Datasets:

srivatsavaasista

/

textgenerator

like 1

WOW, this movie was so horrible. I'm so glad i didn't have to pay money to see this horrible movie. it was like a history nut went on a coke binge! the previews of it made it look decent but it was REALLY bad. i will say the idea sounded decent but come on. it was really really bad. If u sat down and thought about it you would also realize it was UNREALISTIC. come on back in the day u think they had all that stuff to work with. It wasn't like ben franklin sat down one day and made a damn riddle. it was completely ridiculous, and it you want to see a bad movie then by all means go see this one. All and ALL HORRIBLE movie it might actually be on my top 10 WORST films I've ever seen.

I watched this film, along with every other adaptation I could get my hands on- including seeing plays- in preparation for some academic research. The cinematography is very moving, as is the music. Unfortunately all of the life was taken out of the story. I have never seen such an awful portrayal of Mr. Rochester. All of his most fundamental traits are gone. Where is his wit? Where is his passion? Scott's Rochester more closely resembles Rochester's foil, St.John, than the character from the novel. In fact, the actor playing St.John in this adaptation played a passionate St.John while Scott is content to smash things or just stare at the ceiling (which he does all the time). I have no idea what they were thinking. I would like to give this film a slightly higher vote based on the wonderful music and cinematography but I honestly can't bear to see this film for too long because of George C. Scott's performance.

If there's one cartoon that helped to put UPA on the map more than any other, It's Gerald McBoing-Boing. This tale of a little boy who only speaks in sound effects has kept its charm for the last 57 years. Besides the effects, loved the music, the abstract animation and backgrounds, the narration by Marvin Miller, pretty much everything. And it won the Oscar for Best Animated Short of 1950. Glad to have seen it on YouTube after reading about this Dr. Seuss story for so many years. And Rocky and Bullwinkle creator Bill Scott also contributed, how awesome! Hope to see the subsequent shorts made in the series, if not on YouTube, then maybe in a DVD collection. Now I guess I'll watch another UPA short there...

This wonderfully witty comedy-drama wowed the crowd at the Philadelphia Film Festival, whipping them into wild applause at its conclusion. Buttressed by adept performances by a nuanced cast, sturdy execution by director Jeff Hare, a brisk pace, and one of Peter Falk's best performances in years, the film emerges as a loving homage to the highs and woes of family life.<br /><br />Falk excels as Jewish ninetysomething Morris Applebaum, a wildly eccentric Shakespearean thespian who decides to end his life, but not before rounding up his three grown children and throwing a "big fat Jewish suicide party." The film brims with indelible delights. There's Morris's "tushy room"; Laura San Giacomo's passionate rendering of Morris's cynical daughter; rapid-fire comedic dialogue that recalls the work of Neil Simon and Woody Allen; the wry timing of David Paymer, who plays Morris's tightly wound psychotherapist son; and Morris's patented egg creams (but be careful, drinking them too fast will cause a nasty brain freeze). It's all enveloped in a feel-good, intimate atmosphere set in New York City.<br /><br />Director Jeff Hare proves to be a master craftsman, drawing out memorable performances from his cast and lending the film a mirthful humanity. I was fortunate to see an earlier film by Hare: the dark and powerful "Perfect Little Man," starring Neal McDonough ("Minority Report") as a Los Angeles man spiraling into madness. The visceral grit of "Perfect" and the nostalgic breeze of "Checking Out" are a testament to Hare's eclecticism and wide-ranging talent. I'm looking forward to checking out his future work.<br /><br />I heard "Checking Out" lacks a distributor at this point. Some wise company would do well to pick up this crowd-pleasing gem, for it's a potential box-office titan in the vein of "My Big Fat Greek Wedding." Most nobly, it would give people around the world a chance to experience the joys of this movie.

Caught this film on TCM in the early A.M. It was amazing.<br /><br />Starting out slow but ominously.... Scott is a shady character who preys on women. In this case, two women who happen to be due an inheritance in Southern California.<br /><br />The sets of the beach and neighborhoods of the 1940's are original and intriguing. The title may have been more creative, but the theme and nefarious shadows of human nature are intriguingly exposed, almost in a Hitchcockian version.<br /><br />Scott reminded me of the character Uncle Charley in "Shadow of a Doubt", one of Hitch's reputed favorite films. The audience learns,we truly do not know what lurks in the dark side of the human mind.This film is a displaced gem and well-worth purchasing. 10/10.

Stay Alive has a very similar story to some Asian horror films which include technology on the story.Some of this Asian horror films are One Missed Call,Ringu and Pulse.So,the idea of Stay Alive is very clichéd and obvious but the filmmakers behind it did not know how to put something new or interesting to the clichés in Stay Alive.This film is totally crap.But a very big crap.All the elements of Stay Alive belong to the worst class of ''horror'' films:shallow characters,nothing of suspense,stupid ''horror'' which makes laugh and light violence.It's easy to note that the ''director'' is incapable to create something original or disturbing.I do not wanna loose more time writing about this pathetic film.I just give you an advice:do not see this film.I really hated it.

I found it hard to care about these characters, who were either annoying or insipid, all living their fabulously hilariously urban lives.<br /><br />The dialogue was excruiciating at times, and at other times the narrative seemed hard to follow - was it me or were entire scenes deleted?<br /><br />It felt like a poor sitcom somehow turned into a film. The stereotypes and jokes about "men's groups" would perhaps have been funny in the early 90s. As it is, this is where much of the humour of the film comes from - and boy, does it get old fast.<br /><br />Apart from the attractive Irish man - this film was a dud. And not even in a "so bad it's good way". The last 20 minutes were particularly painful. Perhaps if you've never met any gay people or never thought about homosexuality before, then this film might have something meaningful to say. Otherwise - darlings, you'd still be better off renting The Boys in The Band or Beautiful Thing.

A hilarious comedy by the best director ever, Oz Scott. The list of eighties TV icons goes on and on. Milano (Who's The Boss), Yothers (Family Ties), Stone (Mr. Belvedere), Robinson (Night Court), Jackee (227), D'abo (Wonder Years), Walston (Mr. Hand!!!). It is one of the funniest movies ever. Great lines, meaningless subplots, cheesy, bad acting. It is about a group of high school kids who need to pass drivers' ed. Mac from Night Court needs them to pass their final exam, or he'll be fired. Great performance by Brian Bloom as the jerk/kinda cool guy Riko Conner, but is nothing compared to B.D. Wong's Kiki (pronounced kee-chee). A great movie for all ages, so bad it's good.

One of two movies I have actually thought about asking for money to stay until the end. Most movies have at least one thing that is worth staying for, even if it just to laugh at how bad it is. I never found it for this movie. Nothing was good, from the script, to the very bad effects. The worst movie I have ever seen.

Way back in 1955, the British made a comedy called Simon and Laura, with Peter Finch and the brilliant Kay Kendall. To this day, it stands as one of the finest examples of British comedy and, more particularly, about how television sitcoms become so popular. It was, and is, an excellent example also of self-referential cinema.<br /><br />So also Soapdish, a film I'd never heard about until a few nights ago when I caught it on late TV. I was a bit dubious at first simply because comedy is so difficult to do well, as you know.<br /><br />However, I was pleasantly surprised and delighted to watch a very clever satire about daytime American TV. In fact, it's been a while since I laughed so heartily. So, if you like satire, I'd recommend you see it.<br /><br />The main actors – Sally Field, Kevin Kline, Robert Downey and Cathy Moriarty – quite simply do an excellent job, revealing just how bitchy and shallow the business of acting is. As I watched it, I kept thinking to myself: just how much of this bitchiness carries over into real life? That is, if actors ever do have a real life? As you probably know, Peter Sellers, for example, was notorious for hiding his true persona behind a multitude of characters, so that nobody really knew the real person. So, as I watched Sally Field playing Celeste Talbot playing Maggie, I thought again about that earlier British film with Kay Kendall playing Laura playing a character in a TV sitcom opposite Peter Finch...<br /><br />Is it any wonder that some actors have nervous breakdowns? And that feeling was crystallized when Celeste finally confronts her daughter (Lori, played by Elizabeth Shue) and, in an emotional moment, repeats the fictional lines she'd used, on a prior episode of her daytime soap, when confronting her fictional daughter in that show! Are you confused? Well, it's not all like that, but the dialog is stunning for originality, comedy, bitchiness, anger, depravity, duplicity, and even...love.<br /><br />The story? Well, there are many stories in this film, all interwoven, and which all come together at the end (of course – but not like a Robert Altman film, okay!), and not all of them are resolved finally. Life's not like that anyway, right? The pace is almost frenetic, and you really do have to watch and listen carefully to catch all the sight gags and subtle jokes. Spend the 97 minutes from your life and watch it; you won't regret the time usage.<br /><br />The rest of the cast all perform well, although I've never taken much to Whoopi Goldberg. Perhaps the funniest exchanges are between Robert Downey and Cathy Moriarty and, for my money, the latter steals so many scenes from others, she gets my vote as the outstanding player. I kid you not, she gives the term bitch an entirely new face...

I got this film from a private collector and was very curious about it. It had a 7,8 in IMDb (9 votes only) and some external comments were pleasant. But I have to say that it is a very usual and uninteresting giallo. Yes, great cinematography, the film is well directed, but it never freaked me out. It starts well, but although it not bored me at all, the story is so ordinary and the things that occur so normal, that I didn't like it very much.<br /><br />You can make a few laughs. And you can see some little tits. But if you like the kind of giallos I like (bizarre, surreal, nonsenseful, gory, atmospheric, brutal murders...) you won't appreciate much this film.<br /><br />I give it a 4 for the good directing and editing, and the final twists, that make the film entertaining. But it could be much better.

Bonny Hunt scores a coup with her directorial debut. Minnie Driver and David Duchovny have that indescribable something called chemistry. Sure the plot is unlikely, but that doesn't stop one from enjoying this film. Carroll O'Conner does a great job as Grace's grandfather. Other great character actors play his card buddies. Jim Belushi is hilarious as the down-to-earth husband of Megan, part of the extended family.<br /><br />Faith, family, and marriage are respected. A few sexual references and salty words are used but in context and with gentle humor.<br /><br /> And in the background that wonderful Dean Martin tune--"Return to Me."<br /><br />Recommended.

Absolutely the most boring movie I have ever spent my money on.This was a wrong choice for all these great stars to waste their reputations on. Boring! boring! boring! Each character was portrayed in a less than inspirational way. No acting talent shown -just reading a part. Alec can play realistic characters normally, Gwynyth made herself look ugly for an unrewarding part, Annette needs advise on how to pick the movies she chooses to play in as do all these big stars who have left me disappointed at the way they have all allowed their talents to be smothered in a feature that leaves much to be desired in entertainment. "Running with scissors" leads the public to anticipate great acting in a film that suggests experiencing tension and deep emotion. There was not one moment when the cast was able to portray any interpretation of this onto the screen. Maybe it was the director's fault----whatever.

A question for you : A family go to a new house and get stalked by demonic forces . Which film am I talking about ? Every horror film you`ve seen ? Yes that`s true but that`s not the answer I`m looking for . I`ll narrow it down by saying there`s a lot of teen angst scenes . Doesn`t help ? Well there`s lots of bits where the characters are stalked by a creature and you see the characters through the creature`s POV . No futher forward ? Okay there`s a dream sequence involving lots of blood ? Could still be any horror film you say . Oh gawd this could take weeks so I`ll say the film I`m talking about features loads of Aussies many of whom have appeared in NEIGHBOURS and HOME AND AWAY . Yes that`s right the film is THE THIRD CIRCLE ( aka CUBBYHOUSE ) and do you understand what the above exercise is about ? It`s about me pointing out how THE THIRD CIRCLE is absolutely no different from any horror film that`s been made

Stefan is an x-con that five years ago got married to Marie. Their marriage has been stable until Stefan past catch up with them and he's offered to do a courier job. Stefan's job is a heroin delivery from Germany to Sweden which should go easily.<br /><br />In Germany Stefan meet Elli, a girl from Bosnia that has been sold to a stripclub owner. Stefan dislikes what he sees and decide to help Elli out of her misery. Due to the fact that Elli's father during the war fleed to Sweden Elli now goes with Stefan to Sweden. To make up with the past Stefan promises Elli to help her find her father, no matter what it takes. Finally back in Sweden the whole situation seems to be more complicated than Stefan ever thought of..<br /><br />This movie doesn't seem to fit in the ordinary class of swedish movies due to the fact that it's been americanized alot. Regina Lund and Cecilia Bergqvist makes it all average, the effects makes the movie a little too much though. See it and jugde for yourself.<br /><br />

First, let me say that although I generally appreciate Mike Judge's work, I've been merely tepid in my response to Office Space, King of the Hill, and Beavis and Butthead. I generally prefer more intelligent comedy, and therein lies the irony with respect to Idiocracy.<br /><br />In a future world where the embodiment of Beavis and Butthead's views, basest instincts, and intellectual capacities are the framework of a chaotic, messy, semi-Mad Max semi-Blade Runner society, where every trailer-trash guy's fantasy becomes reality, a man with even average intelligence is threatening and accused of talking gay, and the mob mentality takes over. And this world is also incredibly funny.<br /><br />Yes, it's obvious that Carl's Jr., Starbucks, Costco and Fuddruckers executives will be horrified at the twisted values given their products in the year 2505.<br /><br />There were some missed opportunities with the film, and the relationship between the time travelers - the other being an average intelligence woman who's worried about her boyfriend's (pimp's) retribution - could have been stronger; the chemistry is there. And there don't seem to be too many women in the future.<br /><br />I did leave with a grin on my face, but the experience is a bit better than the memories. Thus, it's my kind of popcorn film, and it will be fun to revisit on video. Recommended! FYI stay through the credits for an extra scene.

Why did I vote 10/10 for this movie that is just completely off guts*? Quite simply because if you just let yourself find it funny, you can just laugh until you choke. Some people might find that it goes too far, it is certainly not for everyone, but whenever I'm down and just need something really really stupid to laugh at, chuck on Bottom or GHP and I can forget all of my troubles and be transported into a magical dark and weird world.<br /><br />*"completely off guts" is an Australian expression, it has no literal translation.

This is one of my favorite films, ever. The story is just so fantastic and the characters are so good. Unlike the other Disney films of the age, this film never bores the audience. 101 Dalmations, Peter Pan, Robin Hood, they were all good, but lack what we have here. This is funny, creative, and always on target. This movie just has an extra something that you can't learn in books. However, this is not the best animated film ever made. That title belongs to the BRILLIANT Toy Story. But this is a respectable second, immediately followed by The Lady and the Tramp.Just see it and enjoy what one of the cinema's greatest achievements. And by the by, I'm not a little kid, this is for the older audiences wanting to recapture their childhood. An absolute must!

this movie wasn't good. i thought it'd be a cute disney movie just like the original. wrong. it was awkward for christina ricci, whom i expect so much more than this, you could just tell by watching. i think doug e. doug did the best he could. sit 5 year olds in front of the this, any older, and they might start to fall asleep.

I saw the *star* of this movie on The Daily Show, and thought I might tune in (the movie premiered on Comedy Central, Then went into theaters). Oh Vey!<br /><br />This makes "Shakes the Clown" look like "Citizen Kane"! Avoid, avoid, avoid at all costs. Not one laugh, not even a grin. This movie will make your face come out in pimples and your eyes burst like the last remants of "Raiders". I can't even think of a worse movie, be it "Manos" or "Ishtar". As the Pythons beckoned, run away, run away! Why did anyone green light this unless they used their own money? The horror is that there is not ONE good line, not ONE good joke, and only ONE bad thing...the making of this movie.<br /><br />I feel that, if made properly, this would have been hilarious. As it is, I need a new pancreas for retching so loud. Damn anyone involved in this travesty.

Maybe the greatest film ever about jazz.<br /><br />It IS jazz.<br /><br />The opening shot continues to haunt my reverie.<br /><br />Lester, of course, is wonderful and out of this world.<br /><br />Jo Jones is always a delight (see The Sound of Jazz as well).<br /><br />If you can, find the music; it's available on CD.<br /><br />All lovers of jazz and film noir should study this tremendous jewel.<br /><br />What shadows and light - what music - what a hat!

This is a very sweet coming-of-age movie, very funny, and Russell Crowe is amazing! Those who know him only from Gladiator will be surprised to see the range of his acting abilities. Arthur Baskin (his character) is one of the best onscreen nerdy virgins I have ever seen1 Watch this movie--how can we get it re-released in NTSC format?<br /><br />

I give it 8 out of 10 because it is a cult classic. Also it is directed by legendary sasquatch hunter Robert W Morgan who also plays the part of Jarvis in the film. In listening to recent blogtalkradio show called the AARF show(Robert Morgan is a co-host)he tells that because it has become such a cult classic and does well at movie conventions and such,there are plans to maybe do a sequel to this film. I think he said that two of the original stars have signed on and he hopes to have a few more. Robert is a good man and I hope it does well. He has devoted 50+ years of tireless work as a Sassquatch Researcher(which is also one of my interests)and author. Check out his show on the paranormal and maybe look for Blood Stalkers II sometime in the near future.

This Movie is really an entertaining, good clean fun movie, for the kiddies. Kaley(played by Nickelodeon's talented Amanda) is the sidekick to a rambunctious boy who has a hard time telling the truth. He eventually works this into a movie script that gets stolen. I won't bore you with the details. If you have children and want to see an entertaining if not thrilling kids movie, I highly recommend this one.

This movie is extremely boring, it tells a story of a female gas station owner and her life. Nothing exciting ever happens. The director has really "kept it real" and it feels just like a camera following a woman around as she lives her life. I had to watch other films by this director for a class, the others were not as boring. This film was also watched for an assignment...it better be worth the boringness with a good grade!! Overall, unless it's required, don't watch the film. But don't discount other films by this director, because they're not as bad...and don't discount other films about Africa, they're usually good, especially when done by a western director.

<br /><br />First of all, I reviewed this documentary because I had an interest in the subject it portrayed, the LA punks.<br /><br />I listened that music and I loved that music and I read a lot of the small zines that were made in the early 80's and that were not so easily achieved in Finland.<br /><br />So if you don't like this kind of music why you write here about it? I like this kind of music, it speaks my soul, thus I know punks from all over Europe & Americas, so why do you, who find this music "repugnant" care to comment at all?<br /><br />

This is a film i decided to go and see because I'm a huge fan of adult animation. I quite often find that when a film doesn't evolve around a famous actor or actress but rather a story or style, it allows the film to be viewed as a piece of art rather than a showcase of the actors ability to differ his styles.<br /><br />This film is certainly more about style than story. While i found the story interesting (a thriller that borrows story and atmosphere from films such as Blade Runner and many anime films), it was a bit hard to follow at times, and didn't feel like it all came together as well as it could have. It definitely had a mixed sense of French Animation and Japanese Anime coming together. Whether thats a good thing or not is up to the viewer. Visually this film is a treat for the eyes, and in that sense a work of art.<br /><br />If you like adult animation, or would like to see a film that is different from most films out at the moment. I would recommend it. All i can say is that i enjoyed the experience of the film but did come away slightly disappointed because it could have been better

This really is the most dreadful film I have ever seen. I simply have no idea how anyone has the audacity to put this on release.<br /><br />The production standards are atrocious. There is no pretence here at cinematography. The camera work, scripting, acting and sound are unbelievably crass. I think there is a plot, but it could have been done in 10 minutes sparing us the time to watch it. The hysterical neurotic girls at the centre of this piece have no credibility whatsoever.<br /><br />I would urge anyone to avoid spending any time or money on this Title. It is truly atrocious.<br /><br />JDD - 14 December 2008

This is such a great film! Never mind the low rating here. I really have no idea where that came from, they must be discussing a different film then. Because I absolutely loved it and found it to be a little hidden treasure. <br /><br />It's story was so original and charming.. I really can't think of anything bad to say about it. Maybe it has to be ''your type of thing'', but, I saw this with my sister and my mother, and we all were taken by it. <br /><br />The acting was also very good, and that is hard to do in a film like this. But I found all the characters very intriguing and sympathetic. <br /><br />I've always been very fond of Dougray Scott and found his new ''dark'' role very interesting. It is really awful hard to get me to like a bad guy, but I absolutely had no problem with that this time. Even more so, I adored him. <br /><br />Everyone who loves a good thriller/drama that also has a good dose of love and tragedy should definitely go see this film, no question about that! Anyone wanting to see a film with 80% bloodshed, should go rent something else, though.. But I guess the title already kind of gives that away. This is a love story, not Saw 3.<br /><br />I give this film 4 out of five stars!!! Good job!!!<br /><br />xxx Enjoy!

Most book adaptations are bad but this film left out key parts of the storyline and changed the description and some characters. They rewired the storyline and combined scenes and changed the order. They added ridiculous things into it that never happened in the book and would never happen.<br /><br />If i hadn't read the book beforehand it would have been an incredibly dull film, it didn't make you care about the characters, like them or dislike them. It turns the characters into jokes.<br /><br />Awful.<br /><br />Ridiculous.<br /><br />Waste of two hours of my life.

I watched this film on ITV and I enjoyed it a lot. It was very watchable and very funny. Julie Walters and Rupert Grint were perfect in their roles. Julie Walters gets a special mention since she creates a wonderful diverse interesting character to watch. Ben's character is kinda shy and Stoic but the changes he goes through are wonderfully acted out by Rupert Grint, I would definitely say he has a future in acting after Harry Potter.<br /><br />Laura Linney is quite good in her role as Ben's over protective mother, the only thing they went wrong with is by making her too....Villain-y. Ben's father was also an interesting contrast to his mother, and in the end he is quite honourable too. The only character i wasn't keen on was Bryony, she was a bit plain and unnecessary i thought.<br /><br />Overall this is a great comedy drama that is very easy to watch. one of my favourite films of the year easily.

I have never known of a film to arouse such debate in my life. Believe me when i say that this film will eventually be remembered as an all-time classic. I was waiting in anticipation for this film as i had previously loved both Lock, Stock.... and Snatch, but after some of the negative reviews i thought i would be very disappointed. I absolutely loved this film and i can't wait to see it again. This film is totally different to both of the aforementioned Ritchie films, and also a lot better. I have my pick of favourite directors but none of them have pulled off a move as great as Guy Ritchie has just done with this movie. I believe he has taken movie-making to another level ( i know most people will be laughing at this comment guaging the reaction to this film, but i believe time will prove me right ). This movie is very confusing and carried on for much longer than the 2hr or so running time as i couldn't stop thinking about it or trying to piece things together. I have now got a pretty good take on everything that happens in this film ( some answers from endless hours of thinking, some answers from reading other people's take on the film )and now cannot wait until Sunday when i will see it again. I just hope people go to the cinema with an open mind and they will hopefully be rewarded as i and many others have been.

It wasn't the most pointless animation film experience ever, but it certainly can't be admired as much as it tries to be good. Combining Dreamworks animation and computer graphics, this is the story of a mustang, later named Spirit (Matt Damon, providing the first person narration), and his journey through across the frontiers of the Old West. Basically he is born free amongst all the other horses in the beautiful countryside, then he is kidnapped to be used as a saddle horse, he manages to throw off all who try to ride him. However when he escapes his cage, along with Little Creek (Daniel Studi), the two of them form a friendship, oh, and he obviously has a thing for Little Creek's female horse. In the end, after a few more escapes, being chased by The Colonel (James Cromwell) and his men, and making a final big leap across a gorge, Little Creek lets Spirit go, and he also releases his female horse, and they run home to their countryside and fellow horses. Also starring Chopper Bernet as Sgt. Adams, Jeff LeBeau as Murphy/Railroad Foreman, John Rubano as Soldier, Richard McGonagle as Bill and Matthew Levin as Joe. I was expecting to see the horses talk in this film, but it turns out to be more like a Dumbo thing throughout, and the songs by Bryan Adams aren't the most engaging, but it isn't a terrible film. It was nominated the Oscar for Best Animated Feature, and it was nominated the Golden Globe for Best Song for Bryan Adams' "Here I Am". Okay!

Will Spanner (David Byrnes, the fifth actor to play the role in the series) stumbles onto another bizarre case, this time involving vampires rather than the usual witches, warlocks & demons (he's at the hospital to check on his friend's son who got hurt in a hit and run when they wheel a girl who's been attacked by a vamp in). He brings in Detectve Lutz to help out with the case which revolves around a clandestine vampire organization trying to get a business merger to go through to let them legally own all the blood banks in the world or some such nonsense.<br /><br />The plot of this movie pretty much takes a backseat to the nudity & simulated sex scenes. (As is to be expected from this series, i guess). So complaining about the lack of good acting, or compelling plot-line, or even convincing characters, I suspect, would fall on deaf ears. If you're watching this film, you don't care about such 'frivolities' and just want some 'action'. Sadly on that front the film fails as well. All the woman are attractive enough but the way the scenes are filmed are just atrocious. Making this more or less an exercise in futility in every conceivable way.<br /><br />Eye Candy: Both Kimberly Blair & April Breneman show everything; Ashlie Rhey shows full- frontal; Aline Kassman & Mai-Lis Holmes only shows their breasts<br /><br />My Grade: D

Bad plot (though good for a B-movie), good fast-paced fight scenes, at most a 5 out of 10. But something has always bothered me about this film: how come Mariska Hargitay never speaks? In the TV version, she shares several intimate moments with Jeff Speakman, even a kiss in a garden. Yet in the regular (video) version, most of her scenes are cut and she never speaks at all. This bothers me because it not only takes out a female (though cliched) point-of-view to the film, it also makes the final shot seem creepy. This film would have been better had they kept her scenes in, because in those scenes at least she has a personality, one that undercuts whatever Speakman says.

There aren't many good things to say at all about Underneath, Soderbergh's untrue endeavor into neo-noir. Soderbergh remakes Robert Siodmak's decent noir Criss-Cross faithfully, not altering the plot very much at all, however the adaptation drains it of every ounce of its state-of-the-art film noir atmosphere, giving it the same story set in the very least appealing places, lifestyles and anachronisms. Soderbergh, who would later make wonderful crime films like Out of Sight and the Ocean's series with great style and atmosphere, takes the dangerously obvious route to modernization by renovating the story with the ugliest, dullest and flattest fashions of the early 1990s. Nightclubs have terrible, revoltingly dressed garage bands, Peter Gallagher's uninteresting version of Burt Lancaster's anti-hero is left by his femme fatale girlfriend for compulsively buying cinematically lifeless modern appliances like stereos, TVs, and other up to date pieces of equipment that suck the reaction out of the film.<br /><br />It could've been more entertaining and less boring had it a few saving graces like a good score, more flesh to its characters, more than just William Fichtner giving performances that aren't wooden, a crisper pace. Unfortunately, Underneath has none of these things. Soderbergh, a fine director, does not utilize his dry detachment to the benefit of his film this time. That disposition works wonderfully when he's helming a crime movie with more tongue in its cheek like the George Clooney pictures previously mentioned, or a social or character drama like Traffic or sex, lies and videotape. With a movie like Underneath, it intensifies the boredom experienced by the viewer.

I read in the papers that W.Snipes was broke so no wonder he would take parts in low budget projects like The Contractor.He is just the next action star to join a growing club:the penniless action stars of the 90s (Van Damme,Segal,Lundgren,Snipes). Here he stars the lead in a cheap action flick which was shot in Bulgaria( we are supposed to believe that the location is London, like only a complete moron would buy that)The story is the one of 1000 other movies: retired special forces good guy gets hired by the government again to do a wet job- after that government wants to get rid of him- good guy gets away after killing bad guys (was that a spoiler? guess not!) The star of the movie: the little girl (Eliza Bennett) outperforms everybody else of the cast!!!One star is for her plus one star for eye candy Lena Headey, makes 2 stars. Only for die hard Snipes fans!Everybody else:avoid!

This movie was amazing!!!! From beginning to end, the movie is packed with fun, laughs, music, enjoyable rock music, hot chicks, more music, action, drama, and the f-bomb.<br /><br />Although some scenes are entirely bizarre and unfitting, they were fun to watch and enjoyable. All in all this movie left you feeling great and happy. Especially those that love rock music.<br /><br />The soundtrack is great, the laughs are plentiful, and the storyline is simple, entertaining, yet complex. You have to see this movie if you love rock music!<br /><br />Overall Vote: 10 out of 10!

I was very disappointed in this movie. Plotwise it was weak bordering on silly: Souls who can affect reality in the way they do? A mission apparently critical to the Soul Hunters entrusted to one of their younger members? And the whole B-story with the "holobrothel" and the lawsuit against the station was so awful that at one point I blurted out to the television, "Why are you wasting my time with this?"<br /><br />Thematically, "River of Souls" didn't really go into the question of the soul in any more depth than the original episode "Soul Hunter" did. We see that Soul Hunters can make mistakes, but we still don't get a feeling for their culture. (Are there any female Soul Hunters?)<br /><br />The acting was okay, given the material they had to work with, and the special effects - especially the planetscapes in the first act - were very impressive. But overall, I'd say give this one a miss.

The real star of this ridiculous story is glorious technicolor. A visual treat to the eye, the film fails to stimulate the mind and heart. I was intrigued, at first, by the idea of Dietrich and Boyer leaving religion in order to "find" their capacity for love. What follows is a huge disappointment. Boyer is the only real actor in the production and one feels his torment. Dietrich's amazing wardrobe outshines her performance -- at times her face is frightening to look at -- a unfeeling mask. As a monk, Boyer held the formula for the monastery's liquer (which reminds me of the true story of Chartreuse) -- when he leaves his "marriage to god" the reaction by his fellow monks holds the shock and fear that perpetuate organized religion. The viewer feels Boyer was well rid of his past. However, the journey that follows is all too predictable.

The shame of it! There I was, comfortable in the arm chair with a beer and a bag of popcorn, bouyant in the hope of another splendid Muppet night of entertainment. What did I get? Disappointed! How can the Muppets go from the sublime Christmas Carol to this? The humour was dreadful, the songs were worse than Country and Western (and that's saying something) and the plot was as confused and poor as Blind Pew. I think the main problem was that they bit off too much in attempting Treasure Island. A short tale, such as Christmas Carol, is perfect because you can weave the Muppet high jinks around it....here the need to drag the plot along stopped all the fun. Where do the Muppets go next? How about Muppets Wizard of Oz?

what a lousy movie, took me 3 times to finish it. The thing i disliked the most was the infantile sense of humor. jokes made by a 10 years old child. not funny. pretty annoying actually, for example when the detective cant get a place at the bar he yells "she's taking it all off" and then they all run "fast foreward" slapstick kinda' rush. so stupid. and also a guy sitting at the bar smashing fruit to work out his post traumatic stress disorder. on the bar! and the bartender is supplying him with more and more fresh fruit. thats supposed to be funny? and i mean ... i love good ol' exploitation gore flicks, and saw a lot of terrible movies, but his one is plain bad. and also the "gore" is not that exciting. don't bother. i wouldn't recommend it.

Second-feature concerns a young woman in London desperate for a job, happy to accept live-in secretarial position with an elderly woman and her son. Thrillers about people being held in a house against their will always make me a little uneasy--I end up feeling like a prisoner too--but this rather classy B-film is neither lurid nor claustrophobic. It's far-fetched and unlikely, but not uninteresting, and our heroine (Nina Foch) is quick on her feet. Rehashing this in 1986 (as "Dead Of Winter") proved not to be wise, as the plot-elements are not of the modern-day. "Julia Ross" is extremely compact (too short at 65 minutes!) but it stays the course nicely until a too-rushed climax, which feels a little sloppy. *** from ****

Me and my friend read the summery and watched the trailer and were very interested and excited to go rent this movie. BAD IDEA. We thought a movie with actors that influential would have been a sure hit, but our expectations fell extremely short. First of all, the trailer and summery are misleading to the point of lies. The movie started out slow for the first 1 1/2 hours(reminder, its about two hours long) and when it finally started to gain momentum, It sucked. Plus, the plots were very hard to follow. It confused us because it kept skipping from one story to another in random order. The characters where not very realistic when it came to reality. Sure the mum and son could be actual people in reality, but everyone else seemed to be one extreme or the other. If your a person who likes sick, twisted, unusual movies, then go for it. But we advise not wasting two hours of you life you cant get back. Unfortunitly, no one told us that...

The Godfather Part I was a stunning look inside the fictional Corleone family and how an innocent young man was all but forced into circumstances he never wanted to have a part of. The Godfather Part II shows that young man's acceptance of his new role, his desensitization of character, as well as his complete loss of all innocence as he dives deeper and deeper into a life of crime. The first two parts of this saga of this transformation of Michael Corleone make for one of the greatest tragedies in cinematic history.<br /><br />Then, along came The Godfather Part III. Michael Corleone is now the aging Don of the Corleone family. He shows remorse for his previous actions not through subtle behaviors, but by trying to use his powers for good and admitting all his wrongdoings and regrets to others. Very cliche and uncharacteristic of the complex character that is Michael Corleone. Michael's plans to use his powers for good are derailed by an ambitious young disciple and his enemies. Michael's daughter is eventually a casualty of the ongoing mob wars and her death predictably leads to Michael realizing that his entire life as Don has been worthless for he has failed in the one thing that was the reason for putting himself into the position he was in: protecting his family.<br /><br />The Godfather Part II ends with Michael Corleone reaching the lowest of the lows: having his own brother killed. Before Part III was made, the Godfather saga was an emotionally riveting tale of an innocent young man's journey into darkness with the unbelievably tragic end of Michael forgetting his roots and abandoning the one thing that has always mattered most to him and those around him: family loyalty. Part III paints the picture of Michael as a man who is and always has been just a victim of circumstance. This greatly corrupts the meaning of the first two films.<br /><br />The Godfather Part III is a horrible mess of a film that never should have been made. The only solution to the problem that is this final installment of The Godfather movies is to pretend that it does not exist and that the saga actually ends with Michael's shockingly horrible act of having a member of his own family killed.

Many people are standing in front of the house n some women are crying... Men standing in close groups and speaking in hushed up tone... a couple of guys come in and they are discussing how sexy the daughter might look today... soon u will know someone in the house has died... The dead person's wife is worried about preparing food for so many people, her friend sitting beside her gives an idea of making the matters easy by preparing simple roti sabji... One of the dead person's son is speaking with someone over the mobile, Daughter is busy with her makeup... her mother suggests her to wear salwar kameej, but the daughter is more interested in looking good when so many people will be visiting their house and hence prefers jeans and T shirt over salwar kameez... another son asks her mom to finish all the kriyas and also indicates to her that he should not be expected to come early from the office... Then the camera slowly focuses on the dead person... the white cloth covering the face is displaced slightly due to the wind, revealing the face ... Its Anupam Kher... suddenly alarm rings and he gets up from the bed... Is it his dream or a flash back? U won't get an answer until the end of the movie...Well, This is wat comedy is for the director Dibakar Banerjee!!!!! Later u find out this scene has nothing to do with the actual movie and hence making everything obvious that the still described earlier was a dream. Is this a film comedy? Well it is supposed to belong to that category... But it actually does not!!! there is nothing that can be remotely associated with comedy in the movie!!! More over the director gives the message that no one will get justice from Police!!! so everyone must cheat the cheats!!!! or forget about Justice!!!! Music by Bapi-Tutul & Dhruv Dhalla is OK... Nothing much to tell about other sectors... Bad script destroys everything... not even Anupam Kher's performance succeeds in making it at least a paisa vasool...

On first watching this film it is hard to know quite what has happened, but on a subsequent viewing it become more clear. I enjoyed this movie. Dean Cain was excellent in the role of Bob. Lexa Doig's character was confusing to understand, at first, she was out to trap Bob but i really believe she landed up loving him although by then she had broken his heart. Dean Cain's performance was an usual excellent. He gets better with every film he does. My only question at the end of the film was what happened to Bob, Camilla and the baby. It was left for the viewer to decide

If you see the title "2069 A Sex Odyssey" in the video store, BEWARE!! The cover has Tori Wells and three other "80's" porn stars, and has a copyright of 1986. If you're like me (and I hope you're not) you'll think "80's porn? Tori Wells? Alright!" Trickery!! It was made in 1974 and has dubbed German stars! There's nothing inherently wrong with 70's German porn, but it's not my cup of tea, and it's nothing like what the cover leads you to believe you're getting. Once I got past my rage about the blatantly misleading jacket, I watched it anyway. It's a bad, bad movie. Sorry, I guess I didn't really get past the rage.

Despite pretty bad reviews, I just had to give this film a go – it does, after all, star HK super-babe Shu Qi plus 6 other oriental lovelies as a team of all-action cat-burglars. Surely that's worth checking out? Well, as babe-fests go, Martial Angels is hard to beat. The eye candy is top quality. Shu Qi looks as fantastic as always, and of the rest of the girls, Rosemary Vandebrouck and Amanda Strang caught my roving eye in particular.<br /><br />Unfortunately, if one is to judge this movie by any other possible merits, it is an absolute stinker! The story is weak, the action shoddy and the special effects downright pathetic. Director Clarence Fok and Producer Wong Jing have given us a photogenic cast and little else.<br /><br />If Shu Qi is the only reason you're contemplating seeing this one, you would be better off watching Sex and Zen 2 again!

I can't say how many times that one line has made me laugh or how often I've described that scene to folks not familiar with this film. I saw it the year it was released, I was 19. I don't think there were a dozen people in that East Village theater that night. For years I thought we were the only ones who saw it. Nice to see here that others found it as hysterical as I had, and see it's lasting value despite the time gone by. Rent it, buy it or steal it.... a must see.

I saw this film and heard the writer-director, Juan Gerard, speak at the Santa Barbara Int'l Film Festival.<br /><br />All I knew about it was that it was the story of an 8-year-old boy at the time of the Cuban Revolution in 1958 and how it affects his home and family.<br /><br />Its opening scene will bring to mind "Cinema Paradiso". In fact, the film is filled with references to classic films: The Roulette Wheel (Casablanca), "chicken clucking" (Rebel Without a Cause), references to Bunuel, "Touch of Evil"; you'll find more. The homeless man (Georg Stanford Brown)is a reference to Cuban folklore which often uses a black man as a type of Greek chorus.<br /><br />What this film really is is the culmination of a dream. Gerard's wish to honor his family and medium of film that he has loved all of his life.<br /><br />This is the true story of Juan Gerard and all the people in it are real,as are the events depicted. Gerard is actually an architect and engineer (and passionate film lover) but his dream was to make this movie. He and his wife decided to live that dream and Harvey Keitel became an "angel" who believed in Gerard and agreed to produce and star in it. Keitel holds the screen powerfully as the mysterious and secretive grandfather "Che". Brown and Keitel are the only Americans in the cast. Iben Hjejle (High Fidelity) and Gael Garcia Bernal (Y tu Mama Tambien) offer strong support in key roles.<br /><br />Truthfully, the first half of the film suffers from stiff delivery of lines, and some overracting, but stay with it. The last half is much better as the events of the revolution combine for the bittersweet, and honest climax. It is the first effort of Juan Gerard, but it is honest as he is and his passion and heart really come through,in this sincere first effort. I would definitely see it again, and hope that he continues his film career.<br /><br />

This was a highly-hyped movie prior to its release, but turned out to be a dud. I never talked to one person who ever liked this movie. I agree: I didn't like it, either. Perhaps one big reason it wasn't a box office success was that it had nothing but unappealing characters in the story.<br /><br />For awhile there - I don't know if this is still true - I hadn't any movie in which Laura Linney or Dylan Walsh played anything BUT annoying characters.<br /><br />That, and a stupid story, make this film a big disappointment, especially considering that big buildup. Did the filmmakers, with dialog this dumb, really think this was going to be a hit?

This movie was astonishing. It is beyond atrocious. I often get together with a group of friends and go to the movie store to find awful movies to watch for their comedic value. My friend suggested this one, but as we watched it, people began to leave. I really wanted to finish it, just so that I could say that I had, but I was unable to. It's that bad. Horrible running gags, lame acting. The main characters are an annoying dinosaur klutz and Whoopi Goldberg. I would rather watch Costener's The Postman twelve times in a row than see a fraction of this movie again. I think they try to deal with some dinosaur discrimination issues, but the part of the movie that really stands out is the dinosaur constantly knocking things over with his tail, and then guffawing about it. It hurts. Watch it if you're an aspiring masochist, otherwise, leave this one alone.

I had high hopes for this film, even though I had not read the book. Richard Gere and Diane Lane together--should be good already. But the film does not deliver on the promise. I kept waiting for more depth to the characters and there wasn't. I have no problem with the fact that it only took a weekend for them to fall in love. That can happen. But we never really get to know the characters. I would have liked more focus on them. The film reminded me in places of Bridges of Madison County, and that film was far better. I really felt for the characters in that film, and there was a chemistry (much more passion) between Clint Eastwood and Meryl Streep that there wasn't between Gere and Lane. Each of them are very good actors in his or her own right. Simply not the right movie for them together.

Luchino Visconti was light years ahead of his contemporaries. The great directors of Italy of the 40s and 50s were men who understood the medium, but it was Luchino Visconti, a man of vision, who dared to bring a film like to show what he was capable of doing. He clearly shows his genius early on in his distinguished career with "Ossessione", a film based on James Cain's "The Postman Always Ring Twice", which was later made by Hollywood, but that version pales in comparison with what Visconti achieved in the movie. Luchino Visconti and his collaborators on the screen included an uncredited Alberto Moravia, a man who knew about the effect of passion on human beings.<br /><br />The film has been well preserved in the DVD format we watched recently. The film is a must for all serious movie fans because we can see how Visconti's vision translated the text into a movie that rings true in a plausible way, something the American version lacked.<br /><br />What comes across watching the movie, is the intensity which the director got from his key players. The magnificent Clara Calamai does an amazing job as Giovanna, the woman who has married an older man, but when Gino appears in her life, all she wants to do is rid herself of the kind man who gave her an opportunity in life. Giovanna is one of the best creations in Ms. Calamai's achievements in the Italian cinema. The last sequence of the film shows Ms. Calamai at her best in the ironic twist that serves as the moral redemption for the monstrous crime that was committed.<br /><br />Equally excellent is Massimo Girotti, one of the best actors of his generation who appears as Gino, the hunky man that awakens the obsessive passion in Giovanna. Gino is the perfect man for Giovanna, something that Mr. Girotti projects with such ease and sophistication not equaled before in the screen. Mr. Girotti makes the man come alive in a performance that seems so easy, yet with another actor it might not have been so apparent. Juan DeLanda is seen as Giuseppe, the older man who fell in love with Giovanna. In fact, his character rings truer than his counterpart in the American film, where he is seen more as a buffoon.<br /><br />The film is beautifully photographed by Domenic Scala and Aldo Tonti. They gave the film a naturalistic look that was the way Italian directors of the era favored. The original musical score of Giuseppe Rosati is perfect. Visconti, a man who loved opera and was one of the best directors, also includes arias by Bizet and Verdi that fit well in the context of the movie.<br /><br />"Ossessione" is a film to treasure because we see a great Luchino Visconti at the top of his form.

This movie is a 90 minute Ramones concert with brief periods of stupidity and absolute boredom. What kind of high school is this anyway?<br /><br />Unless you are a major Ramones fan, DO NOT and I repeat DO NOT waste your time like I did. This is utterly unwatchable from start to finish. This movie should be called Ramone Fever. Everyone appears to like them in this movie. There is not a plot to be found in this flick. As far as teen comedies go, you are scraping the bottom of the barrel with this one.

The emergence of Quentin Tarantino and his dubious influence on the likes of Guy Ritchie may have triggered the wave of appalling British gangster flicks we've been bequeathed over the past few years, but one of our most famous acting exports only serves to perpetuate the cycle by lending his considerable name to trash like this. I only wish he'd taken a moment to consider before choosing this project for the same reasons of personal gain he admits he often employs. It's not only stifling HIS talent, but possibly the promise of future originality from British films. <br /><br />Not one of this film's characters are likeable or even remotely realistic, and the dialogue consists of the usual empty threats and colourful language. Caine doesn't give the material any more effort than it deserves, either. If this was meant to be in the style of a tragic fall from grace a la "King Lear", it would've helped immensely had I cared about the ultimate fate of the principals, instead of just wishing that they'd get mired in the quicksand of life and dragged under almost immediately.<br /><br />

They give you the set up then bore you to death with a constant cat and mouse chase. The main characters are involved in one constant stand-off where they threaten each other, every five minutes or less. And I'd like to see the police force that would let one of their cops pull off the A. Garcia bit. It's like some local cop walking Charlie Manson out of prison to go get a cup of coffee. Get real!

Basically an endearingly chintzy and moronic $1.50 version of the nifty early 80's subterranean creature feature favorite "The Boogens," this entertainingly schlocky cheapie centers on a nasty, squirmy, wriggling monster who makes an instant meal out of any unfortunate souls foolhardy enough to go poking around the notoriously off limits Gold Spike Mine. Your standard-issue motley assortment of intrepid boneheads -- hectoring hard-nosed mine boss, cute, but insipid blonde babe, feisty lady geologist, boozy, inexplicably Aussie-accented (!) seasoned old mine hand, charmless doofus, hunky, jolly guy, and, arguably the most annoying character of the uniformly irritating bunch, a nerdy bespectacled aspiring writer dweeb who's prone to speaking in flowery, melodramatic utterances -- trek into the dark, uninviting cave in search of gold. Naturally, these intensely insufferable imbeciles discover that the allegedly abandoned mine is the home of a deadly, ugly, multi-tentacled beast who in time honored hoary B-flick fashion proceeds to gruesomely bag the group one at a time. Directed, co-written, co-produced and co-edited with dumbfounding maladroitness by Melanie Anne Phillips, acted with dismaying flatness by a rank no-name cast, further marred by lethargic pacing, a drably meandering narrative, murky, under-lit, eye-straining cinematography, a shivery, redundantly thudding pseudo-John Carpenter synthesizer score, and a cruddy, herky-jerky stop motion animation wormoid thingie that's only quickly glimpsed at the very end of the movie, this extremely clunky, amateurish and hence quite delectably dreadful would-be scarefest commits all the necessary bad film missteps to qualify as a real four-star stinkeroonie.

I just saw Princess Raccoon at the Asian Film Festival in New York. The gentleman who introduced the film congratulated the audience on their fine taste. "You could be at Herbie: Fully Loaded," he said with a smug smile, "but instead you're here to watch Seijun Suzuki's Princess Raccoon." The audience applauded and cheered. Well let me tell you, I would have rather watched Herbie: Fully Loaded twice in a row. Princess Raccoon, an allegedly whimsical musical based on Japanese folklore, easily qualifies for one of the ten worst films that I have ever seen. It is so wretched that its wretchedness actually makes me dislike other Seijun Suzuki films, which is quite a feat.<br /><br />There is such a vast expanse of things wrong with Princess Raccoon that I hardly know where to start. Perhaps its worst faults are being both aggressively unintelligible and mind bogglingly monotonous. If the reels got mixed up or if half of them got lost in shipping the audience would not know the difference. If you don't believe me I dare you to steal a print and have someone run the reels in random order. If you can tell me which one goes where I will give you every penny I have.<br /><br />The first third of the film features a mishmash of scenes, songs (including a cringe inducing rap number), and images that don't seem to be related in any way at all. Horribly integrated computer animation is thrown into the bargain, adding yet another brick to the immense, and rapidly growing, wall of incomprehensibility. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that the writer wrote down any Japanese folklore that came to mind of on a bunch of note cards, stacked them up, shuffled them, dealt the cards out on a table, and then wrote the script according to their order.<br /><br />About thirty-five minutes into the film some semblance of a plot arrives on the scene. Something about a shape-shifting raccoon princess (in human form) and a regular human falling in love. I hoped that this was be a portent of the film being something other than a series of perplexing scenes, but no such luck. The film continues in the same absolutely baffling manner. I wish I had gotten out then, but I was trapped in the middle of a narrow row. In retrospect it would have been worth the awkward scene.<br /><br />I'm exhausted just thinking about the last couple of reels. I spent every moment hoping and praying that it would be over. Every big dolly move, swell in music, or scene that looked remotely like it was concluding things renewed my hopes that the credits were about to roll. For agonizing minute after agonizing minute it went on. And on and on and on. Finally, after dozens of false alarms, it cut to what I was sure must be an abstract pattern over which credits were about to appear. Then, in defiance of all reason, it cut to another scene. How could I forget? The completely unrelated subplot concerning a ninja being captured, urinated on, and boiled in a soup hadn't been wrapped up yet.<br /><br />I'm never going to get those 111 minutes back, but you can spare yourself the pain. Unless you want to taint your memory or future enjoyment of great Seijun Suzuki films like Youth of the Beast and Tokyo Drifter do not see Princess Raccoon. I would have rather spent my time vomiting.

A good, but not great film, "The Great Dictator" is Chaplin's first talkie. It's a good effort, and at times a remarkable satire on Hitler, but unfortunately the moments of Chaplin brilliance on offer here are let down by a tendency to use too much unnecessary dialogue. Yes, Chaplin, the silent screen master, just uses too many words in this film, and his tendency towards writing long speeches and extraneous passages of dialogue would carry over into his other talkie films, such as (better) "Limelight". Still, Chaplin was extremely daring in even making this film and his performance in dual roles is certainly memorable. Paulette Goddard doesn't have the glow she did in "Modern Times" (her off-screen affair with Chaplin was cooling at the time), but she is always worth seeing, and Jack Oakie just about steals the show as a rival dictator to Chaplin's famous creation Hynkel.

Polyester was the very first John Water's film I saw, and I have to say that it was also the "worst" movie I had seen up to that point.<br /><br />Water's group of "talent" included several people who I am sure worked for food, and were willing to say the lines Waters wrote. Every thing about the movie is terrible, acting, camera, editing, and the story about a woman played by 300 lb transvestite Divine was purely absurd.<br /><br />That said, I have to recommend this film because it is very funny, and you won't believe the crap that happens to poor Francine. Her son huffs solvents and stomps unsuspecting women's feet at the grocery store. Her daughter is the sluttiest slut in town. Her husband is a cackling A-hole of a pornographer who does everything in his power to embarrass and humiliate poor Francine.<br /><br />Francine's only friend is played by Edith Massey, possibly the worst actress ever. Edith looks and sounds like she is reading the lines off a cue card and has never seen the script prior to filming.<br /><br />Despite all of Francine's travails, Waters cooks up a fabulous Hollywood ending and everyone (who survives) lives happily ever after.

This is an excellent film!Tom Hanks and Paul Newman performed great!I was really surprised when Newman was beating on his son!That was a great scene and the shooting scenes were staged good.I was very surprised about the end.Rent this film today as it is one of Tom Hanks' best!

The movie adaptation of Heart of Darkness is disappointing, both as a movie and as a representation of Joseph Conrad's classic story. <br /><br />There are several small differences between the book and movie, but that's expected in any book to movie transition. Kurtz dies in a different location; the manager does not accompany Marlow on his voyage; Kurtz's mistress spends much more time with him than in the story. The real issue is the amount of footage that's put into the movie but has no basis in the actual story. For some reason, the director finds the need to "spice up" a few of the scenes, adding drama or actions that seldom make any sense and are always unimportant to the story. Some examples that come to mind are Kurtz's "mistress" beating Marlow over the head and knocking him out. Nothing happens while he's unconscious and Marlow didn't even provoke the attack. A couple hours pass and he wakes up: total waste of time. Kurtz has a pet monkey which, for some random reason, he kills on a whim. Also, when Marlow leaves Kurtz's station, he makes the "noble" decision to leave behind all the priceless ivory he had obtained, for no real reason at all. One other flaw is Kurtz's character. John Malkovich is a terrible choice to play the man who is described as tall and inspirational: a man with a commanding presence. He practically whispers all of his lines which, in a more capable actor's hands, could have been very thought provoking. I can't remove the image of John Malkovich playing a mentally disabled farmhand in Of Mice and Men when I'm watching him botch the role of Kurtz. Over all, I would rate the movie at 3 out of 10 stars. It's a good movie if you've read the book and want to see it in movie form, perhaps to help you visual the scenes, but as a source of entertainment, I would never recommend it.

This is one of the great ones. It works so beautifully that you hardly notice the miscasting of then 37 year old Dana Andrews as the drugstore soda jerk who goes to war and comes back four years later, when he would have been, at most, 25. But then, who else should have played him?

A group of extremely unlikable A-holes are tormented by lame puppets that some elderly douche bag night-watchman has kept locked away in a film vault for twenty years for no reason whatsoever.<br /><br />Many people know this film merely from MST3K's spot-on ribbing of the flick. But I've seen the actual movie and can safely say that yes it's bad, really, REALLY bad. From the one of the most awful 'fight' scenes I've ever witnessed to the stuffed toy 'aliens' that suffer from a lack of motion (I had a My Pet Monster that was scarier) right up to the atrocious acting (I had a My Pet Monster that was more charismatic) However, that being said Rick Sloan's "Vice Academy" films are somehow, and trust me I have no earthly idea how, much worse. That's not to suggest that this film is anything but crap, because it isn't. Just throwing it out there.<br /><br />Eye Candy: no nudity in the movie proper, but there's 2 pairs of tits in the DVD Introduction to the film <br /><br />My Grade: D- <br /><br />Retromedia DVD Extras: Introduction by Jim Wynorski; Stills gallery; and Trailer for this film

Just Before Dawn is one of those really good slashers that send chills down your spine every time you watch it! This movie has great suspense, great acting, very well done camera work (nice job Mr. Lieberman!) which makes a extremely well made slasher! Though low on gore for the 80s, it still has the effect on you after it is over. The opening kill (machete through the crotch) looked so real! And the fist to the mouth death left me stunned! Overall i give this lost classic 10 stars out of 10 stars! if you are looking for a gore-fest, don't look here. but, if you want chills sent down your back, see this one. There are 6 deaths and one of them you don't see but, it leaves you mind to think "how was she killed?" the stranded theme reminded me of 1977's the Hills Have Eyes, which followed kind of the same concept, but in the desert with canninbals. But, still slasher fans, give this forgotten gem, i promise you, you will be staisfied!

Don't be fooled by the silly title folks, this is one sweet ride! A true successor to Tetsuo the Iron Man and Ichi the Killer, this gem starts with a bang and lays the gore on thick until the credits roll. It seems that aliens are taking over people's bodies and modifying them into war-machines, which are then used to fight each other in a twisted game for the amusement of their species. The winner of the battle eats the loser alive. That's mostly it for plot, but who cares when the gore is this good? I have no idea how many buckets of slime were used, but it's disgusting to behold. There is interesting and effective use of stop-motion when the takeovers are in progress, and loving care is lavished on all of the creature and make-up effects. The CGI is a bit limited, but that actually doesn't detract from the overall quality one bit, at least for me. This was truly a fun and stomach-turning film that deserves much praise, and has truly earned its place in the stack of Cult Classics. Find it and watch, you won't be disappointed!

To soccer fans every where -- stay away from this movie. It was so baaaaddd! Lame acting, lame script, lame soccer and no directing! I rented this movie during my stint in Asia and was appalled that this was considered one of the better Singaporean films. It was just nonsensical and thoroughly boring. There are thousands of rich, exciting stories in Asia. Why write a bad story about over the top and stereotypical Singaporeans?

Born, raised, and educated in Scotland, I was appalled at this disgusting portrayal of a man who was no more nor less than a cattle rustler. Worse yet, the thread of the entire movie was sex in one form or another, by implication or verbally. To view it, one would think that 18th century Scotland was populated by a bunch of sex perverts and homosexuals. Lange was a joke acting as the "young" mother at age 49 but Liam Neeson was even worse! Taking a "bath" in a Scottish loch is NOT commonplace as they portrayed him - but, it did give them yet another opportunity to demonstrate how sexually driven we were. Save your money and watch Pinnochio.

So i had low expectations for this movie to start with, but it failed to meet even those. while there were some funny parts, even one or two laugh out loud parts, this movie fell terribly short of what i would call good. the funniest jokes were unexpected and over very quickly, leaving us sitting there going "WTF just happened?" in addition, there were a few jokes that just dragged on and on and on. the part where he falls down the mountain had me yawning. also, the editing was really lacking. there were some poor scene transitions, but that seems to be the style nowadays. It made me laugh, but i wouldn't watch it again, and I'm very glad i waited for it to rent. give it a chance, you might enjoy it, but don't think you are in for anything along the lines of the 40 year old virgin, or Superbad.

This gripping tale of intergenerational love, jealousy and revenge was even more enjoyable to see on DVD years after its PBS broadcast, with a sharper picture and crisper sound. My only reservations are that the plot has a few improbable moments and that some of the stronger Manchester accents are difficult at times. Luckily even missing a word here and there won't spoil the fun: the primary actors are ideally cast. Robson Green brings an enigmatic smile, a go-for-broke temperament and an athletic physicality to his role as a young surgeon who falls hopelessly for the wife of his boss at the hospital where he's just begun to work. Francesca Annis is one of the most striking 50-ish women imaginable; her acting rivals her beauty. (The love scenes between these two demonstrate better than words how little the age difference matters to them!) Each of the supporting characters is sharply drawn and excellently portrayed as well. The mix of pithy dialog and passionate excess makes this a delightful miniseries. As Russell Baker notes in his introduction, you may not be morally improved by viewing "Reckless" -- but you'll have plenty of fun. (The sequel, a part of the DVD box set, provides a wild yet satisfying two-hour denouement. You won't want to miss it if you've enjoyed what came before.)

Here's why the Jane Show won't work. Once again Canadian bonehead producers and writers can't create a sitcom without putting some kind of different spin on it. I guess these people don't watch a lot of T.V. from the U.S. which has the sitcom model down pat. No, here we have to do something different, we have to make the A story absolutely absurd and then have a meaningful B story to try to make up for it. The characters are two dimensional and the story lines are way over the top: Forklift races??? give me freaking break. Here's a little advice for the writers of the show, Don't write funny situations, find the funny in situations. And remember, you have to be born with a sense of humor to write truly funny stuff, not just be an improv monkey.

A scientific experiment designed to create a superhuman being has gone wrong.The creators become trapped in a remote desert outpost,pursued relentlessly and mercilessly by their own creation.James Stockton,the scientist whose research was used despite his protests to create the monster,is called the outpost to help undo the horror that now lurks somewhere within the dark halls.James,together with his son and daughter,soon find themselves trapped inside with the others,trying desperately to survive.And with the outpost sealed from within,there is no way out..."The Outpost"/"Mind Ripper" is highly unoriginal.The sets are pretty claustrophobic and there's a bit of gore.However as a horror it fails miserably on almost all levels.There's zero suspense,the script is weak and filled with big holes and the ending is extremely predictable.So-called master Wes Craven produced this one-I wonder if he is happy with this trash.Joe Gayton directs without any style.The acting is horrible,only Lance Henriksen can act at all.OK,I'm a big horror fan and was bitterly disappointed.Avoid it like the plague-it's just the same old boring crap again!

I actually found this movie 'interesting'; finally one worth my time to watch and rent. It is true... some scenes were over the top on emotionalism, shouting, etc., but what movie doesn't stress its agenda, genre or 'ax to grind'? Almost None! What surprised me is that I read a review elsewhere done by a S.Fran reviewer on another review site, but found his negative review instead a more accurate description of his "own" review of the movie; not of the movie at all. Anyone that watches this movie will realize that it is great to recommend to family and friends; no car chases, Yea!! Being "in" an Italian family myself, I can fully relate to the environment portrayed on the screen. The movie has its tear jerking parts as well. It is what real life can be in such an environment. Nice movie.

i was surprised after watching this piece of crap , if you have seen an episode of TOM and JERRY in which jerry pours some liquid onto him and becomes invisible than you are likely to see the same cartoons with added EROTIC topping a man becoming invisible and doing S*i* is the conclusion of the movie. involving too much sex in a cartoon themed movie doesn't increase its worth :( , and most of all i was surprised when the same cartoon ending was used to show up the Mr.Invisible and that was really awful i must say , flour drops off the rack and our very own Mr.Invisible becomes Visible "watch ZACK and MIRI make a porno" i bet you wont get bored, <br /><br />1/10 from me

I recently bought this movie for three bucks at a garage sale, and while I'm glad I didn't have to pay the usual $19.99 for this DVD, I was pleasantly surprised by how good the film was.<br /><br />It's set up like a horror anthology, broken up into 5 tales, including the 'connector' story which involves four teenagers who's car breaks down a dark, lonely road in the middle of the night. Apparently, these kiddos like horror stories, because that's what they decide to do until morning - tell spooky stories around a campfire. Each character takes their turn telling a story, after which their own story is wrapped up with a nice little twist.<br /><br />The first story, "The Hook" is kinda a waste of time, a bit bland and dull. Luckily, this is not one of the main stories and only lasts maybe 5 minutes. It's intended merely to introduce the film and it's easy to overlook the unoriginality of this piece.<br /><br />The second story, "The Honeymooners" is, eh, okay. It's about - you guessed it - two people on their honeymoon! They're traveling around in an RV headed to Las Vegas. They decide to stop somewhere for the night, but they're quickly warned by a mysterious stranger to leave the location, or risk being attacked by some dangerous, unknown creatures. This story has a pretty good setup, but just merely an 'ok' delivery. Basically, it's fairly entertaining and mysterious till the monsters show up, then it's just kinda iffy.<br /><br />The third story, "People Can Lick Too" is my personal favorite. It involves a young girl who's parents are going out for the night and who's older sis is ditching her for a party. So, she's going to be all alone - a fact she makes known to an internet buddy of hers. Trouble is, that internet buddy? Is not exactly a thirteen-year-old girl. This story's conclusion is slightly less climatic than I might have liked to have seen, but still pretty dang good.<br /><br />The final story, "The Locket" is definitely the one packed with the most atmosphere. Set in a creepy mansion on a dark, rainy night, it's the tale of a young man (played by Glenn Quinn!) traveling around on a motorcycle who stumbles across this house just at the time that he conveniently has a problem with his bike. He meets the mute girl who lives in the house, and falls in love with her at first sight. Unfortunately, not everything is all fine and dandy - and it might have something to do with that locket hanging around her pretty neck...<br /><br />After the stories are wrapped up, we're presented with a twist involving the four teens in the car, a twist which, in retrospect, should have been obvious, but which it didn't really see coming, and it's a quite pleasing conclusion to film.<br /><br />So, all in all, a good movie. Rent it if you can, because unfortunately, I don't really think it has a lot re-watching value. But next time you're in the mood for a vaguely scary litte flick in the same vein as "Tales of the Darkside" or something, grab this movie and some popcorn, turn off all the lights, and treat yourself to this surprisingly nifty little flick.

Eve is an eye opener, because of the great sceneries and the tech-no music in the backgrounds, we hear. This movie shows a good aspect on the human body being God's creation and to considerate about it, viewers can earn better respect on the legendary story of Adam and Eve (either if it's true or just a fairy tale, depending on what we believe) from watching this movie. Actress/model Inger Ebeltoft's impersonation of Eve is so good, there's no good word to describe her performance, and I can't imagine having another actress being Eve. This movie to me, comes in really handy for the type of therapy of stress relief. We'd never fell so relax then before from watching this movie. This movie is a masterpiece, God supposedly wanted this movie to be made in the first place!<br /><br />Mr. Razbin!

Eisenstein's first sound film retells the battle of the ice of 1242, when the Russians under Alexander Nevsky defeated the Livonian knights, eager to bring Russia under Roman Catholicism. Made in 1938, Nevsky can be seen as a piece of propaganda: the Germanic knights, with their sinister (and somewhat goofy) helmets are obvious stand-ins for the Nazis. The butchery by the knights when they enter a Russian town seems a prophetic warning of the massacres of World War II. The film ends with a warning: those who came to Russia with the sword will die by the sword. Made in delicate black and white (somewhat reminiscent of a daguerreotype), it also marked Eisenstein's return to official favor. By the late 1920s, Stalin wanted Soviet filmmakers to stop experimentation and made movies that would be more populist and palatable to the Russian public. That stopped Eisenstein's career in Russia for a decade, and in Nevsky he came back with his more accessible film. Nevsky's strong point is in its second half, which features the battle itself, and it is justly seen as a milestone in movie history: never before (and probably never after) a battle would be so vivid in the screen. Another strong point is Prokofiev's beautiful, haunting soundtrack (using a composer to score a movie was completely unusual at the time). One of its weaker points: the comic relief (in the form of two simpleton Russian warriors trying to woo a beautiful Russian peasant) is really jarring.

Seeing this movie, as I just did for the first time on Turner Classic (which lists it as "Dangerous Female"), can only multiply your appreciation for the 1941 Bogart-Astor version. Ricardo Cortez must have been getting paid by the smirk. I hope he remembered his dentist and his Brylcreem salesman in his will; they made him the actor he was. The women are all good, but no better than that. Well, Una Merkel is a little better. More interesting are the "original" Joel Cairo and Mr. Gutman, who competently deliver many of the individual tics but almost nothing of the set-changing atmospherics of their successors in the roles, Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstreet. Humphrey Bogart and Mary Astor somehow transcended the essential seediness of their characters in the remake; here, Sam Spade and Ruth Wonderley(!) can't. <br /><br />This movie doesn't exactly stink; it lies there like a big slice of ham. Its chief value today is as a reminder that great movies like the '41 "Falcon" don't just happen. On the 1-to-10 scale I rate it a 4, mainly for the camera work and the supporting players.

All the boys seem to be sexually aroused by Mandy Lane. All the girls seem to be jealous of Mandy Lane. But, nothing seems to become of it, and this viewer wonders why? Mandy is beautiful and a magnet to every boy she meets, but we never get to know Mandy or any of the characters in the film. Mandy accepts an invitation, from her student friends, to go to a secluded ranch. Three boys and three girls drink and drug. In the film, the teenagers drink booze like its water, and take drugs to experience a psychedelic trip. And, there is absolutely no sex. In the meantime, the teenagers disappear one by one. But, the others are all drunk and high. Nobody, including those watching the film, cares or is at all concerned. Nobody, including the audience, seems to give a damn. Emmet, a fellow student, is the instigator of the entire event. There is a security guard, Garth (dashingly and handsomely played by Anson Mount), who guards and protects the ranch. Midway through the film, the killer is revealed, the tension is suddenly released like air let out of a balloon. The events are completely predictable, and the film just completely fizzles out. Mandy meets her match, but we don't ever know why--and, at the end of the film, there is still no sex. Does Mandy hypnotize the boys, or does she simply bore all of the boys and girls to their deaths? This absolutely-confused viewer can only conclude that Mandy wishes to get rid of the female and male competition--by killing off the manipulative girls and the nasty boys.<br /><br />Is Mandy worth all of the attention? The director (Jonathan Levine) seems to think so, but this viewer does not. The able cinematographer (Darren Genet) provides some stunning images but, in fact, his focus seems to be on Garth, who is quite the stud. Not all of the boys love Mandy, or do they? If you want to be bored enough to find out how this film winds up, my advice is to sleep midway through film, until you see the temptress Mandy and Garth's bulging crotch. But, don't wait for anything to happen. Yep, you guessed it. Mandy remains a virgin, and there's still no sex. I rank this film a 3 out of 10, but not because of Mandy. Why? Because all of the girls love Garth, and all voyeuristic eyes seem to be on Garth in a compromising position. But unfortunately, girls and boys, this film never seems to get beyond a disappointing and incomplete sexual fantasy. Mandy goes to a secluded ranch, and nothing sexual ever happens. The audience is led to horror on a ranch--and cannot help, but wonder why?

seriously, if i wanted to make a movie that makes zero sense, never will, and features lesbian scenes as its only high-point, i could have.<br /><br />david lynch is the worst, as is this movie. anyone could have made a better movie in which at least some answers were given and the story wasn't so slow and long-winded. the story means nothing without something at the end besides the credits. what a waste of time. i will never get those 147 minutes of my life back and hope that others can learn from my mistake.

My Mother Frank begins as a warm, amiable comedy about a middle-aged Catholic woman (Frank, short for Francis, played by Sinead Cusack) who shakes herself out of the doldrums by enrolling as a student in her son's university. Most of her friends and family are horrified, not least her son (Matthew Newton), who is busy falling in love with his best mate's girlfriend (Rose Byrne). Meanwhile Frank has raised the ire of her disapproving English tutor (Sam Neill).<br /><br />Matthew Newton is utterly disarming as David; relaxed and natural in the role, even when the character's uptight. He generates valuable goodwill, steering the audience through some of the film's more awkward, broad comedy moments. Not long after the half-way point, first-time writer-director Mark Lamprell expertly steers his film into darker emotional territory and gives Cusack a real chance to shine.<br /><br />The supporting cast is full of familiar and welcome faces (Lynette Curran, Sacha Horler, Nicholas Bishop) and all the principals (including a more animated than usual Sam Neill) are excellent. While it meanders a little towards the end, My Mother Frank delivers more than it promises and is a genuine Australian crowd-pleaser.

This is the first Guinea Pig film from Japan and this is the sickest, in my opinion. A bunch of guys torture a girl for several days before finally killing her. And at this point, I will say that these films are NOT real! They are faked horror films which try to be as realistic as possible.<br /><br />The scenes are sickening but also unrealistic in many cases. For example, when they kick the girl in the floor, we can clearly see how they kick and stump the floor near the girl! And how stupid this looks! The sound effects are also unrealistic and don't make sense. Other scenes include animal intestines thrown on the girl, the girl exposed to loud noises for many hours, the ripping off of fingernails, worms placed on the wounds in the girl's body, the eye pierced and mutilated in horrific detail and stuff like that. Very sick and mean spirited film and has absolutely nothing valuable or cinematically significant. This first entry is the sickest and most amateurish Guinea Pig, although it is not as bloody as the next part, Flowers of Flesh and Blood, which tries to be as shocking as possible.<br /><br />Guinea Pig: Devil's Experiment is perhaps the sickest thing I've seen and the closest thing to snuff there is. This is still (of course) faked s(n/t)uff, the only difference to genuine "snuff film" is that no one dies or hurts for real in this film. I cannot recommend this to anyone since thi s is so s****y and repulsive. They who consider this is a great horror film understand nothing about cinema and the real meaning of it. I watched this as a curiosity (as the other parts in the series) and now I know how insignificant trash these are. They work only in shock level and that's not too valuable cinematic achievement. Devil's Experiment is perhaps the sickest film I've seen and Mermaid in a Manhole (Guinea Pig 4) is perhaps the most disgusting film I've seen. So these are pretty extreme in my book, but that's all they are.

"Life stinks" is a parody of life and death, happiness and depression. The black and the white always present in our lives. Mel Brooks performance is brilliant as always, and the other actors work is fine too. This movie has some Capra flavor, that´s why is so good.<br /><br />There are some unforgettable gags such as the one when Brooks tries to earn some money dancing in the street, and all the people passing by just ignore him, or when he meets a funny crazy man who believes is Paul Getty and then start arguing and slapping each other.<br /><br />If you haven´t seen it, you don´t know what you´ve missed.<br /><br />This movie tells us about the old and eternal struggle of the poor against the rich. <br /><br />The only difference between this movie and reality is that this movie has a happy ending, and reality hasn´t.<br /><br />Yes indeed, Life Stinks.

Most of the positive comments posted here are as verbose as the movie! It takes a long-winded bore to appreciate a wordy and boring film, one supposes. Some have merely called the film "contemplative", meaning slow and devoid of plot, however, one Dutch reviewer hit the nail on the head: this is an important event turned into a dull film whose tone is set in the very first scene. Here a young couple is being shown an apartment by a Realtor who, predictably, talks non-stop and regardless of what else is going on. So does just about every other character!<br /><br />The only silences in this picture are dream sequences--1930's Soviet propaganda snippets--and they are also its most interesting parts. This tells you something about how watchable the rest of the movie is.<br /><br />The device of filming most of the scenes in extreme closeup--as if one were looking through a crack in the blinds--gets old fast.

This is only the fourth effort I’ve watched from this director (whom I met and found quite genial at the 2004 Venice Film Festival Italian B-movie retrospective) and also, possibly, the worst. As was the case with THE BRONX EXECUTIONER (1989), which preceded it, this is a prime example from the tail end of the Euro-Cult era – prime because it shows the depths to which the previously invigorating style had fallen by this time! <br /><br />Here, in fact, we get a plot revolving around – I’m not kidding, folks – a killer phone! Pretty but bland Charlotte Lewis – in her third film after PIRATES (1986) and THE GOLDEN CHILD (1986) – is a model who, apparently, has just ended an affair; she keeps expecting her architect lover to call her back but, every time the phone rings, all she gets is static accompanied by voices from the beyond (or some such crap). She befriends a new tenant at her apartment block who, conveniently, knows of an authority on paranormal activity (William Berger) – who, hilariously, explains that the negative energy which is unleashed, say, during family arguments can manifest itself via home appliances into a deadly force (I swear I ain’t making this up)! <br /><br />Among the highlights...er...lowpoints of the film are: the grumpy bartender from whose dingy place the heroine calls a couple of times (it seems that the chain-of-events can only be broken by having Lewis go through her paces again, EXTERMINATING ANGEL (1962)-style!), the sheer variety of preposterous-looking phones on display, the apparatus of the heroine’s photographer friend sneaking up on her before the kill, the sarcastic cop who greets Lewis on reporting the strange occurrences (“And what’s the toaster up to, I wonder?”), the would-be rapist killed by a barrage of coins shooting out from a telephone booth, and Berger’s own bloody demise (with the phone affecting the pacemaker he’s fitted with and causing the doctor’s heart to explode)! <br /><br />The film’s climax is rather confusing and, apparently, finally sees all the ‘lost souls’ inhabiting a flock of doves and flying out the window of the ‘possessed’ office (a lonelyhearts service!). For what it’s worth, the score – by ex-Goblin Claudio Simonetti no less – is effective enough, despite the inclusion of dated heavy-metal numbers on the soundtrack.

This is one horror movie based TV show that gets it right. Friday the 13th the series had no connection to the movies. Poltergeist the legacy: I'm not so sure. It may have been loosely connected to the movies. It feels like they just throw a famous title on a show so fans will watch it.<br /><br />It shows Freddy being burned by the Elm street parents(in the 1st episode I believe) and the amount of parents were disappointing. With all the kids he targeted in the 1st 3 movies, you'd expect there to be more parents. But oh well.<br /><br />Freddy is basically the narrator for the show. He watches the actions of people in the real world sometimes getting involved somehow. Just like other anthology shows like Tales from the crypt, there's a supernatural or surprise ending twist involved.<br /><br />The acting lacks but believe it or not: the violence sometimes surpasses that of the movie. This show lasted a couple of seasons and was made around the time of the 4th movie. i heard it was canceled due to protesting parents. I watched a lot of R rated stuff as a kid, so its a shame parents had to ruin it for everyone. 4 more movies came after the series , so it wasn't a total loss.

My question is what was the worst element of this movie? Was it the acting? directing? script?. Maybe it was the waste of Alan Ladd and Jack LaRue. LaRue and, especially, Ladd are capable of bringing extreme sinisterness to a role. In this movie, it was hard to tell who the bad guy was. Granted, Ladd was playing an undercover good guy, but even in his good guy roles, he could be very chilling. So, the net result was a potentially good movie bereft of any feeling of conflict.

Although recognized as the best film treatment of the difficulties of having a house in the country built (or bought) to your specifications, it is not the first, nor the last. In 1940 Jack Benny and Ann Sheridan were the leads in the film version of the comedy GEORGE WASHINGTON SLEPT HERE by George S. Kaufman and Moss Hart. And about fifteen years ago Shelly Long and Tom Hanks had the lead in THE MONEY PIT. The former was about moving into an 18th Century country house that...err, needs work. The latter was about building your dream house - in the late 1980s. Although the two films have their moments, both are not as good as BLANDINGS, which was based on an autobiographical novel of the same name.<br /><br />Jim Blandings and his wife Muriel (Cary Grant and Myrna Loy) are noticing the tight corners of their apartment, which they share with their two daughters Joan and Betsy (Sharyn Moffett and Connie Marshall). Although Blandings has a good income as an advertising executive (in 1948 he is making $15,000.00 a year, which was like making $90,000.00 today), and lives in a luxury apartment - which in the New York City of that day he rents! - he feels they should seek something better. He and Muriel take a drive into the country (Connecticut) and soon find an old ruin that both imagine can be fixed up as that dream house they want.<br /><br />And they both fall into the financial worm hole that buying land and construction can lead to. For one thing, they are so gung ho about the idea of building a home like this they fail to heed warning after warning by their wise, if cynical friend and lawyer Bill Cole (Melvin Douglas, in a nicely sardonic role). For example, Jim buys land from a Connecticut dealer (Ian Wolfe, sucking his chops quietly), with a check before double checking the correct cost for the land in that part of Connecticut. Bill points out he's paid about five or six thousand dollars more for the land than it is worth. There are problems about water supply that both Blandings just never think about, such as hard and soft water - which leads to the Zis - Zis Water softening machine. They find that the designs they have in mind, and have worked out with their architect (Reginald Denny), can't be dropped cheaply at a spur of the moment decision by Muriel to build a little rookery that nobody planned for. <br /><br />The escalating costs of the project are one matter that bedevils Jim. He has been appointed to handle the "Wham" account ("Spam" had become a popular result of World War II, in that the public started using it as a meat substitute, in the light of it's success with the armed forces). Jim can't get a grip on this (he's not alone - one or two other executives fumbled it before him). He comes up with the following bit of "poetry"(?):<br /><br />"This little piggy went to market,<br /><br />He was pink and as pretty as ham.<br /><br />He smiled in his tracks,<br /><br />As they gave him the ax -<br /><br />He knew he would end up as "Wham"!"<br /><br />His Secretary looks at him as though he needs a straight jacket when he reads that one!<br /><br />Jim also is increasingly suspicious of the attentions of Bill to Muriel, although (in this case) Bill is blameless. But he's always around (Jim keeps forgetting that Bill is the clearheaded one, and that he's keeping Jim and Muriel from making so many mistakes). All three have mishaps, the best being when they get locked in a room in the half constructed house, just as the men have left for the day. They can't open the door, and Jim (in a panic) tries breaking the door down by a make-shift battering ram. He breaks a window, and the door opens by itself.<br /><br />The film works quite satisfactorily, with all of the actors apparently enjoying themselves. It is one film which (despite changing price levels and salary levels) really does not age at all. After all, most Americans dream of owning their own home and always have.<br /><br />A number of years ago a paint company made use of a delightful scene with Myrna Loy and Emory Parnell regarding the paint job Parnell's company has to do on the various rooms. She carefully shows the distinct shades of red, blue, etc. she wants - even giving a polite Parnell a single thread for the right shade of blue. The commercials hinted that the paint company had a wide variety of colors to choose from for your paint job. They proudly called Loy "Mrs. Blandings" in the commercials' introduction. You can imagine though how the no-nonsense Parnell handles the situation afterward, when Loy leaves him with his paint crew.

Honestly, at first, I watched this movie because of the gratuitous sex scenes I heard it possesses but by actually watching the film, it just made me realize that there are still good and sensible movies out there. Truly, it is one of the most well-crafted and touching movies I've ever watched. I'm a teenage bisexual and the film spoke to me about my predicaments - sex, religion, love, acceptance, etc. It gave me an idea on how to deal with these issues with the help of my self and others around me who love me for who I am. Cox really handled the movie well by sprinkling dozes of heart-warming lines and a bit of sexuality in it. It made the movie more interesting. Some people compare it to Brokeback Mountain but I don't agree myself. Brokeback Mountain has more drama while Latter Days is well-balanced.

The Tender Hook, or, Who Killed The Australian Film Industry? Case No. 278. This sorry excuse for a period drama takes a cast and idea with potential – Rose Byrne, Pia Miranda, Hugo Weaving, in a Jazz-era gangster drama – and turns it into a sloppily paced and executed soporific. McHeath (Weaving) is a boxing promoter and gangster and functioning illiterate; for no apparent reason he's given to singing Bob Dylan and Leonard Cohen songs before bouts. How post-modern. How stupid. Anyway. There's a boxer, Art (Matthew Le Nevez), who becomes McHeath's latest protégé, over his unfortunately Aboriginal stablemate Alby (Luke Carroll).<br /><br />McHeath's flapper moll Iris (Byrne) makes the goo-goo eyes at him. Sexual tension squelches under the surface. Miranda plays Daisy, a friend of Iris's (these flower girls stick together) who keeps turning up in scenes unannounced. They practice dancing together and talk about "hooking up" with guys. In the 1920s. I stopped counting anachronisms after that. There's a subplot involving Japanese beer and a backstory of Broome pearl fishermen. I don't know what it was all about. For some reason that is not exactly (at all) explained, Byrne puts cocaine in Art's lemonade. McHeath thinks he's a drunk and sacks him. Byrne plots and schemes to help him out again. She's a big one for the plotting and scheming. Most of which causes trouble. McHeath's two gunsels, portly Ronnie (John Batchelor) and Russian Donnie (Tyler Coppin), debate bumping off McHeath when he realises their part in one of Iris's schemes, but Ronnie wimps out when he sees McHeath crying. A lot of practically incoherent scenes get in the road of the film finally ending.<br /><br />Director Jonathan Ogilvie spends a lot of time working with cinematographer Geoffrey Simpson creating some pretty images, but utterly fails to generate a sense of style, which might have compensated for and decorated the wispy, pathetically underpowered script; unfortunately Ogilvie's sense of film grammar, the lack of structuring of the scenes and exposition, is stunningly incompetent. In an early scene, Daisy suddenly appears in the car with the protagonists. How she got there, and indeed who she is, seems to have slipped Ogilvie's mind. There are many more examples of this sloppiness. Where he chases poetic sparseness, he achieves only wan irritation. He gains awkward performances from actors who are normally reliable, badly miscasting Weaving and leaning on Byrne's ability to project a kind of haunted doll-like humanity whilst saddling her with an incomprehensible character.<br /><br />It might not matter so much if the story had more substantial characters and stronger plotting preferably not stolen from a dozen old noir films and festooned with witlessly sprinkled pop-culture quotes. But it doesn't. It's boring.

Yet another Die Hard straight to video rip off with cardboard villains… How many more of these god awful cheaply (and badly) made rip off of the more popular action movies of the late 1980's and early 1990's are there still lurking out there? For the record (not that you will care really) this one is yet another blatant rip off of a combination of Die Hard, Under Siege and Speed 2 complete with a full complement of clichés and predictability.<br /><br />The non descript villains are the usual selection of cardboard cut out gun toting thugs who are dispatched by various means as the film progresses, the hero naturally is an ex cop or something that has family and attitude problems and of course he brings along to the party not only the usual emotional baggage but also a matching piece of eye candy and his annoying son.<br /><br />The supposed luxury cruise liner that is running between Florida and Mexico is carefully described as a cross between a liner and a ferry – this goes someway to explaining how come they appear to be larking around on a rusty cross channel ferry – in New Zealand! The acting is as wooden as the deck, the script woeful, the one liners predictable, the villains utterly inept and the plot has holes in it you could sail a boat through.<br /><br />There seems to be a never ending tide of this sort of rip off straight to video rubbish polluting the late night slots of television and the DVD bargain bins of supermarkets everywhere (although even this film is so bad it has yet to see a DVD release yet but give it time!) Is there any chance of something at least half decently made, semi believable and most important ORIGINAL?!? No, I thought not…..

"The Great Dictator" is, arguably, one of Charlie Chaplin's most widely-known films. It is notorious for it's blatant satire of Adolf Hitler and Nazism. Until watching it, I only knew of it's fame. Now I know how much the film deserves it.<br /><br />The film basically shows the exploits of the somewhat clumsy, ambitious, short-fused and impressive dictator of Tomania, Adenoid Hynkel; and with him, his near and dear staff: Field-Marshall Herring and Herr Garbitsch. Also, it entails the exploits of an amnesiac, emotional and often clumsy Jewish barber, a veteran of the First World War.<br /><br />Stopping with the plot, I would like to say that this film has various qualities that make it both unique and wonderful. While the comedy is decidedly both verbal and slapstick and incidental, the entirety of the film shows how serious it takes Nazism or aggressive nationalism as a theme with various interludes. Chaplin's impeccable acting skills range far and wide in the film, he keeps revving it up and up until he simply explodes. Paulette Goddard's position as an ambitious Jewish would-be revolter and Henry Daniell's delivery of a nasal, calm-as-Death-serious-as-a-heart-attack lines makes for wonderful viewing.<br /><br />Further, one aspect of the film is what makes it so special: it pulls no punches. It isn't "covert", it has no business being covert. It is an "overt", blatant, in-your-face, obvious lampooning of both Hitler and Nazism.<br /><br />To sum up briefly, watch it. Just watch it, you'll see it.

It's another variation on the oft-told tale of two people getting married and having to share their brood of kids. WITH SIX YOU GET EGG ROLL is directed by Howard Morris (from television) and it shows, because it's the kind of tale that plays like a half-hour situation comedy padded out to feature film length--but with a scarcity of laughs, or to put it differently, only the number of laughs that would have been possible within the half-hour limits of a TV show.<br /><br />DORIS DAY decided to call it quits after this film--and it's rather easy to see why. Even the presence of some fairly reliable actors in the cast doesn't help. BRIAN KEITH, BARBARA HERSHEY, PAT CARROLL and ALICE GHOSTLEY do their best, but the script is the real problem and should have been left untouched for the big screen.<br /><br />Nothing much can be said in favor of it. Skip it and see Miss Day in any number of her more worthwhile films.

what the hell was the point of this dull movie? it looked pretty interesting in the beginning but quickly fell flat on its face. its supposed to be based on a true story but for crying out loud is there no more script writers left in Hollywood? man iv'e seen these guys in some of the best movies ever made,defoe can play just about anything and when i see he's in a movie i don't have a problem renting it but I'm starting to wonder.redford also a great actor is also slipping; perhaps their hard up or just losing their senses. the dialog was long and terribly heavy eyed,especially at home with the family.i wonder if the actors thought they had a hit going here? perhaps...uh..an Oscar?

Just as the new BSG wasn't what fans of the original series were expecting, Caprica may not deliver what fans of the new BSG were expecting (for the most part). It is a very interesting, if not somewhat self-involved show, or at least the pilot is.<br /><br />If you're looking for the big CGI thrills of the (new) BSG, you'll be sorely disappointed. If you liked the drama, you'll probably find something you like and maybe even identify with.<br /><br />The storyline does examine on how the Cylons were developed, why Adama hates them and the origins of a monotheistic society. The writers also manage to tackle humans 'playing God(s)' and the creation or re-creation of 'human' life. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.<br /><br />I found it to plod along in some parts and too preachy in others, but all in all it was promising. A small part of me wishes (or hopes) there might be some minor inklings of BSG in there (aside from the back story I mentioned), but that would probably convolute the storyline too much. Like BSG, I'll have to wait and see if Caprica grows on me, but it's way too early to tell.<br /><br />It would really easy to chalk this up as a failure if you compare it to the previous series, but I'm willing to give it a chance. Overall, I thought it was interesting enough to make me see how the actual series is before 'throwing in the (proverbial) towel'.

The mystery and its solution was a great noir conceit. I do have some questions though, maybe I wasn't paying enough attention.<br /><br />Who killed the neighbor and why? Who killed the replacement girl and why?<br /><br />And some minor quibbles, they should have shown the stopoff at the hotel for the switch. Not that they should have shown the switch, but they should have shown Jim and the girl going in the hotel, Jim going to the bathroom, coming out and being told by the bartender that his girlfriend went to the car without him.<br /><br />then, Jim getting back in the car and seeing the sleeping woman, and little girl in his back seat.<br /><br />This would have given the viewer a sporting chance at figuring out the solution.<br /><br />I wish I taped it though, I'd like to see it again.

It's refreshing to see a movie that you think will end happily just like almost every other American movie, and then be surprised when that doesn't happen. I like a happy ending as much as the next guy, but sometimes it's better to portray things in a more realistic manner, and I thought Brokedown Palace did this very well.<br /><br />The ending, with one friend basically sacrificing herself for the other, thus redeeming her earlier poor behavior which got them into the situation in the first place, was very moving. I almost rather would have done without the last line, which proved that she didn't actually do the deed she confessed to, because that would have made the movie more about the friendship between the two girls, and less about the crime. Whether she did it or not wasn't that important.<br /><br />The story itself bordered on the cliché, but the actresses kept my attention with their excellent performances. Very realistic, very captivating.<br /><br />7 out of 10.

This movie starts out with an execution of a practitioner of witchcraft and his mistress. His head is chopped off and buried separately of his body...sounds like "The Thing that wouldn't die" doesn't it? Well it does play out a little like that, but once the body is reunited with the head, all the interesting and gruesome deaths are done and the movie moves very slowly. I mean the movie is only 88 minutes long and I kept thinking "When is it going to end"? The characters in the movie are idiots for the most part and they pretty much deserve to die for being really stupid. The villain is also very bad as he is slow moving and really you wonder how he manages to do anything considering he is afraid of jewelery. The only thing to keep you watching after the head is reattached is the fact that there are so many boobs being flashed that you really begin to lose track. Still I want to see a horror movie, not a soft core porn flick and as a horror movie it is way to slow moving with way to many slow stretches to be even somewhat enjoyable. And don't read the back of the box as it made it out like there were flesh eating zombies attacking the town, there isn't...only a small scene where three or four zombies attack a house and are so easily repelled they are not a factor in the movie at all and their scene is rather pointless. So for the most part I say you should avoid this movie unless you come across it for really cheap.