oscar-Winner:Tom Hanks) is a easy-going Congressman... Who loves to party, enjoys the company of woman and especially drinking his booze. When Charlie's old friend and ex-girlfriend Joanne Herring (Oscar-Winner:Julia Roberts) wants Charlie to visit Afghanistan, which that country certainly need of help. Charlie is shocked of what he seen, especially from all different ages are killed or hurt from this war with the Russians. He decides to help the people and the rebels to fight the Russians, who started the war. Charlie, Joanne and one renegade CIA Agent by the name of Gust Avrakotos (Oscar-Winner:Philip Seymour Hoffman) will start a good fight to bring the largest covert operation in history.<br /><br />Directed by Oscar-Winner:Mike Nichols (The Birdcage, Regarding Henry, Wolf) made an lively, entertaining sharp satire war comedy that is based on a true story. Hanks, Roberts, Hoffman in a Oscar nominated performance and Amy Adams as Charlie's loyal assistant are very good in their roles. Despite the excellent true-life premise, "Charlie Wilson's War" never really catches fire and it is not as wickedly funny as you liked it to be. Director Nichols and Screenwriter:Aaron Sorkin (A Few Good Men) keeps things moving and the characters are well liked throughout.<br /><br />DVD has an sharp Pan & Scan (1.33:1) transfer and an good Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. DVD's only special features are the behind the scenes featurette with the cast & crew and a real-life featurette with Charlie Wilson and Others. "Charlie Wilson's War" is a good movie that could have been really great but it's not. But this movie is smart enough to please for those, who enjoyed well written or well acted adult comedies. (*** 1/2 out of *****).

This movie lost me with the crossbow RPG (rocket-propelled grenade). It was like someone cut and pasted a scene from Robocop. I half expected Beowulf to say exclaim, "I LIKE IT!"<br /><br />I watched this because I like Chris Bruno from "The Dead Zone" TV show and he did his part. He chose a strange accent, but at least he kept it consistent for the whole movie -- unlike any of his costars. They kept slipping into all kinds of speech from old English to modern English, sometimes in the same sentence.<br /><br />There are already many comments on how this movie is different from the source material. However, even on its own, this movie's plot is not good. It's just boring, which even the low budget doesn't excuse. Having a low budget means that you need to at least have a good story, dialog and decent acting. Those things don't cost much. Instead, they spent their money on half-assed CGI and some decent costumes and sets.<br /><br />Life is too short to watch this movie.

This movie doesn't even deserve a one. This was an utter waste of time. It was a waste of film and money. It was not offensive but everything was provocative and disgusting. My spoiler is one that I think should be read by everyone. There is full frontal nudity and disgusting language. But not only that, there is NO plot line, the actors are terrible, the accents are horrible, the actors are small time and I was even EXCITED to watch this movie! <br /><br />The only reason I rented it was for Brian van Holt (who got only a fifteen second part, by the way). I think this might have been a mistake on the directors and editors parts but they repeated the same segments two or three times, adding only a new sentence.<br /><br />A film similar to this is Eraser Head, possibly the most disturbing movie in existence. There is no plot line, and is not funny. Although it isn't trying to be funny. DO NOT WATCH EITHER MOVIE.

"Labyrinth of Passion"--with the possible exception of "Matador "--is Almodovar's best film. It displays his unique personality at its best and least-censored, before he started going more mainstream. Almodovar is just about the only modern director that can approach Preston Sturges' wonderful brand of lunacy. It's pointless to try and explain what the movie is about, the real point being Almodovar's willingness and skill in taking his situations to the outer limits of sanity, and sometimes of plausibility and taste as well.

When someone remakes a classic movie, the remake is always unfavorably compared to the original. Also, there's a chance that the remake is so radically different that it is just too unfamiliar to audiences.<br /><br />Well, the 1973 TV version of "Double Indemnity" has almost identical scenes and dialogue as the 1944 original. The main difference is that the remake just seems to have no energy at all. Fred MacMurray was great as the lecherous, leering insurance agent Walter Neff in the original; Richard Crenna just seems world-weary and tired. Edward G. Robinson brought great manic energy to his role as MacMurray's boss Barton Keys; Lee J. Cobb, a fine actor, appears almost bored with the proceedings. Samantha Eggar is all wrong as the conniving, back-stabbing Phyllis Dietrichson; while Barbara Stanwyck was just superb in this wicked role, Eggar is overly polite and mannered and just seems way out of place.<br /><br />Robert Webber, in the old Richard Gaines role as Robinson's boss Norton, and John Fiedler taking the Porter Hall role as the crucial witness, bring some life to the movie. In particular, Webber recreates the Norton role well in a 1970s context.<br /><br />However, after the movie starts, the whole thing just sort of lies there, without any life or electricity. This is one film that never should have been remade.

You talking' to Me? (1987) is a pretty bad movie starring some dude who I have never seen before or since starring as a guy from the neighborhood who tries to become an actor. He has a heavy jones for Taxi Driver as tries to use that shtick to make it big. When he learns the hard facts of life, he does what everyone else does, changes his image! He goes from good fella to a surf's up dude over night. His friend can't believe the change (but he scores with Faith Ford and get's a cool paying gig). Can this young punk keep his street cred whilst making it big?<br /><br />This is a real lame movie that tries too hard to incorporate too many things at once. An interesting idea that falls apart due to poor execution. Who knows, maybe somebody will pick up the ball and run because the film makers fumbled the ball this time.<br /><br />Don't waste your time with this movie. Unless you want to see a hot Faith Ford and a young Bubba from Forest Gump.<br /><br />xx

"A Gentleman's Game" uses the game of golf in a country club setting to illustrate an adolescent's discovery about honesty, prejudice, and other life lessons. Several times I thought I knew where this film was heading, only to be proved wrong. Unfortunately, I'm not so sure that the filmmakers ever knew where it was heading, either. The defining moment in this movie is probably the scene in which Gary Sinise mocks "The Karate Kid" and debunks any notions that he's going to become a mentor to the adolescent golfer. It's refreshing, in a way, that this movie refuses to follow most of the simplistic and over-worked movie formulas. However, too much of it still comes off as contrived. At the drop of a hat people drop all pretenses of civility, or fail to stick up for the things in which they believe, or are exposed for something far less respectable than their place in society assumes. Unfortunately, there is often no resolution to these moments. And except for the fact that the club serves as backdrop for them, there is no real continuity or linking of them. It's a shame that the writers and director could not salvage a better film, especially given some of the talented actors and potential in the setup.

It is one of the worst movies i've ever seen, but Hostel is definitely much more worse. This movie is more funny and ridiculous, than scary. I laughed most of the time when watched it. Low quality effects (when you gonna watch it, you'll understand what i'm talking about and HOW LOW quality is that), bad actors (i hear of them for the first time), and it seems like it's shot by an amateur camcorder (so it looks more like a TV show, than a movie). But at least i've had the patience to watch it till the end. Like comedies? Watch it. Wanna horror? Go watch Ju-On: The Grudge or some other good horror movie.<br /><br />If i'm talking about the Legend of Diablo, i don't even know if i can classify it to a Horror genre. Just some low-budget crap.<br /><br />I rate it 3 out of 10

I was expecting a little something from "K-911", I mean it did look like a cute movie that I could get into. I always did love the dog comedy movies. But it looked like it was supposed to be Jame's movie, not Jerry Lee's. The plot was pretty lame and the two love interests really didn't have chemistry to begin with. Not to mention that James seemed to have a total sexist view in the movie despite the fact the writer wasn't going in that direction. James just really ticked me off for more than half the film. The dogs were the true stars and that's pretty sad that they out shined the actors.<br /><br />So, I'm glad it's not just me on IMDb who agrees that this was a pretty stupid movie. But hopefully, James will realize it was his brother Jim who was the talented one, no offense, but not everyone can be their star sibling. Don't you wish Ashlee Simpson would take that same advice? :D <br /><br />3/10

Jesus Christ, I can't believe I've wasted my time watching this movie. I only watched because I have such a crush on Jordan Ladd. But watching this film almost put me off her. This is absolutely awful! I could have been watching Survivor Series 93 over this.<br /><br />The lead guy in this was so bland and generic. I would love it if the great Mistuharu Misawa Tiger Drove '91'd his ass through a glass window. I was enraging every time he was saying "lake" and "cabin". I'd kick his ass.<br /><br />Jordan Ladd, on the other hand, was absolutely wonderful. A true angel. But she couldn't even save this utter joke of a film. Sadly, she couldn't even act like she was off her nut when she took that truth drug. It looked hilarious.<br /><br />I also loved the bit where Jordan accidentally spilled yogurt on her. It reminded me of a time where...nevermind.<br /><br />Anayways, do watch this film because of it's awfulness.

OK, when I say "wow," I mean, "Jesus, please help me." I have an old VHS copy that was printed before Troma got a copy of the title. The movie is about an alien crash landing on Earth to terrorize us with a gun that blasts people into oblivion. WATCH OUT!!! And by that, I mean watch out for those special effects. There is an amazing number of mistakes. The acting is terrible, but I'd say the only one putting forth any effort would be the Sheriff. The film itself is really grainy and poorly lighted. In one particular scene, it is day outside and then the shot shows the Night Beast shooting his gun with night behind him. Then it shows day again. *Shakes head* I usually like low-budget horror films, but I had to force myself to finish it because I never watch a movie without finishing it. The only accomplishment this film achieved was an alien that wasn't stereotypical. So for that, and ONLY for that... I give it a 3 out of 10.<br /><br />Don't watch this movie if you've had a bad day. You'll be even more depressed at the failed attempt this movie makes.

In this first episode of Friends, we are introduced to the 6 main characters of the series: Monica Geller,Phoebe Buffay,Chandler Bing,Ross Geller, Joey Tribbiani and eventually Rachel Green .<br /><br />We discover that Rachel, a rich girl that is Monica's friend from high school times, left her fiancé, Barry, at the altar, since she discovered she didn't love him. She also decides to live with Monica and become independent from her father,getting a new job as a waitress in Central Perk.<br /><br />Ross, for the other hand,discovered his wife is a lesbian and lost her for Susan, her partner. (We see him moving to a new apartment during the episode)<br /><br />Monica, in this episode, makes out (and eventually sleeps) with Paul "the wine guy", who gave her the excuse of being impotent since he divorced his wife. But in reality, he was just deceiving her.<br /><br />Ps: I just loooove Joey's and Chandler's haircuts in this first season! =)

I love how everyone treats this show like it was the next great American sitcom. I watched five episodes of this abomination, and the only person that came close to an actual teacher was the old guy that sort of loved and hated his job. The rest of them were just pretty people trying to read the lines written by people who never actually went inside of a real classroom. I loved how every episode consisted of the two idiots (one who got laid and the other who didn't) getting into some form of zany trouble that indirectly involved their students. The British girl who thought she found an likable quality in the main idiot, but in the end was somehow shocked that he turned out to be a jackass. The hot chick that was there for the particular purpose of being hot, and the principal and her lackey that served to somehow move the almost non-existent plot forward. I loved how almost all the teachers on this show were very young, but I ask you to think back to your high school days and remember the teachers that you had . . . did they look like that? Or did you go to the high school that had middle-aged people teaching in it? That is the high school that everyone else went to. The show lacked any form of research into what goes on in schools. In public schools, principals do not have the power to higher and fire teachers, the school board does, but in every episode that I watched the principal made threats to fire her teachers. Think back to your history class . . . . . or think of any history class, did you ever see an incredibly hot British chick teach an American History class? No. Did you ever see a teacher's lounge that is so huge that you could actually play basketball in? No.<br /><br />Teachers could have been a great show had it actually of based itself in some form of reality. What makes teaching funny is the stories that you get from interaction with students, and the teachers find it funny because they deal with the students day in and day out. The overemphasis on their lives outside of teaching just made it another four camera sitcom that had unrealistic people in an unrealistic environment saying unrealistic lines, and I'm sorry, I just didn't buy it. The show could have modeled itself after other currently successful sitcoms and used a single-camera format, and it should have centered more around the teacher's relationships with their students and not with each other.<br /><br />It gets a star for trying and a star for the hot chick (she was really hot).<br /><br />In the end, it was a failed sitcom that will go down in history as a hacks attempt to understand a profession. I only hope that if they make another sitcom based on teaching that they learn from their mistakes so that a monstrosity such as this never touches the television screen.

The good news is a movie was made, drawing on a supposed Aztec myth and featuring an unusually Aztec-American (is such a word exists) cast. The bad news is, it was dead at birth.<br /><br />If Ed Wood had come out of retirement and coached George Romaro through his classic 'Night of the Living Dead,' this is what we might have come up with. 'The Legend of Diablo' is clearly fodder for any future resurrections of 'Mystery Science Theatre 3000!'<br /><br />I don't think one can even call this a 'B' movie. The production values are so abysmal that I kept getting the feeling I was watching either a lengthy skit from a variety show or a backyard 8-mm film shot by a group of school kids. <br /><br />SOME SPOILERS<br /><br />The basic plot line sounded interesting enough to lure me into renting it. A rural California sheriff finds a box containing an Aztec demon and accidentally unleashes it on the unsuspecting community. His daughters, one hot and one homely, team with a gringo FBI man and a priest, to try to re-cage the demon. <br /><br />Meanwhile, every zombie scene one has ever seen in previous undead movies is re-enacted-poorly. These zombies walk more like an army of Nutty Professors than the undead! The supposed infrared scenes from the demon's viewpoint are nothing special … and he/she/it sure seems to back up a lot (as opposed to turning around the moving forward). And the scene where the priest lures the demon out of the cave in fast-motion is ludicrous! It really, really appears to be done for comic effect-although I know it wasn't! I kept expecting the Benny Hill theme music to start playing & for the whole gang of zombies to start chasing the priest all over the beach!<br /><br />Of course the Darth Vader/Field of Dreams voice, calling the FBI agent becomes downright comical. Then again, so was most of this cheese ball! Robert Napton, director and writer of the screenplay, should win SOMEthing for this effort! (How about a lifetime blackballing, like the 'Hollywood 10?') This one, I now see, is rated 1.5 on a 10-scale. I fear this might be a tad generous! <br /><br />Is there anything good about this movie? Well, Lindsey Lofaso looks pretty hot as the younger daughter of the dead sheriff. This is probably why her homely older sister (Calvi Pabon) really ran away from home! Fred Estrado is reasonably decent as the FBI agent. I wonder if Mario Soto, who played Father Rodriguez, is the same Mario Soto who pitched for the Cincinnati Reds? If so, he should have stuck to baseball. In fact, they couldn't have done any worse if they had gone with a baseball theme and called it 'Demons in the Outfield!'<br /><br />If I find out this was actually a project for a community college cinema class, I will issue apologies. It might be good enough for a B or even B+ as long as the gang got the college's camcorder back to campus in one piece! 'The Blair Witch Project' proved that a cool, campy movie could be made on a shoestring. 'The Legend of Diablo,' though, didn't appear to have a shoestring OR shoes to work from! It was low-budget, low-talent, low-everything. The very final scene-and I mean about the final 10 seconds of the film-is the ONLY mildly creative or interesting moment.<br /><br />I paid $3.45 to rent this. I could have better spent it on a hamburger!

80's comedies (especially ones with John Cusak) are awesome. Almost all are hillarious and instant classics and this film is no exception. Plenty of nods to other films (i.e. Godzilla and Jaws) through out the movie that are so hillarious you'll be laughing for hours. Some may complain that the movie is a little corny at times but hey it was the 80's and things were always a little cheesy. Throw in a young Demi Moore and an even louder Bob Cat and you have a laughfest on your fans. If you haven't seen this, you better soon!!!!!!

I love this show and my 11 year-old daughter and I LOVE watching it together. It teaches good old fashioned values in a fun, adventuresome and entertaining way (albeit with a somewhat predictable story most of the time). It's also really fun to make fun of...you know, rewind and insert your own dialog, in place of the actors'.<br /><br />I have my DVR set to record all the episodes and I happened to catch the tail end of an episode (just prior to the next one starting...so I don't know what episode it was) but there was an absolutely TERRIBLE sequencing mistake! Adam had handed Sheriff Coffee a small swatch of "leather", which was torn from some outlaw's coat as he tried to make his getaway, I suppose.<br /><br />Well, Roy happened to have the coat, so he laid it out on his desk and placed the swatch right where it had been torn from. The swatch was EXACTLY rectangular...which I reckon would be nearly impossible to tear from a piece of leather (post-1950's Naugahyde? Yes. Leather? I don't think so). Well, the swatch lined up perfectly and the mystery was solved.<br /><br />Not 10 seconds later in the scene, we see the coat again, still lying on Roy's desk. But this time the swatch is more like the shape of North Carolina and is now in a COMPLETELY different place on the coat (but still perfectly aligned with the hole in the coat) and the seam (which WAS smack-dab in the middle of the swatch) is now gone...as is the seam in the coat. My daughter enjoyed a good laugh as we played the short scene over and over and over again! It's prime for youtube, I tell ya!<br /><br />We still totally LOVE the show though and the sequencing errors make it lots of fun!

Bullets may not have bounced off his chest, but The Lone Ranger was every bit the symbolic icon to me as my other boyhood hero - Superman. He represented truth, justice and the American way in a classic TV Western setting, living by the principle that he would never use his gun to kill, while scouring the American Southwest with his faithful Indian companion Tonto to bring every single outlaw to justice. The advent of TV provided the perfect opportunity for a post War generation to find it's ideal in an enigmatic masked man who stood for law and order, while providing unparalleled entertainment for five seasons spanning almost eight years.<br /><br />Today I had the opportunity to view for the first time the complete three part origin episodes start to finish without the standard opening and closing sequences to interrupt the continuity of the story. For fans of the Ranger, this is the grand daddy of all Western sagas, telling as it does how Texas Ranger John Reid survived the ambush by the Butch Cavendish Gang, and how he was nursed back to health by an Indian friend from his childhood. Tonto (Jay Silverheels) declares his companion a 'trusty scout', and names him Kemo-sabe. I've read various interpretations of the origin of the term Kemo-sabe, but I'm satisfied with Tonto's explanation. Reading too much into it just detracts from the story, just like the English translation of 'tonto' from Spanish, which I won't reveal, because it's just better not to know if you can help it.<br /><br />I thought it quite clever how the origin story created the mystique of the Lone Ranger, like the sixth grave that created the illusion that all the Rangers died in the box canyon ambush. You never see the face of the man who becomes the Lone Ranger, as it's always turned away or obscured to hide his real identity. Even the origin of Silver is handled brilliantly; the voice of the story's narrator describing the wild stallion's sterling qualities. Would that relate, say, to sterling..., silver? I got the biggest kick out of that.<br /><br />Of course with the passage of time, watching the Lone Ranger episodes today offers a view of how unsophisticated the show was beyond the origin story. Some of them are almost embarrassingly goofy, particularly when it comes to a Lone Ranger showdown when he shoots into the middle of a crowd of bad guys to knock a gun out of it's owner's hand. And how about that little wave he gives to Tonto whenever they're about to ambush the bad guys - it's always the same gesture, but Tonto always knows what it means in different circumstances. Then you have the episodes where Clayton Moore takes off the Ranger mask to don a different disguise to impersonate another character in service to the story. He even went under cover once as an actor portraying President Abraham Lincoln to uncover a villain, top hat and all!<br /><br />Few fans that I come across ever know that actor John Hart replaced Clayton Moore for the 1952/53 season in a contract dispute that Moore had with the show's producers. If you ever saw that "Happy Days" episode where Fonzie idolizes his boyhood hero, you'll notice it was John Hart listed in the credits. It's difficult actually, to tell if you're watching a Hart episode or not, the key is to listen to the voice; Moore's is so distinctive that it's a dead giveaway.<br /><br />If you ever get the chance to sample some of the final season color episodes, you're in for a treat. The renditions I've seen on VHS are absolutely gorgeous, although I don't know if commercial prints are available. Most of the black and white episodes around have been re-packaged by any number of distributors in different configurations, so getting your hands on those should be no problem. The must see of course is the three part origin, and if you don't watch anything else, this gives you all the flavor and excitement you need to capture the imagination of one of the West's most famous heroes. Hi-Yo Silver, Awaaaay!

LIGHTS OF NEW YORK was the first "all-taking" feature film, coming in at a brisk 57 minutes and directed by Bryan Foy (of the famous vaudeville family).<br /><br />The story has two dopey barbers (Cullen Landis, Eugene Palette) yearning for a chance at "big city life" and getting involved with gangsters and bootleg booze. One of the guys gets framed for the murder of a cop but is saved at the last minute by a gun moll (Gladys Brockwell).<br /><br />Much of the story takes place in a night club called The Night Hawk, which is run by a crook named Hawk (Wheeler Oakman) who has his eye on a pretty chorine (Helene Costello) who is the girl friend of Landis. Costello gets to do a brief dance, and we hear Harry Downing (made up to resemble Ted Lewis) sing "At Dawning) in his best Al Jolson style.<br /><br />The acting ranges from good (Palette and Brockwell) to awful (Oakman). A couple of the actors muff their lines but then keep right on with the scene. As noted elsewhere this was intended to be a short 2-reeler and was made on a shoestring budget. Yet the sound quality is surprisingly good, the voices all register clearly, and there is a neat cinematic touch in the silhouette death.<br /><br />The film was a box-office smash even though it was shown as a silent film where theaters were not wired for the new sound technology. No one expected this little film to gross an amazing $1.3 million. It briefly made stars of Costello and Landis and certainly launched Palette on his long career as a star character actor.<br /><br />Co-stars include Mary Carr as the mother, Robert Elliott as the detective, Eddie Kane as the street cop, and Tom Dugan as a thug.

One thing i can say about this movie is well long, VERY LONG! I actually recently purchased this movie a couple of months ago seeing that there was a new version coming out. I was happy to find that it was made in 1978 because The 70's (even though i never lived in them) is actually one of my favourite decades, especially for the music! when i watched this movie the story was actually very good at the start but then after about 50 mins it started to get very boring and repetitive. i will admitt the animation did impress me! it was nothing i had ever seen before and was well pretty cool to see. but the movie honestly could of been a bit better, it could of had alot more talking and story to it than just 15 to 20 minute scenes that just had wierd fighting. then for the last 5 or 10 minutes the movie picked up and got good again but ended unexpectedly. in my opinion i thought it was EXTREMELY long. i know its 13 minutes over 2 hours and that is still long for a cartoon but since it was boring for most of the movie, it made it seem like it was 4 hours long!!!! but overall it is an okay film i guess and i will watch it again on one of those "nothing to do days". i will see the new one and i hope it is better!