Datasets:

srivatsavaasista

/

textgenerator

like 1

I agree with the comments regarding the downward spin. The last view shows have been a little better, but surely the writers need some more direction. I think the characters are still interesting, although sometimes they spin into the "white trash" things a little too much. Subtlety and nuance goes a long way on shows like "Office". I would think the target audience is somewhat similar being they are both on the same night and lineup. One would think that Karma and the whole eastern religion thing is a big enough topic to bring some different and interesting shows, but they only scratch the surface of the subject. In my opinion it shows the contempt that many people have in Hollywood about the level of intelligence of the masses. We can handle more heady content. It has been proved before in many other shows.

I first saw this on the big screen with my girlfriend. It was a fun romp with some cool music. Kristine was on the Playboy cover, and the centerfold, as I recall. She's really cute and perky and has lots of charm. The movie made me want to see more of her and so I kept a look out for her in other stuff. She's in Steven Spielberg's "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" and Barbara Streisand's "The Main Event" and Bill Murray's "Meatballs", plus lots of TV shows like Night Court and TV movies. Me and my friends really enjoy her. But her starring role in Alice in Wonderland puts the focus right where it ought to be, right on Kristine as the center of attention, probably the prettiest, hottest girl I've ever seen in movies.

I saw this short film on the dvd for Ridley Scott's film, The Duellists. There was no introduction by Scott before the film, it just started right up.<br /><br /> Boy and a Bicycle is hardly an example of Ridley Scott's other work, it bears no resemblance. The film shows a boy, played by Tony Scott, riding around on a bicycle. Guess what? That's pretty all that happens. The boy rides around, rambling on and on with pointless, confusing dialogue. The film was shot in black and white, and since it was directed by Ridley Scott, I expected some cool cinematography or visually-striking sets. Instead, I was treated with nothing. This film isn't even good for a first effort. However, I recommend that any fan of Ridley Scott should check it out at least once.

Stranded in Space (1972) MST3K version - a very not good TV movie pilot, for a never to be made series, in which an astronaut finds himself trapped on Earth's evil twin. Having a planet of identical size and mass orbiting in the same plane as the earth, but on the opposite side of the sun, is a well worn SF chestnut - the idea is over 2,000 years old, having been invented by the Ancient Greeks. In this version the Counter World is run as an Orwellian 'perfect' society. Where, for totally inexplicable reasons, everyone speaks English and drives late model American cars. After escaping from his prisonlike hospital, the disruptive Earthian is chased around Not Southern California by TV and bad movie stalwart Cameron Mitchell who, like his minions, wears double breasted suits and black polo neck jumpers - a stylishly evil combination which I fully intend to adopt if ever I become a totalitarian overlord. Our hero escapes several times before ending up gazing at the alien world's three moons and wondering aloud if he will ever get home - thus setting up one of those Man Alone in a Hostile World Making a new Friend Each Week but Moving on at the End of Every Episode shows so beloved of the industry in the 70s and 80s ('The Fugitive', 'The Incredible Hulk', 'The Littlest Hobo' etc.) The curiously weirdest bit though was the title sequence. Somewhere between 'Stranded in Space' first airing (under the title 'The Stranger') in 1972 and the MST3K version in 1991 it somehow acquired some footage from the 1983 movie 'Prisoners of the Lost Universe'. So in 1991 the opening credits for 'Stranded in Space' run under a few shots of three people falling into a matter transmitter and vanishing. It's a sequence that has nothing to do - even thematically - with anything that is going to follow.<br /><br />Just to add to the nerdy B movie confusion, one of the actors in this nailed on footage, Kay Lenz, later appeared in a 1994 movie called 'Trapped in Space'. Knowing this fact could never save your life but it might score you very big points and admiring looks from fellow trash movie enthusiasts - if you could ever work out a way of manoeuvring the conversation round to the point where you could casually slip it in without looking like a total idiot...

This is one of Barbara Stanwyck's earlier films and it sure does have an unconventional theme. She's making money by dancing with men at a dance hall. She really doesn't like the work, but it's a living. Her boyfriend seems like a pretty nice guy, but she's also pursued by rich guy Ricardo Cortez. Well, after marrying, it turns out her "nice guy" is a thieving, womanizing weasel and rich Cortez turns out to be a heck of a guy. By the end of the film, Barbara simply has had enough, as any SANE woman would walk from this horrid marriage.<br /><br />In the 1920s and early 30s, Hollywood did pretty much anything it wanted and some of their films had themes or scenes that would surprise many today--such as nudity, adultery and bad language. While TEN CENTS A DANCE isn't a blatant example of this morality, it does have a theme that never would have been allowed after the toughened Production Code was created and enforced starting in 1934. In some ways the Code was great--after all, parents didn't need to worry about what their kids saw in films (such as nudity in BEN HUR, 1925). However, it also tended to sanitize some of the movies far too much--and there is no way this particular film could have been made and approved because it tends to glorify divorce--a serious no-no 1934 and thereafter. This is really a shame, as I don't think TEN CENTS A DANCE was bad at all to discuss this--especially since the star (Barbara Stanwyck) was married to a philandering thief. Even so, allowing the film to end with her divorcing him and marrying a man who himself was twice divorced just couldn't have been.<br /><br />Overall, the film is interesting and thought-provoking. Plus, it was well-paced and suited its relatively short run time. Give this one a look.<br /><br />FYI--Sadly, Ricardo Cortez was actually NOT Hispanic but changed his name because of possible prejudice because he was Jewish. He was an excellent leading man of his time, but today is all but forgotten.

After seeing the Harry Potter movies, I've been a fan of the trio actors Rupert Grint, Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson; yet, we've been waiting to see if they would do other projects besides play the same characters year or every two years of the J.K. Rowling series. Mainly instead of a trio, the cameras and magazine articles concentrate more on Daniel and Emma, being that they're the leading male and only leading female in the saga leaving Rupert dead-end. No matter, every actor has a time to shine and Rupert's light hits him for once in this movie.<br /><br />"Driving Lessons" is called the Harold and Maude of this generation with Rupert Grint playing the role of Ben Marshall, a young British lad who lives with his domineering mother (Laura Linney) and a wimp of a vicar (priest) father for which he wants a job in the summer but can't find work while at the same time taking his driving tests (and failing) and writing poetry for a young girl who doesn't have any interest in him.<br /><br />Ben seeks an ad in a church newspaper for which the job requires to take care of an elderly lady. He takes the job and realizes that he's in for a fun of surprises as Evie (Julie Walters, Rupert's mother in the Harry Potter series) an out-of-work actress who is also a poet giving Ben the run for his money. They bond where and tell each other secrets along with Evie acting like a child and getting into mischief where she drags Ben along for a country road trip. From their not only does Ben drive all the way from Britain to Scotland since Evie needs to recite at a local library, but at the same time an older lady falls for the young man in which Ben starts becoming a man.<br /><br />There is mishap and at the same time rejoice with Ben and Evie along with saying that I was very pleased about the film when it came out in theaters and I was impressed with Rupert Grint's acting, especially if he showed the rest of the world that even though he brings a bit of Ron Weasley within Ben Marshall, there's no stopping the actor on his brilliant performance.

I caught this movie late at night on cable, and I was pleasantly surprised. I can only imagine the reason this movie was not better known, is because the subject matter is very disturbing. But if you can handle the sexual abuse topic, it is a well acted, suspenseful and very interesting movie. Both Richard Gere and Claire Daines are very good in it. And although the subject matter is not for the faint of heart, the movie doesn't go out of its way to be brutal either (like 8mm for instance).<br /><br />I highly recommend it to anyone who enjoys serial killer and suspense type movies.

I rented this movie under the impression that it was "Scarecrow 3:Dark Harvest", thinking it was a continuation in the Scarecrow Slayer series (another extremely laughable and all together awful series of movies). I wasn't disappointed though. It was just as awful, if not worse, than what I expected. I was laughing throughout the entire movie. Every piece of bad acting, poorly shot and cut footage, and terrible special effects is what makes this movie worth renting.<br /><br />The special features include a pathetic view into the cast and crew's six months of filming.<br /><br />Favorite line, "The sins of my forefathers! They've trickled down to this very moment of time!"

If you like bad movies, this one's a real treat. Kaufman & Peters stagger around in robot costumes, escape slavery only to wander aimlessly, and find true robot love. I believe this is the first movie that ever made me consider walking out. I should note I was 12, and could be entertained by shiny objects.

The first thing I wanted to do after watching this film was watch it again (because I'd missed lots with all the laughing I did). I'm European and I've studied abroad and I've as good as lived with Spanish, french, Italian and German people. The film was full of stereotypes, which, more often than not, p*** people off, and reading some of the other reviews I see that it did p*** people off. But, this film gets the stereotypes so right I cannot fault it. Except for maybe the way the french guy became a drunken party animal. The English guy was the perfect "geezer" stereotype. Drunk, annoying, insulting but shines through in the end. As well as the stereotypes the film also got the emotional aspect of studying abroad correct. At first he's shy, doesn't know anybody, misses home, doesn't know his way around. As time progresses it becomes his home and when the time comes to leave, it is extremely difficult. A feeling people can only understand if they've experienced it. I highly recommend this film.

This film is about a family trying to come to terms with the death of the mother/wife by moving to Genova, Italy.<br /><br />The plot of "Genova" sounds promising, but unfortunately it is empty and without focus. The film only consists of a collection of scenes depicting the daily life of the family, such as swimming, taking piano lessons or cooking eggs. Most of such scenes are redundant and tiresome, completely failing to engage viewers emotionally. The ending is very disappointing as it is not spectacular, moving or emotional. I can safely say that I am disappointed and bored by "Genova" The only thing good about the film is the sunny weather and the beauty of Genova. "Genova" can serve as an extended tourism advertisement for the city, but not as a film to be enjoyed.

Yes, 2:37 is in some ways a rip off from Gus van Sants Elephant. It's about some students who are dealing with their problems leading to the suicide of one of them. Yes, it's full of clichés, but that's life. You just can't deny that creepy nerds, disabled persons or popular students who, despite their popularity, do have problems are existing in the real world.<br /><br />But that's not, what this film is all about. It's not about life in Highschool. It's not about the misery of life itself.<br /><br />If you look beneath the surface, beneath the soap-like social relationships that are shown, you will find some gripping, thought-provoking criticism of our society.<br /><br />Why are people committing suicide? Do we really understand their motives? Or are we just trying to understand, after its already too late? And why is it always someone, you would never have expected it to be?<br /><br />This movie doesn't answer this question, but it raises it. And it does so in a very intense way. All the way it keeps you guessing, whose blood it might be, that you see at the very beginning. You are following the paths of some students, all of them having a more or less good reason to end their lives, just to be forced to watch the gruesome act in the finale.<br /><br />Did you know who it would be? Or were you caught by surprise, like in real life?<br /><br />The message is verbalized by one of the surviving kids in the end. We are always so fixed on our own problems, we forget to see those of others. There might be someone, a colleague, a friend, who does not want to live anymore. But, if you don't open your eyes, you'll never know until its too late.<br /><br />This movie delivers well. It might have some flaws, but they don't matter anymore, when its over. Either you see a reflection of society, or you are blind for reality.

The latest Rumor going around is that Vh1 is starting casting calls for I Love New York 3 mid 2008. So does this mean Budah or Tailor made dumped New York or does this mean New York dumped the winner?<br /><br />I know Flavor of Love is coming up to it's 3rd season, so now with a Flavor of Love 3 and a I love New York 3.....will there ever be a true winner???<br /><br />I've also heard a few rumors that Chance WILL be brought back for the 3rd Season of I Love New York!!!! I have also heard rumors that New York will be Specially featured on Flavor of Love 3. <br /><br />Hopefully this was not too much of a spoiler for the ending of I Love New York 2....I'm just stating the latest rumor.

I can't come up with appropriate enough words to describe the horror I felt sitting in that cinema watching Ramgopal Varma Ki Aag, the director's half-hearted attempt to pay tribute to that classic Bollywood western, Sholay. The biggest problem with Varma's remake is that he doesn't even try to make a credible film. It's evident in every single frame of this movie that Varma's heart is just not in it. What you see on screen is a bad joke at best, a gimmick on the part of the filmmaker, and it pains you to see what little regard he actually shows for a film he claims he's been a fan of all his life.I've seen several bad films over the years, but I can't remember one that's been as much of a torture to sit through as this one. Consider yourself very brave if you're able to survive the entire film, because it tests your patience like few films have before.Varma may borrow his plot and characters from the original film, but his version is trite and hollow and doesn't have any of the spirit and energy of Sholay. Ramgopal Varma Ki Aag is actually a mockery of that timeless gem because it turns out to be everything that the original film was not - way-over-the-top, too-long-too-boring, and entirely mindless. Much-loved moments from Sholay are parodied by Varma and for that you want to wring his neck. One of the most memorable scenes in Sholay in which Dharmendra as Veeru climbs up the watertank and threatens to jump down to his death is turned around in this film with Ajay Devgan playing Hero, pulling a pistol to his head threatening to shoot himself. How you wish he'd pulled the trigger and spared us all the agony.Not only does Ramgopal Varma Ki Aag fail as a remake of Sholay, it's a pretty bad effort even as a stand-alone film. The eardrum-damaging background score sounds more like someone clanging vessels in the kitchen, and the camera-work alternates between dramatic and head-spinning. Partners in this terrible crime of bringing this ridiculous film to screen are the film's mostly dead-as-wood actors. Sushmita Sen as Devi the widow takes both her role and the film too seriously, punctuating her lines with pauses, staring into camera for effect, and generally performing like her life depends upon it. Mohanlal as Narsimha, struggles with his Hindi dialogue and looks embarrassed to be delivering some of the stupidest lines in his illustrious career. Newcomer Prashant Raj playing Jai-equivalent Raj has no acting chops to speak of and can't strum up any of the brooding intensity Amitabh Bachchan brought to the part in the original film.As Hero, the new-age Veeru, Ajay Devgan is entirely hopeless, failing miserably in his attempts at comedy. But the film's weakest link, easily the most shocking casting decision is Nisha Kothari as Ghunghroo, who steps into the shoes of Hema Malini as Basanti, the endearing airhead from Sholay. Nisha Kothari is not only the worst actress in this country, but possibly the worst actress in this whole wide world, she gives the word annoying a whole new meaning, and she makes you want to slit your wrists every time she's on screen. And then, there is Amitabh Bachchan playing Babban Singh, Ramgopal Varma's version of Hindi cinema's most popular villain Gabbar Singh. The only actor in this ensemble who recognises the film's over-the-top tone and plays along accordingly, Bachchan constructs a menacing character who is a treat to watch. He's meant to be a comic book villain who snarls and sneers and hisses and hams, and he does all of that to good effect. But because he's trapped in such a doomed enterprise, his performance doesn't really help elevate the film in any way.No surprises here, I'm going with zero out of ten and two thumbs down for Ramgopal Varma Ki Aag, it one's of those painful movie-watching experiences you wouldn't subject even an enemy to. It's not like Varma hasn't handled a remake before. With Sarkar he gave us a smart, gripping take on The Godfather, and it's a pity he's made this Sholay bhature out of such a much-loved classic. Ramgopal Varma Ki Aag is his worst career decision ever, it's also a dark spot on his resume he'll be embarrassed of forever. I suspect this film will go down in movie history as Ramgopal Varma Ka Daag.

The Sunshine Boys is one of my favorite feel good movies. I first saw it when it as the Christmas attraction at Radio City Music Hall when it first came out and loved it ever since. I ended up seeing it 6 times in the theaters, and if it was playing today I'd go out to see it again.<br /><br />Now a lot of the reviews here mentioned the wonderful performances of the leads. Matthau was brilliant, but had the misfortune of being nominated against Jack Nicholson's Oscar winning performance of Randall P. MacMurphy in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's nest. Burns did win, though Richard Benjiman deserved at least to be nominated as well. Even the smallest roles were played to perfection, like Fritz Feld auditioning for the potato chips commercial. <br /><br />Which brings me to my reason for reviewing this film, the direction of the greatly underrated Herbert Ross. Ross who previously brought a two person play, "The Owl And The Pussycat" to the screen and made a full movie out of it, does it again. He opens the plays out without making them look like a photographic stage play. He fleashens out the story and the characters.<br /><br />Here we're 20 minutes into the film before we get to the scene that opens the play, where Ben Clark comes to see his uncle and tell him about the comedy special. Though there are dialogue from the play during the first twenty minutes, the sequence itself is totally new. A few years ago I did see at the broadway revival of the play with Jack Klugman and Tony Randall, which was wonderful. But I think that Ross and screenwriter, playwright Simon improved on it. It's just a wonderful film.

Comparing Oceans Twelve to the 2001 Oceans Eleven, did anyone else notice all the things that stayed the same?<br /><br />- All the stars returned for Twelve, and Zeta-Jones was added;<br /><br />- Twelve had the same director;<br /><br />- Twelve had the same producers;<br /><br />- Twelve had the same production designer;<br /><br />- Twelve had the same music director;<br /><br />- Twelve had the same film editor.<br /><br />Did anyone notice the things than changed once the "Oceans" franchise was established?<br /><br />- Twelve's budget was $25 million (30%) greater;<br /><br />- Eleven got great reviews, but Twelve largely got panned;<br /><br />- Eleven made $450 million but Twelve dropped to $362 million;<br /><br />- Domestic box office for Twelve dropped 32%;<br /><br />- Soderbergh teamed with a different screenwriter.<br /><br />Movies are a director's medium, of course. I almost forgot.

This had a good story...it had a nice pace and all characters are developed cool.<br /><br />I've watched a whole bunch of movies in the last two weeks and this had to be the best one I've seen in the two weeks.<br /><br />Jason Bigg's character was the best though.<br /><br />Even though it was small, it was cleverly crafted from the very beginning.<br /><br />This may be a romantic comedy and I don't like most, but the writing, direction, performing, sound, design overall in all capacity just was really thought out pretty cool.<br /><br />This film scored pretty high out of all the movie's I've seen lately - and the rest were big budget or better publicized.<br /><br />Good job in writing.

Valley Girl is an exceptionally well made film with an all-around great cast. Even though the dialogue is a bit dated now, when the movie was released it was very hip. To this day, I know many people (teenagers included) that cannot form a sentence without using the word "like". That is without a doubt the legacy this movie will leave. A rating of 8 was given for this, like, most excellent movie.

... but watch Mary McDonnell's performance closely. Her body language. Her fine body movements. Her subtle, but powerfully effective, reactions. This is an accomplished artist at the top of her craft. And the rest of the cast were pretty damned good, too! ;o)<br /><br />This is perhaps the 3rd or 4th viewing for me, and I see more in it each time. What /IS/ this world coming to, anyway? -R.

Minnie and Moskowitz is the most pathetic and ungraceful love story I've ever seen. Between Minnie, a disillusioned museum curator whose abusive married boyfriend dumps her and leaves her even more uptight and confused than she already was, and Seymour Moskowitz, a parking attendant so desperate for attention that he spends his nights going to bars and restaurants aggravating people, there is a chaotic and disenchanted match from the start. Just like so many pairings that we see every day.<br /><br />In nearly every love story, there is a man and a woman, the man being confident, funny, either classically hot or attractive in his own way, whose shortcomings are charming, and the woman a wounded soul who could have any man she wants who chooses this guy because there's just something about him. These movies make everyone feel so good because the characters embody what every man and woman wants to be, not what they are. Minnie and Moskowitz, instead of indulging in any hint of fantasy in the realm of romance, depicts people who may just be more common than the attractive, confident people with so much experience playing the field. What's the story behind the love affairs of the ugly, alarmingly awkward man with no life and no job that we all run into, or the woman so crippled by insecurity that it's difficult to talk to her?<br /><br />This film is not as fascinating as Cassavetes's Faces or Opening Night, but it has that riveting quality that Cassavetes always fought so hard to render, which is an unbridled depiction of people underneath the ego that hides behind itself in nearly all other films. Gena Rowlands and Seymour Cassel, delivering startlingly pitiable people, are hardly likable. Moskowitz nearly drives us mad, let alone Minnie. He imposes himself so forcefully in her life, the dates are an explosion of the inner voices of ours that respond to the screamingly inept uneasiness on dates we've all been on, rejections we've all swallowed, and arguments we've all had that we know were our own faults. I admire a film like Minnie and Moskowitz because, as the trademark is with the films Cassavetes helmed himself, it identifies with us in 100% honesty. Our egos play no part in company with his characters, thus a tremendous achievement per performance by actor.

This movie was promising: my favorite actor in a historical drama during the Independence war. It had memories from "Dances With Wolves" for the big prairies, Indians, military fights & from "Barry Lyndon" for the British & candles lights atmospheres...<br /><br />Unfortunately, the script is awful: the continuity of the story is lacking (cuts with "5 months later"; "3 years later") & the romance is so ridiculous that it's hard to believe in it: America is a big country but the characters kept bumping at each other; Above all, wait for the ending & you understand how to kill a story (imagine the same in "Titanic").<br /><br />Sometimes, a bad script is saved by a brilliant filmmaker. Unfortunately bis, Hudson is a poor one. He has already committed "Greystoke" and i find again the same flaws: no dynamic in scenes, in editing, in scoring: it is long, dull, flat....<br /><br />I knew that this movie was a disaster for Pacino's career: now i understand. Finally, this last movie for 2006 is in the vein of this year for me: A painful one...

You loose 100 IQ points just for tuning in. This show has to be awful, I refuse to tune in from just what I've seen in commercials. Where did they dig this guy up at anyway? Also, what do they intend to do next season? The secret is out. Everyone already knows the set up? Are they going to look for people who has been living under a rock to star in next season? Where are they going to dig up more stupid women? No wonder America is a big joke to outsider's,look what you are watching!!

i just saw this film, i first saw it when i was 7 and could just about remember the end. so i watched it like, 10 minutes ago, and (i may seem like a baby as i am 12 ha-ha) i started to cry at the ending, i forgotten how sad it was. i think i was mainly sad for Anne-Marie because she said: 'i love you Charlie' and also: 'i'll miss you Charlie', just made me really cry ha-ha. it has to be one of me favourite movies of all time, it is just a film well worth watching. WATCH IT ha-ha, thats all i can say XD<br /><br />but, i love this film, its a true classic.<br /><br />xx Maverick xx 10/10

dear god where do i begin. this is bar none the best movie i've ever seen. the camera angles are great but in my opinion the acting was the best. why the script writers for this movie aren't writing big budget films i will never understand. another is the cast. it is great. this is the best ted raimi film out there for sure. i know some of you out there are probably thinking "no way he has plenty better" but no your wrong. raptor island is a work of art. i hope it should have goten best movie of the year instead of that crappy movie Crash with a bunch of no names AND no raptors. i believe this movie is truly the most wonderful thing EVER.

Whattt was with the sound? It sounded like it was all dubbed.<br /><br />Otherwise, bad. Plot = bad. Accents = bad (even Dougray, and we live in Scotland), Acting = bad, Harp = bad, Sex scenes - bad/cringeworthy.<br /><br />Still, we watched it until the end in disbelief. How could such a good roll call of actors perform so badly? Will they ever get a decent job again? <br /><br />Bad, Bad, Bad. By the way, we gave it 3 because we at least were enticed to watch it to the end due to its bizarre plot, etc.<br /><br />And to the older reviewer - I totally agree, it was like a romantic farce from the 1940s. How did it get made in 2004?<br /><br />OK, OK, there were some OK bits. They had a nice house in Bristol. Dougray had a nice boat. Jennifer looked nice in a little outfit. But how come the sister got all the men?

I was on France, around March 05, and I love to go to this Film Festivals. I knew about this Cinémas d'Amérique Latine de Toulouse, but I've never went to it. I decided to go and then I caught Cero y van 4. <br /><br />The film is stunning. It doesn't caused the impact on me like with the Mexican users, because it was french-subtitled but it's still shocking.<br /><br />This film is a satire about urban violence, about kidnapping and crime on the streets in Mexico. It is a crude portrait of the city. Of a Metropolis. Secuestro Express, with a stunning Mia Maestro, which was also a satire of kidnapping, almost, but with a more serious tone has, and I think so, some kinda connection with Cero y van 4. A, sort of, redemption story and that how much is too much? Man on Fire, that was stunningly strong, was also, not a satire, but a crude portrait into the streets of Mexico. Or it is like The Brave One. A film that shocks and hits you in the guts very hard. This is like The Usual Suspects, it has some plot twists and turns, but that makes it even more believable. Verdict: A film that shocks and makes you believe that there's no security on the streets anymore. Stunning dialogue, impressive direction and astonishing performances. Cero y van 4 is a film that you won't forget soon. Leaves you shaking and stunned.

Relative to other Columbo movies, this can only be rated a 1 (awful). I seriously do not understand what the other reviewers have seen in this appalling train-crash of a film. It was only through morbid fascination that I continued to watch it - to see what bizarre or inept decision the director would make next.<br /><br />Another reviewer suggested that it was Falk's only directorial outing because it interfered with his acting role. In fact, I think the real reason lies with the studio bosses, who must have been horrified when they saw what he had done with their money. It's a wonder they didn't murder HIM.

I fail to understand why anyone would allow a sub-par director to put drivel like this onto celluloid. This movie has already been made at least two other times that were better than this ("Here Comes Mr. Jordan" - 1941, and "Heaven Can Wait" - 1978). The only saving factor for figure skating fans might have been some nice ice skating done by a professional cast of skaters, but this just does not happen. The closest thing the audience sees to good skating is when Tara Lipinski's character takes a turn on the ice for a just a moment. Others like Nancy Kerrigan and Elvis Stojko are hidden in the background and do not do any figure skating at all. There is not much real emotion shown, and there is not really any reason to tune in to this obviously Made-For-TV Movie. My advice: rent the original.

First off, I have no idea how this movie made it to the big screen. Its not even the low budget SCI-Fi channel movie, its just awful. Me and my friend who love action movies, Independence day, Jurassic Park, LotR, etc. went to see this movie expecting this movie to me a Transformers with dragons, mindless entertainment. All we got was a mindless hour and a half. The CG was not as bad as I was expecting, but the plot is so awful along with the acting, it made up for it. Its basically a Chinese legged of dragons returning every 500 years...Sounds like a good remake of Rain of Fire? No, The plot tries to be deeper than it should be leaving not only plot holes, but with magic, and a very small actual war between dragons(rather big snakes) it just gets ridiculous. The director attempted to add a bit of humor in the movie which fail. Me and my friend laughed through the whole thing(along with all 5 of the audience), and cant believed we spent money on this. The short trailer on TV makes up for most of the action while crap makes up the rest. I've seen a lot of B movies like Reptilian, The Cave, Spider, and others, but i have to say if you want a non stop laugh for an hour, watch this.<br /><br />Story: 1/10 CG: 5/10 Acting:3/10<br /><br />I don't drink...but it would have helped before watching this movie

First off, I knew nothing about 'Mazes and Monster' before I watched it. I had no knowledge of the Role-playing controversy behind it or the fact that it was a Made-For-TV movie. When I looked at the cover (the updated DVD one) I seriously thought it would be another Fantasy adventure like 'Legend', with Tom Hank as the nerdy hero from 1980s earth entering a mythical world to save a princess from an evil maze filled with monsters. Sounds exciting, right? That is what the cover suggests to you at first glance. I was given this movie as a gift, obviously under the same premise because my aunt knows I'm into action movies with a medieval myth theme. And it has Tom Hanks, one of my favorite actors. So I popped this movie in, expecting a feel good movie with Tom Hanks in a 80s special effects world that would be good for a laugh.<br /><br />No! None of this happens. Now before I continue I will confess, I am a nerd but I have no interest in Role-playing games. That is all this movie is about so my interest in the content is lukewarm at best. And M&M (copyright infringement?) is not even a feel good role-playing based movie with lovable geeks that uses their imagination to enter a world of awesomeness. No! This is an Anti-Role-playing movie that must have been made by some Religious folk (the same people who also think Barney is the work of Satan.) I understand, Satan is a crafty fellow but I don't think he is desperate enough for soul to lull RPG lovers into worship him. This movie is THEE anti-gamer movie. This is what I get from this movie: it hates RPGs and not only does it make fun of the people engaging in Role-playing but it makes poor Tom Hanks a mental patient.<br /><br />Tom had an excuse to talk to a volleyball in 'Castaway', poor guy was alone but Tom somehow made his insanity fun and you literally saw the Volleyball as a lovable character through Tom's good acting. I wish I watched that movie instead of this. In this movie, Tom is attacked by a make believe dragon creature (it looks like a poorly made mascot for a RPG team) and has a split personality that is creepy at best. Tom's acting only exceeds to make you feel bad for his character and nothing else. I get that the poor guy lost his brother and is not right in the head because of it so the movie does win points for being intentionally tragic. I am not one for films that exploit mental illness and the ending to 'M&M' made me feel like cr*p. Luckily I watched 'Hudson Hawk' afterwards and got a good laugh before my soul was crushed any further. Yah, 'HH' surpasses 'M&M' by . . . a LOT! This is not one of Tom's better films. In fact it is thee most depressing movie I've ever seen him in (Even 'Saving Private Ryan' is not this depressing). I walked in hoping to watch a feel good movie and I ended up feeling the exact opposite. If you want to watch a sad (both emotionally and visually) movie then by all means watch this. If this movie is to convey a message, it is this: "Don't play RPGs if you are Cuckoo for Coco-Puffs."

Meticulously constructed and perfectly played, To The Ends Of The Earth is a simply astonishing voyage out of our reality and into another age.<br /><br />Based on William Golding's trilogy, these three 90-minute films chronicle the journey towards both Australia and experience of youthful aristocrat Edmund Talbot (Benedict Cumberbatch) aboard an aging man o' war in the early 19th century as he heads for a Government position Down Under.<br /><br />Among the crew and hopeful emigrants sharing his passage are a tempestuous, bullying captain (Jared Harris), a politically radical philosopher (Sam Neill), a canny 1st lieutenant who's worked his way up from the bottom (Jamie Sives) and, fleetingly, the first brush of love in the form of a beautiful young woman (Joanne Page) whose ship literally passes in the night.<br /><br />Quite aside from the astonishing degree of physical historic accuracy, director David Attwood and screenwriters Tony Basgallop and Leigh Jackson have a canny eye and ear for the manners and stiff etiquette of an earlier time, crafting a totally convincing microcosm of the Napoleonic era.<br /><br />Shipboard life is one brutal, monotonous round of seasickness, squalor and danger after another and as Edmund becomes entangled in the loves, hopes and miseries of his fellow passengers he experiences a delirious whirl of life's hardships, Man's inhumanities and his noblest sentiments.<br /><br />Those who enjoyed Master And Commander: The Far Side Of The World or Patrick O'Brian's series of novels on which it was based will love this – for everyone else, it's a whole new world to discover.

In the U.S., very few films have been made about Rome that were not set in the time of Julius Caesar or shortly thereafter. Hollywood's sword and sandal epics mostly have a Christian theme, which makes it difficult to get into earlier Roman history (Spartacus was probably the first exception to this rule, and encountered some resistance in Hollywood because it did not have Jesus in it).<br /><br />It's interesting to see at least one picture that not only takes place before the time of Caesar and Christ, but is set when Rome was only one city among many on the Italian peninsula, and had just ousted the hated King Tarquin and formed the Republic.<br /><br />However, this is not a historical film; it's peplum, and while the production values aren't rock bottom, the acting and characterizations are cardboard. I can only imagine what the dialogue was like in Italian, but with wooden English dubbing it's very campy. I got a few good laughs out of it at first.<br /><br />I haven't seen many films of this genre, having missed most of the Hercules movies of the 60s. It's amusing up to a point, but as the film goes on, it gets somewhat boring.<br /><br />One thing's for sure: if I'd seen this movie when I was ten years old, I would have loved it. At that age, I went for anything with Romans and swordfights in it. So at least, this flick brought back some childhood memories.

Based on Robert Louis Stevenson's St. Ives, the film tells the story of a dashing young French Hussar captain (Jean Marc Barr) during the Napoleonic wars. Captured in battle he is sent to a prisoner of war camp in the Scottish Highlands, run by Major Farquhar (Richard E Grant) In short order he falls in love with a local girl (Anna Friel), strikes up a friendship with the Major, and discovers that his long lost grandfather, who fled from France during the revolution, lives just up the road! Spirited performances from all the cast and some memorable lines make this an above average offering.

This film was basically set up for failure by the studio. One, Anne Rice (author of the book) offered to write the screen play but was refused by the studio. Two, they tried to stuff 2 in depth novels in to a 2hour movie.<br /><br />I maintain the only way for these two books -Vampire Lestat and Queen of the Damned- to work in a live action form would be through a mini-series. First off the the Vampire Lestat alone takes place from the 1700's to the 1980's and has a plethora of character vital to the plot understanding of the main character, Lestat. The entire book Vampire Lestat sets up the events of the second part Queen of the Damned. Without that full understanding the premise of a movie is destroyed.<br /><br />Lestat was not cruel and vicious to all, he was not wanting to go along with Akasha's plans, Marius did not make Lestat, Lestat did not love Jesse or make her, Lestat could not go remain unscathed by the light, Marius was not after David nor the other way around, every character was completely represented wrong, BASICALLY same names different story.<br /><br />If they wanted to make a vampire movie, fine. Even if you wanted to be inspired by these novels, fine. But don't piggie back into the theaters off the success of Rice's great novels and characters just to destroy what her loyal readers have come to love.<br /><br />If you haven't read the books you won't understand the film really, if you have read the books you will be insulted. That being said, I am such a huge fan I had to see the movie knowing full well this was going to be the case and still went for it. Catch 22, must see it, will hate it.

Hey guy, this movies is everything about choices. All the times in your life you must pick something or it just pass away... And this movie prove that! Of course, life in fact is not like a beautiful picture as this movie shows... it not shows indeed but some may figure that. I'm trying to say it's full of pain, love and deep lessons of live. Aaron, the Mormon missionary is the real shepherd digging out the thing beautiful deep inside Chisthian, the skin feeling guy...<br /><br />It's a great end and you do always believe in fate because it will surprise you in a turn or in other of your live like Latter Days...<br /><br />Big deal watch it!!!

A call-girl witnesses a murder and becomes the killer's next target. Director Brian De Palma is really on a pretentious roll here: his camera swoops around corners in a museum (after lingering a long time over a painting of an ape), divvies up into split screen for arty purposes, practically gives away his plot with a sequence (again in split screen) where two characters are both watching a TV program about transsexuals, and stages his (first) finale during a thunderous rainstorm. "Dressed To Kill" is exhausting, primarily because it asks us to swallow so much and gives back nothing substantial. Much of the acting (with the exception of young Keith Gordon) is mediocre and the (second) finale is a rip-off of De Palma's own "Carrie"--not to mention "Psycho". The explanation of the dirty deeds plays like a spoof of Hitchcock, not an homage. Stylish in a steely cold way, the end results are distinctly half-baked. ** from ****

I wasn't quite sure if this was just going to be another one of those idiotic nighttime soap operas that seem to clutter prime time but, as it turns out, this is a pretty good show (no small thanks to talented casting). Four female friends with diverse backgrounds get together and share the weekly goings-on of their love-lives. The hour long program follows each of them separately through their often screwed up quests to find love and it does it without being boring or trite. Sharon Small's "Trudi" is the homemaker one (allegedly widowed after September 11th) who gets a little preachy and annoying with her friends (who tend to be a little looser and more creative in their endeavors). It's great to see Small back on t.v., as she was great in the "Inspector Lynley Mysteries". The chick can act. Orla Brady's character (Siobhan, a lawyer) is perhaps the most damaged but still very sympathetic of the women, as she wrestles with her kind but self-absorbed husband Hari (Jaffrey, formerly of "Spooks") in his driven desire to have a child with her, regardless of her needs. The final two members of the cast are the effervescent Jess (Shellie Conn), an events planner who's a wild child who sleeps with anyone and everyone, gender not specific, and Katie, (Sarah Parrish) a somber doctor who's affair with a patient AND his son have sent her career and love life spiraling out of control. That being said, I'm hooked now and hope that the BBC continues cranking this series out because it's good, it's different and it's got a great cast.

Not sure why the other comment on this film was so negative, but I loved this movie. I am a student of Asian art with a particular love of Korean art, culture and history. I thought this movie borough a very controversial and interesting character to life. Jang Seung-up is one of the (maybe the most) famous Korean artist and continues to be revered as a master. Given the tumult of the time in which he painted and his own conflicted nature, it is amazing that he produced so much work, in so many styles and with such skill. This movie honors his talent while taking a direct look at his erratic and somewhat self-destructive personality. The cinematography in MY opinion was beautiful, many of the outdoor panoramic shots looked like Korean landscape paintings (which I found a lovely conceit rather than "overly arty") and I think that Choi Min-sik portrayed Jang Seun-up with a necessary intensity and unpredictability. I would highly recommend this film to art lovers and movie lovers alike.

My baby sitter was a fan so I saw many of the older episodes while growing up. I'm not a fan of Scooby Doo so I'm not sure why I left the TV on when this show premiered. To my surprise I found it enjoyable. To me Shaggy and Scooby were the only interesting characters *dodges tomatoes from fans of the others* so I like that they only focus on those two. However, this may cause fans of the original shows to hate it. I like the voice acting, especially Dr. Phinius Phibes. I liked listening to him even before I knew he was Jeff Bennett. And Jim Meskimen as Robi sounds to me like he's really enjoying his job as an actor. I also get a kick out of the techies with their slightly autistic personalities and their desires to play Dungeons and Dragons or act out scenes from Star Wars (not called by those names in the show, of course).

The brilliance of this story delivers at least one skillfully crafted message to each viewer in the audience. This story is about success, it's about failure. It's about the choices you make in life and the choices others make for you. The story deals with self realization and determination on a scale so large, no camera angle could cover it. Within the grasp of each scene is resides an element marked for depiction within your imagination. Keep this in mind as you watch the movie; it's more than eye candy. The sexually suggestive, rarely explicit scenes serve only to distract and entertain you during the tedious process of character development.

Ah, the spirit of '68. The streets of Paris were running wild with rebellion, the hippies were high on the spirit of love. How was Britain marking this age of radicalism and revolution? Erm, by the looks of it, dear Old Blighty was focusing on making films about boys in boarding schools. If... contains the evil establishment. It contains the uprising of the oppressed. What it lacks in contrast to the Parisien passion and the hippy headtripping is any sense of excitement, except in its all-out ammo-and-artillery fire ending.<br /><br />Lindsay Anderson's If... stars the ever-marvellous Malcolm McDowell as one of three private school pupils who decorate their dorm with photos of Lenin and other left-wing radicals. It's clearly an anti-establishment movie in its depiction of the evil upper-class oiks who rule the roost and the antiquated autocratic practices of the pish-posh public school standard. What makes If... unusual though is that for all its radical sympathies, it doesn't explicitly give us any sense of great tension between human decency and the despotic school system, instead it just kind of floats: lacking in plot and lacking in personality.<br /><br />Surrealist bits fade in and out occasionally and the film slips from black-and-white to colour again (is it due to the low budget or is it an arty expression?), but there is little of interest to speak of. All we get is the poignant denouement where the young rebels reach for their rifles and shoot down the shady overlords of the establishment. Hooray! A revolution! At last something that demands a second thought unlike the rest of this dull exercise in boarding school daydreaming.<br /><br />If... could have been a powerful political statement, but as it is it drifts and only gathers any sense of direct interest at the end. Instead of being a testament to the dissident zeitgeist of the late-Sixties, it only succeeds in being a dazed document of upper-class British education. Anarchy? Apathy more like, the only man many viewers will want to stick it to after watching If... will be Lindsay Anderson.

"Ardh Satya" is one of the finest film ever made in Indian Cinema. Directed by the great director Govind Nihalani, this one is the most successful Hard Hitting Parallel Cinema which also turned out to be a Commercial Success. Even today, Ardh Satya is an inspiration for all leading directors of India.<br /><br />The film tells the Real-life Scenario of Mumbai Police of the 70s. Unlike any Police of other cities in India, Mumbai Police encompasses a Different system altogether. Govind Nihalani creates a very practical Outlay with real life approach of Mumbai Police Environment.<br /><br />Amongst various Police officers & colleagues, the film describes the story of Anand Velankar, a young hot-blooded Cop coming from a poor family. His father is a harsh Police Constable. Anand himself suffers from his father's ideologies & incidences of his father's Atrocities on his mother. Anand's approach towards immediate action against crime, is an inert craving for his own Job satisfaction. The film is here revolved in a Plot wherein Anand's constant efforts against crime are trampled by his seniors.This leads to frustrations, as he cannot achieve the desired Job-satisfaction. Resulting from the frustrations, his anger is expressed in excessive violence in the remand rooms & bars, also turning him to an alcoholic.<br /><br />The Spirit within him is still alive, as he constantly fights the system. He is aware of the system of the Metro, where the Police & Politicians are a inertly associated by far end. His compromise towards unethical practice is negative. Finally he gets suspended.<br /><br />The Direction is a master piece & thoroughly hard core. One of the best memorable scenes is when Anand breaks in the Underworld gangster Rama Shetty's house to arrest him, followed by short conversation which is fantastic. At many scenes, the film has Hair-raising moments.<br /><br />The Practical approach of Script is a major Punch. Alcoholism, Corruption, Political Influence, Courage, Deceptions all are integral part of Mumbai police even today. Those aspects are dealt brilliantly.<br /><br />Finally, the films belongs to the One man show, Om Puri portraying Anand Velankar traversing through all his emotions absolutely brilliantly.

In a movie that follows a struggling actor, played, evidently, by a struggling actor, this does no favours for Chris Klein. He struggles to bring anything memorable to the role and meanders on through the shallow script managing to display, what could only be described as, a bland leading man. The story exists, but that is all, and fails to show any basic start, middle and end and the viewer is left shrugging his shoulders feeling as though nothing in the past hour and three quarters has really happened.<br /><br />One bright light in the midst of this is Fred Durst, who manages to stand out above his seemingly averagely talented co-stars and does a semi-decent job of bringing the backward character of Legde to life. Whether Fred can re-create this when working with a higher calibre of cast remains to be seen but I'l be watching out for him in future.

Because of the 1988 Writers Guild of America strike they had to shoot this episode in 3 days. It's pretty much crap, consisting of repeat cut + pasted clips from Season 2 and was described by its writer, Maurice Hurley as "terrible, just terrible." <br /><br />Why the producers couldn't just wait to shoot something decent who knows. I'm guessing because of the strike the production ran out of money and could only release a flashback episode or maybe Roddenberry was too sick at the time to be able to veto this half-assery. This episode also marks the final appearance of Diana Muldaur (Dr. Katherine Pulaski) on the series.

I was forced to see this because a) I have an 11 year-old girl and b) we had shown her the Bonita Granville Nacy Drew movies from the 1930s, which she thoroughly enjoyed. Personally, I didn't think it was as humorous as the 1930s flicks, but on the other hand, it wasn't the nauseating piece of intelligence-insulting fluff I feared it would be. It was an inoffensive, mildly entertaining movie. Although I'm pleased that they didn't try to "upgrade" Nancy to 21st Century "hipness" (Veronica Mars holds the title as the Modern Nancy Drew), I do think that they made her a little too bland, that they didn't do enough to develop Nancy Drew - the movie could have been titled "Jane Doe, Girl Detective". I have to blame the script: I think each actor did a good job with what they had to work with. I liked Emma Roberts in this role, but they gave her a made-for-TV, not theatrical release, script...

This movie turned out to be pretty much what I expected. Of course it's sappy, of course it's predictable. We all know the fairytale. But knowing that when you go to watch it, it's enjoyable enough to watch. It was funny and sweet. I did find it annoying that they showed geeks as either kids who didn't wash there hair or kids who loved math and joined clubs about math and wore T-shirts about math. I was an outcast in high school and I didn't do these things. It goes much deeper than that. Having to do with many things, some of that being how much money your family has, how much you are willing to hide your uniqueness and how mean you are willing to be to other kids. Anyway, I won't get into it. I don't agree with other opinions that Drew isn't convincing as a geek. With braces, no make-up and unwashed hair, I don't think too many people would be drooling over her. And even when she goes back to high-school and sheds those things. She's still wearing the "wrong" clothes, "wrong" hair and has the "wrong" attitude to be considered cool. And her other "geek" friend may be beautiful but it doesn't matter, where I come from, you can still be an outcast and be beautiful. (inside and out)

PUT THE CAMERA ON ME is a deceptively cute film. It is actually a complex glimpse at the psychology of children and offers interesting insights into the development of adults and an artist. On the surface this is a nostalgic look at some home movies made in the 80's by a group of upper class neighborhood kids. One of the film's directors, Darren Stein, had access to a video camera and quickly took over as the artistic leader for all of the movies. Sure, these are just some cute kids having fun. But, this is also much more. This is a look into some moments in time as children grapple with a number of confusing issues that all of us face in life --- fear, sexual awakening, unrequited love, loneliness and just trying to make sense of the adult world which seems to explode all around us. As we get older we tend to forget how overwhlelming the realities of life were when we were little. <br /><br />What makes this film all the more valid is to watch a young Darren Stein turn into a little general of a filmmaker. It is clear that Darren is running this show and these little movies are his vision but they are all informed by his friends, their problems, the interpersonal dynamics and the general confusion regarding the horrors of adult life. A lot of children make home movies, but I've never heard of or seen children create "little" movies about the holocaust, homosexuality, nuclear war and the inability to fit in and make friends. These kids are confronting and dealing with some heavy stuff! <br /><br />The power of this film is the way Stein and Shell pull various scenes together so tightly with running interviews with the kids --- all now adults and all still friends. This adds a new angle to the film. How many of us have stayed in touch with our childhood friends? These guys have. And, many of the issues with which they were dealing are still running between them two decades later. <br /><br />Among the conflicts -- a confession of a crush reveals a heart still broken, a very normal childhood sexual experience continues to be a "sticky" subject between two of the men, some ongoing resentments over the dynamics of relationships and there is still a member of this team who remains very much in charge and in center stage! Which makes perfect sense as one watches these home movies progress over the course of a couple of years. Darren Stein is a director. No doubt about it. <br /><br />Stein and Shell take turns chatting with each other from time to time and one can't help but imagine the awkwardness of allowing us to peek into the young lives of these people. This is particularly true for Stein who has gone on to a great deal of success in the entertainment industry as a film producer, writer and director. From the first moment of PUT THE CAMERA ON ME we can see the emergence of a gay little boy trying to figure it all out. We also see sides of the artistic mind and personality that are not always "nice" or "caring" --- and, this is a bold move for any artist to share with an audience. <br /><br />There are so many revealing moments, but the most disturbing and complex moments involve a movie in which we see a Jewish concentration camp victim being tortured and killed by a Nazi. We discover thru interviews and narration that the Nazi is played by a Jewish child and the part of the victim is played by a gentile child. It is a painfully disturbing moment that glimpses into the darker side of fear and the way children work thru the horrors of the adult world that are beyond adult understanding much less that of a child. <br /><br />This is much more than some home movies. This documentary captures the pain, beauty, joy and sadness of growing up. Powerful stuff --- and well worth seeing! <br /><br />:

I'm sorry but I can't agree that this was a good movie. Yes, it looked good visually, but it's the story that drives the movie and I must say the story sucked big-time. How in the world did they manage to slip some of those plot-holes past the critics. Better story and I would've gave it a higher vote but I was impossible to do that and still be able to live with myself. I have always been a fan of scary movies, and the previews really had me fooled. All the scary scenes were shown in the previews. And why did the family that got killed stay to haunt the house? Why did the father come back again? WHy did he decide to kill in the first place? Why were the kids the only ones to see the ghosts first? To many questions, not enough answers. If I could've gave it a zero, I would've.

Perhaps I'm not a sophisticate. This and Closer are two of the more supposedly cerebral films I've seen recently, and both suffer from exactly the same problem to an excruciating extent. The dialogue is false false false. Nothing that comes out of anyone's mouth seems remotely believable. Perhaps the way this film is set up that's the way it's supposed to feel, but it was unwatchable. And boring. I walked out after 20 minutes of tedium.<br /><br />I'll stick with Sleeper and Bananas for my Woody Allen fix. If I ever come across this on the teevee, I'll turn over and try to find an episode of Quincy instead.

My favourite police series of all time turns to a TV-film. Does it work? Yes. Gee runs for mayor and gets shot. The Homicide "hall of fame" turns up. Pembleton and nearly all of the cops who ever played in this series. A lot of flashbacks helps you who hasn´t seen the TV-series but it amuses the fans too. The last five minutes solves another murder and at the very end even two of the dead cops turn up. And a short appearance from my favourite coroner Juliana Cox. This is a good film.

I sat glued to the screen, riveted, yawning, yet keeping an attentive eye. I waited for the next awful special effect, or the next ridiculously clichéd plot item to show up full force, so I could learn how not to make a movie.<br /><br />It seems when they set out to make this movie, the crew watched every single other action/science-fiction/shoot-em-up/good vs. evil movie ever made, and saw cool things and said: "Hey, we can do that." For example, the only car parked within a mile on what seems like a one way road with a shoulder not meant for parking, is the one car the protagonist, an attractive brunette born of bile, is thrown on to. The car blows to pieces before she even lands on it. The special effects were quite obviously my biggest beef with this movie. But what really put it in my bad books was the implausibility, and lack of reason for so many elements! For example, the antagonist, a flying demon with the ability to inflict harm in bizarre ways, happens upon a lone army truck transporting an important VIP. Nameless security guys with guns get out of the truck, you know they are already dead. Then the guy protecting the VIP says "Under no circumstances do you leave this truck, do you understand me?" He gets out to find the beast that killed his 3 buddies, he gets whacked in an almost comically cliché fashion. Then for no apparent reason, defying logic, convention, and common sense, the dumb ass VIP GETS OUT OF THE TRUCK!!! A lot of what happened along the course of the movie didn't make sense. Transparent acting distanced me from the movie, as well as bad camera-work, and things that just make you go: "Wow, that's incredibly cheesy." Shiri Appleby saved the movie from a 1, because she gave the movie the one element that always makes viewers enjoy the experience, sex appeal.

This has to be one of the best movies we have seen and we highly recommend it for it's exposure of the injustices of bigotry. Billy Wirth is an incomparable actor and truly awesome as Corby/White Wolf. However, felt the story would have been enhanced if his character had more scenes. This is a movie that can be watched over and over without tiring.

Last year was the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, and the 150th anniversary of the publication of "The Origin of Species", so it's fitting that Jon Amiel's "Creation" got released. The movie focuses on the period of Darwin's (Paul Bettany) life while he was writing his famous work, and the mild strain that it put on his family life.<br /><br />I guess that the movie overplayed Darwin's tension with his religious wife Emma (Jennifer Connelly), and his guilt over his deceased daughter Annie, but I still like the thought of Darwin's theory working like a karate chop on religious dogma. As it was, the US was one of the last countries in which "Creation" found a distributor, due to the creationism-evolution debate (yes, it's still going on).<br /><br />All in all, this isn't a masterpiece, but I recommend it the same way that I recommend "Inherit the Wind". I hope that one day, the creationism-evolution debate won't be an issue. If this film helps put the debate to rest, then more power to everyone in the movie! Also starring Martha West, Jeremy Northam, Toby Jones and Benedict Cumberbatch.

VAMPYRES <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.85:1<br /><br />Sound format: Mono<br /><br />A motorist (Murray Brown) is lured to an isolated country house inhabited by two beautiful young women (Marianne Morris and Anulka) and becomes enmeshed in their free-spirited sexual lifestyle, but his hosts turn out to be vampires with a frenzied lust for human blood...<br /><br />Taking its cue from the lesbian vampire cycle initiated by maverick director Jean Rollin in France, and consolidated by the success of Hammer's "Carmilla" series in the UK, Jose Ramon Larraz' daring shocker VAMPYRES pushed the concept of Adult Horror much further than British censors were prepared to tolerate in 1974, and his film was cut by almost three minutes on its original British release. It isn't difficult to see why! Using its Gothic theme as the pretext for as much nudity, sex and bloodshed as the film's short running time will allow, Larraz (who wrote the screenplay under the pseudonym 'D. Daubeney') uses these commercial elements as mere backdrop to a languid meditation on life, death and the impulses - sexual and otherwise - which affirm the human condition.<br /><br />Shot on location at a picturesque country house during the Autumn of 1973, Harry Waxman's haunting cinematography conjures an atmosphere of grim foreboding, in which the desolate countryside - bleak and beautiful in equal measure - seems to foreshadow a whirlwind of impending horror (Larraz pulled a similar trick earlier the same year with SYMPTOMS, a low-key thriller which erupts into a frenzy of violence during the final reel). However, despite its pretensions, VAMPYRES' wafer-thin plot and rough-hewn production values will divide audiences from the outset, and while the two female protagonists are as charismatic and appealing as could be wished, the male lead (Brown, past his prime at the time of filming) is woefully miscast in a role that should have gone to some beautiful twentysomething stud. A must-see item for cult movie fans, an amusing curio for everyone else, VAMPYRES is an acquired taste. Watch out for silent era superstar Bessie Love in a brief cameo at the end of the movie.

This is exactly the sort of Saturday matinee serial I loved during World War II. I was under ten years of age. And that's the audience this serial is designed for. Looking at it now, one must roar at its ineptitude and stupidity. The budget must have been next to nothing, given the shortcuts and repeats. The acting? Well, this is Republic pictures, 1944. They read the lines....and no doubt had one take to make them convincing.<br /><br />One and half stars.

I first saw BLOOD OF THE SAMURAI at its premiere during the Hawaii International Film Festival. WOW! Blood just blew us away with its sheer verve, gore, vitality, gore, excitement, gore, utter campiness, and even more gore, and all in SUCH GREAT FUN! Especially for those of you who enjoy all those Japanese chambara samurai and ninja films, YOU DEFINITELY HAVE TO SEE BLOOD!

This is a poor film. It certainly belongs in the how not to make a feature film category. Story, direction, acting and style are all flat as a pancake. Story consists of five – yes five – football matches spread out over the film's duration, each one more boringly filmed than the last, as a dysfunctional amateur football team go from strength to strength. That's it, that's the plot. It's hard to know who this film is aimed at. It's too banal for football fans and there's nothing in it for teens nor grown-ups. There's nothing in it for women either, there isn't even a single female character. It's dreariness wears you down as the team play game after game after game after game after game. The story, such as it is, dialogue and mannerisms seem lifted from a bygone Ireland, with all the actors spouting cod theatrical Dublin accents. It doesn't have to be seen to be believed. Avoid at all costs. Can someone give me back my 90 minutes. High point the credits at the end, low point too numerous to mention. Brendan Gleeson is in this film.

The only redeeming part of this movie was the price I paid. At least all I lost was $3.00 and the time elapsed sitting through this bomb. The crew member who was in charge of continuity missed the boat. When the female lead and the FBI guy went to the alleged killers location, Mr. FBI handed the female a revolver. When the alleged killer came out the door, the revolver has magically transformed into an automatic. One is left to ponder would an FBP agent hand a weapon to a civilian? I think not. Ms. Xavier appears to be a very attractive female. It is too bad the R rating did not allow much of her to be seen. It would seem that a film editor cut what might have been the best parts of the film out.

This movie is terrible. The suspense is spent waiting for a point. There isn't much of one.<br /><br />Aside from a few great lines ( "I found a tooth in my apartment" ), and the main characters dedication to killing himself, it's a collection of supposedly eerie sounds.<br /><br />

I was mad anyone made this movie. I was even more angry I lost valuable minutes of my life sitting still to watch this. I could have had a wax job and been more entertained. At least Cherri makes me laugh before it hurts. I was a bit confused at first but then I caught on and realized what was going on. By this time the film was half way through, and Yes I am a procrastinator but I always want to see things through until the end. So I stuck it out I watched it all. Not only are the actors not as attractive as in Cruel Intentions, they just aren't convincing. I've seen my nephew cry for attention more convincingly than the supposed lust portrayed on screen in this movie. If you like bad movies with bad acting watch this.

What I think I'll probably like best about the new Star Wars film, "Phantom Menace", is that it will likely blow "Titanic" out of the water, if you'll pardon the pun, when it comes to sheer devastating box office receipts, and thereby knock it out of the number one spot. Every time I hear someone declare "Titanic" is the greatest film they've ever seen, I think to myself, "You don't see a lot of movies, do you?" What a travesty. You could make 50 good films that are a lot better than "Titanic", and for the same price tag.<br /><br />"Well, it won lots of academy awards, lots of people really loved it," as someone might say in its defence. Well, lots of people like the Spice Girls and billions and billions of people eat at McDonald's, but that doesn't mean it's high quality. Yes, millions of Elvis fans CAN be wrong.<br /><br />I'll be the first to admit, that part of the problem for me was the mega-hype over the film. I waited a month or so to see it and ultimately, it didn't live up to the expectations set upon it, which simply called more attention to the appallingly stupid love story. It's true, "Phantom Menace" will likely suffer a similar fate. but.<br /><br />James Cameron's "Titanic" is. a) a cheesy action flick thinly disguised as a serious period piece. b) a three-hour epic that has it's finest moments given away in the trailer. c) a sappy love story beyond belief or entertainment. d) something left better to documentarians, which I would've enjoyed much more. e) a film with arrogance that lives up to the level demonstrated with the real ship. f) a robbery of 3 hours that I will never get back, therefore the greatest motivation for a time machine I can think of. When I meet someone who hasn't seen it yet, I say, "I wish I could trade places with you." g) a slap in the face to any genuine victim of hypothermia. How long are we supposed to believe that people can be immersed in freezing cold water and still form intelligible sentences? h) thankfully a film that wasn't recognized for any acting achievements at the Oscars. i) a technological achievement in filmmaking, and little else.<br /><br />The only reason I post this as a anonymous comment is I do NOT welcome the rebuttal of 10,000 thirteen year old Leonardo DiCaprio fans who'll no doubt come to his defense, and I am not really interested in hearing a defense of Titanic's story, acting or length.

Waco: Rules of Engagement does a very good job of not drawing conclusions for its viewers. It simply presents interviews, footage from the standoff, footage of the Congressional hearings, phone conversations, expert testimony, etc. and allows you to draw your own conclusion.<br /><br />I hardly intend to imply that the data presented here was done with 100% objectivity but it is very convincing. You won't like Koresh any more after you see this than you did before, but I tend to think that you will come to believe, as I now do, there is much that we were not told about what happened before and during the standoff.

Good horror movies from France are quite rare, and it's fairly easy to see why! Whenever a talented young filmmaker releases a staggering new film, he emigrates towards glorious Hollywood immediately after to directed the big-budgeted remake of another great film classic! How can France possibly build up a solid horror reputation when their prodigy-directors leave the country after just one film? "Haute Tension" was a fantastic movie and it earned director Alexandre Aja a (one-way?) ticket to the States to remake "The Hills Have Eyes" (which he did terrifically, I may add). Eric Valette's long-feature debut "Maléfique" was a very promising and engaging horror picture too, and he's already off to the Hollywood as well to direct the remake of Takashi Miike's ghost-story hit "One Missed Call". So there you have it, two very gifted Frenchmen that aren't likely to make any more film in their native country some time soon. "Maléfique" is a simple but efficient chiller that requires some patience due to its slow start, but once the plot properly develops, it offers great atmospheric tension and a handful of marvelous special effects. The film almost entirely takes place in one single location and only introduces four characters. We're inside a ramshackle French prison cell with four occupants. The new arrival is a businessman sentenced to do time for fraud, the elderly and "wise" inmate sadistically killed his wife and then there's a crazy transvestite and a mentally handicapped boy to complete the odd foursome. They find an ancient journal inside the wall of their cell, belonging to a sick murderer in the 1920's who specialized in black magic rites and supernatural ways to escape. The four inmates begin to prepare their own escaping plan using the bizarre formulas of the book, only to realize the occult is something you shouldn't mess with… Eric Valette dedicates oceans of time to the character drawings of the four protagonists, which occasionally results in redundant and tedious sub plots, but his reasons for this all become clear in the gruesome climax when the book suddenly turns out to be some type of Wishmaster-device. "Maléfique" is a dark film, with truckloads of claustrophobic tension and several twisted details about human behavior. Watch it before some wealthy American production company decides to remake it with four handsome teenage actors in the unconvincing roles of hardcore criminals.

I have always had the philosophy that every single human being has different tastes, i found this movie to be awesome and i think every college student out there might agree with me. Notwithstanding this is not a "movie with a plot", its about real guys and some of the "problems" that they face. I found the movie hilarious(especially the parts that they played the practical jokes on each other). Simply put, if you are in the same "wave-length" as these people, you will find this movie amazing. I don't think that this is going win any Golden Globes or Oscars, or that the people in this movie will become future Hollywood stars, but its a kind of "cult-classic" among young people who could relate to their experience. For me the guy that stands out the most is Hans: the Scandinavian guy,who ,according to him "isnt a looker", but gets all(or some) of the chicks. The "little-people" also play a big part in the movie, especially when they are drunk. If i keep going, i might provide a spoiler and i don't want to do that, just go and get the movie and you will not regret. I give it a 8/10

I haven't seen a lot of episodes of "Family Guy" and it's a pretty safe bet that I won't be seeing too many in the future. Some people say to compare this show to "The Simpsons" is unfair. I absolutely think this show wouldn't exist if "The Simpsons" hadn't come first and I absolutely think it wants so very much to be "The Simpsons". I don't understand what's so funny about this show. In the episodes that I've watched, I've understood where they've WANTED me to laugh, I understand that someone thinks a joke was just told but the joke isn't funny. I find the whole show to be lazy: the title, the "jokes", there is a complete lack of inspiration throughout.<br /><br />The best shows on television (cartoon or not) are created like this: a script is written, it goes through several rewrites, stuff that doesn't work is taken out, inspiration is sparked, good stuff is added, there are more rewrites and then it is filmed.<br /><br />I picture a "Family Guy" episode to be created like this: a script is written and it's filmed.

After hearing that some of the people behind the low-budget flicks "Terror in Rock'n'Roll Önsjön" and "It came from outer space... and stuff" were involved in making this movie, I decided to buy it unseen on DVD. I wish I hadn't. The other movies were funny, tongue-in-cheek and kinda stupid. While Kraftverk 3714 is devoid of any humor at all. And it is so god-awful that I'm getting angry just thinking about it. The worst actors possible, the worst script possible, the worst special effects available. And the most unsexy sex scene ever. Uhhh. And the whole thing goes on for 2 hours and 45 minutes. Please, do not ever make another movie.

"Why?"<br /><br />That simple question had to be on the lips of every single New Yorker during the 12 months of terror that David Berkowitz created in 1976-77. That same one word will surely become the same perplexing question 22 summers later as people exit theaters exhibiting the trite and exploitative "Summer of Sam".<br /><br />Director Spike Lee attempts to weave the story of a pack of misguided thugs searching for the celebrated psychopath -- who paralyzed New York City for over a year -- with a stark and graphical depiction of the killings, the demons inside Berkowitz's head and the frustration of a futile NYPD manhunt. He presents an ensemble of despicable losers who hear their own "barking dogs" as they live lives devoid of love, honor and humanity -- no different than Berkowitz. Lee browbeats the audience in nearly every frame with "not one of us are what we seem to be". Often a critic of the white establishment, Lee perpetuates the stereotype by including a scene where Mira Sorvino, playing a newlywed with a cheating husband (John Leguizamo), hopes to have oral sex with a black man "in the back of a big black Cadillac". An Italian Mafioso tells a black detective that the famous Willie Mays' over-the-back center field catch was "lucky". Lee even makes sure to deliver the racist musings of one middle aged black woman who declares "I'm happy it's a white man killing all these white people because if it were a black man killing all these white people - there would be the biggest race riot in NYC history."<br /><br />Other than an outstanding opening pan shot of an arrival at a disco (reminiscent of shots from Martin Scorcese's "Goodfellas" or Orson Welles' "The Third Man"), this film has no soul, purpose or passion. He parades characters on the screen bereft of human decency. Although we learn nothing about the true victims of this horrible spree, Spike Lee seems to be saying New York City got what it deserved during that frightening, boiling summer over two decades ago.<br /><br />"How could anyone wreak such havoc on his beloved city?" "How could someone show such hatred toward his fellow man?"<br /><br />Are these appropriate questions for Berkowitz or Lee?<br /><br />You decide.

I have watch this movie almost every night that is was on HBO. It is of my opinion that it could have been successful in the theater, providing the advertisement leading up to it was top scale. I was thoroughly impressed with the actress who played Nanny. She is an outstanding actress. Of course, my favorite actor is Terrance Howard. He is a very understated actor and he deserves much more credit than he has received. Ebony magazine did do a nice article on him, giving him some of his due propers. Lakawanna Blue, gave me a understanding of the stories my parents use to tell us. They were from a similar town "Philadelphia, PA" were they had to have their fun in the junt joints and such. I also like to say that Mos Def is a incredible actor. He has found his calling. I've seen him in several movies where he has played a variety of roles, from thug to doctor and he has the stuff! Overall, please put Lakawanna Blues on video for rental.

The Mummy's Tomb starts with a review of the events in The Mummy's Hand and then moves the story forward several years and across the ocean to the United States of America where the current high priest and the mummy Kharis set out to wreak havoc and take revenge on those who violated the tomb in the past.<br /><br />While I absolutely loved "The Mummy" with Boris Karloff as the mummy Imhotep, and quite liked "The Mummy's Hand" with Tom Tyler as Kharis (which is the direct prequel to this film), I was not as taken with "The Mummy's Tomb".<br /><br />It is made in a similar style as the previous film and has a somewhat similar plot albeit in a new setting. Lon Chaney Jr is okay as Kharis, but doesn't really stand out. And I guess that's my main criticism of this movie-that nothing really stands out. There's nothing really terrible here, but nothing really outstanding either, so the viewer is left with a rather bland mummy's tale.

What can you say after watching this movie? That is, if you had the interest and concentration to see it to the end. I was left speechless, due to the amazingly dull story, annoying situations where one American equals that of a fifty or more Iraqis, and boring dialogue. I think that if this movie has something to teach, it probably goes like "Don't screw with US, or we'll come and kick your butts". Plus, this film truly encourages and votes for killing masses of foreigners, in the name of war. I got the image of tackling chess pieces out of the playing board. Except, now it's fast and there's not so much thinking. And on top of that.. no character there has any spirit; then, how can you care at all what happens to any of them. Excluding war movie fans with no taste, I wouldn't recommend this to anyone. There should always be something more interesting to do.

To begin with, I really love Lucy. Her TV show still makes me laugh. She was one of the greatest comedians who ever lived, right up there with Chaplin and Keaton. But, her performance in this movie is disappointing. She was too old, and the gauze filters on the lens make her look like a London fog refugee. She couldn't sing, and her voice was so froggy that she croaked through every song. Her dancing days were long in the past. Just because you are a Lucy fan, don't gloss over this mistaken, sad performance and sing it's praises. I prefer to remember Lucy in her wonderful TV series(I Love Lucy) and to draw the curtain of charity over the terrible mess of a movie called "Mame".

After reading the book, I happened across this DVD at Wal-Mart for 3 bucks and thought, sure, what the hell... I got the DVD and watched it last night. When I started watching it, I checked the run time and it was about 90 minutes. I thought, OK cool... It seemed to run rather slowly, knowing the story and how much of it there was. By the time I got to the actual killings, I was like, "how much time does this have left?" Checked. "One minute?! What the hell?!" I felt incredibly cheated, thinking that the movie only progressed through a third of the overall story.<br /><br />But then, I happily noticed that the DVD's scene selection menu included a part 1 AND a part 2. I still had another hour and a half to go! I then sat very happily and enjoyed the second half of the movie, even more so than the first.<br /><br />I admit that I have not seen the 1967 original film (despite my sincerest desire to), I have however read the novel and felt that this was a fairly descent film, for a two-part TV miniseries, that is. I think the casting of the role of Perry was completely wrong and a few minor inconsistencies jumped out at me, but still very well done. The first half drags on a bit, while the second half is much more gripping. I think they should have proportioned the movie more like Capote did his book: 1/3 before the murders, 1/3 after, and 1/3 after the killers are arrested. Instead, the film makes it more 1/2 before the murders, 1/4 after, and 1/4 after the killers are arrested. Again, this makes the second half more exciting, but at the same time, less compelling while making the first half drag on and on...<br /><br />Now I look back and realize I have just made the same mistake about making things drag on and on, so I will shut the hell up. Go watch the movie and make up your own damn mind! <br /><br />Nick Houston

Having enjoyed Jean Arthur in "The Devil and Miss Jones", my interest was peaked, so I tried sitting through this second-string screwball outing about an investigation into the death of a jockey--but I didn't make it to the end. Arthur, photographed in a gauzy, movie-magazine fashion, either wants alimony from ex-husband William Powell or another shot at marriage, but I never felt for her because the character is just a string of wisecracks (she's the type of heroine prone to comical curiousness, but once inside a morgue--like all women in these '30's comedies--she faints). William Powell reportedly had a high time working with Miss Arthur, but you'd never know it from the end result; they look awkward standing next to each other, hesitant over their banter. The actor playing Powell's valet is excruciating, and the pauses for viewer laughs are pregnant with unease.

In ten words or less to describe this film, Barbara Stanwyck is too appealing and it is great! The film is wonderful, except for the perhaps tacked-on ending, but I love happy endings anyway. Barbara Stanwyck, however, as the platinum-blonde gold-digger is amazing. She knows what she wants and goes after it! This film is sexy and excellent!

((NB: Spoiler warning, such as it is!))<br /><br />First off, this is a teen slasher flick -- the Spam-In-A-Cabin genre, as Joe Bob Briggs piquantly put it. If you're looking for Roshambo, this isn't it and wasn't going to BE it. I'm desperately unimpressed by stabs at its cinematography, directing or acting performances.<br /><br />Secondly, this wasn't Zuniga's first horror flick, it was her first screen appearance period, cinema, TV, whatever. For what it is worth; neither is Daphne Zuniga Susan Sarandon or Katherine Hepburn.<br /><br />Thirdly, you have to give even a lame slasher flick props. Sure, it follows the deeply insulting formulaic message of its genre: any young woman having or showing interest in sex is beef on the hoof, and the harvest time is now.<br /><br />Except this one gives the chop to the sweet, virginal protagonist as well! Now THERE is a mediocre teen death film that has the courage of its convictions! Interesting that this was said ingenue's only film role. Another One Hit Wonder, except that term gives the lass too much credit.<br /><br />(Then again, this film probably has one of the highest percentage of one-movie actors in history. Of the nineteen credited actors, a whopping thirteen never appeared in any other film. Three appeared in one other movie by the same producers. Only one other besides Zuniga has as many as six screen credits. What was this, the Has Been And Never Were Mutual Aid Society?)<br /><br />Granted, I saw this a long time ago on late night cable when I was bored and never anticipate being that bored in my life again, but I see no reason to hunt down everyone involved and toss them in the incinerator with Joanne.<br /><br />2/10.

A vampire's's henchman wants to call her after falling in love with a five-dollar hooker in this extremely low-budget horror-comedy. I can't explain all the positive comments on this movie. I'll chalk it up to mass hallucination, but it's disconcerting none the less. The one redeeming factor (and this is me being extremely generous here) might be the Grandfather who's the only semi-likable character in this whole mess. Don't waste your money, or time. In fact here's a word of advice, If Troma puts it out on DVD, but does NOT make it themselves, in all likelihood it's crap.<br /><br />Troma DVD Extras:Commentary with Omar and Kirk; second commentary with cast and crew deleted scenes; bloopers; troma interactivity; radiation march; Clip from "Terror Firmer"; Theatrical trailer ;Trailers for "the Rowdy Girls", "Teenage Catgirls in Heat", "Cannible: The Musical", and "Toxic Avenger 4" <br /><br />My Grade: D

This is truly a funny movie. His dance scene done with the tape is one of the funniest scenes I can recall. I thought the "I am gay" scene at the high school graduation ceremony a bit surrealistic, though it was funny. While watching it for the third time, I started to pick up on a little small segments that I had missed. One was when Matt Dillon's girl friend, a classic ditz, tried to use a dial phone which she had never used before. Kevin Klein made this film successful along Tom Selleck. This was also the first time I could appreciate Debbie Reynolds; she proved that she can be funny. She confirmed this in the TV series 'Will and Grace.' One discovery that I found after the third viewing is Lauren Ambrose of '6 Feet Under' fame. She sticks out with her red bangs, but it is obvious that this is one of her first films. Bob Newhart is also very funny at the high school principle.

What we have here is a classic case of TOO much patriotism. This is what happens when you live in a small country with very little (next to none, even) cinema history. Whenever somebody does come up with a slightly more ambitious film project – other than the usual dramas about struggling farmer families or long feature slapstick movies of local comedians – everybody feels obliged to love it and even responsible to spread favorable reviews across the countries' borders. This is especially the case when the writer/director of this particular film is already a nation's sweetheart, because he's also the founder and lead singer of a popular rock band. "Any Way The Wind Blows" is by no means a bad film, but it's definitely overrated (if that is even possible within the boundaries of a small country) and has absolutely nothing new or even remotely original to offer. This is basically the Flemish version of classic movies such as "Short Cuts" and "Magnolia" and illustrates a mosaic of characters whose daily lives initially appear to be unrelated but eventually come together in the end. The only thing that seems to unite the eight protagonists at first is the city of Antwerp, where they all live and work, but gradually the deeper relationships between them become transparent and near the climax they all gather for a party. The main problem with "Any Way The Wind Blows", at least according to yours truly, lies with the characters. They really are random, uninteresting and honestly don't experience anything that could be considered out of the ordinary. It was presumably writer/director Tom Barman's intention to depict the average & regular inhabitant of Antwerp but then, seriously, what is the point? One of the characters gets fired from his film projectionist job, another one is a failed novelist struggling with a marriage crisis, two siblings recently lost their father and the most "mysterious" one of them all is followed by the wind wherever he goes. There are a couple of more characters regularly walking through the screen, but they're even less worth mentioning. These people simply drivel on and on about very random topics (like life in the 80's, dates and each other's bowel motions) and philosophy about matters nobody cares about. Some of the dialogs do evoke mild chuckles, especially the interactions between the two twenty-something guys from Ghent, but still nothing extraordinary or even memorable. The film actually works best as a touristy video to promote the city of Antwerp and as an extended & versatile music documentary. There are several stylish & nifty sightseeing images of Antwerp and there's always beautiful music playing, whether really loud or subtly in the background. Generally speaking "Any Way The Wind Blows" is a competently made and stylish effort, but too mundane and slightly boring, and I honestly wonder most of its fans would even had bothered to watch if it weren't a Flemish production.

I have yesterday seen the second part. And I must say, it was actually better then the first one. At the begin, I realized, It is actually a sequel, not a remake but not a good one. I do not like the old movies and series of Galactica, because the cylons saw like toasters (just as it was mentioned in this new movie) and were completely harmless for the old galactica. This movie turns the sides - the Humans were harmless but the whole movie was for me completely chaotic and stupid. Many scenes were unnecessary, for instance the story of the "computer expert" - completely a crap. If I were a scriptwriter I would leave him die in his house, killed by the cylon woman. And the evacuation from the planet? Oh, please if it would be bombed by 50 Megatons (why exactly 50 MT??) nukes, they would be dead killed by the radiation. And how is it actually possible that the big fleet of cylon was completely hidden before the attack? Aha, it was possibly this computer virus, created by the cylon - the script was probably written by ten-years-old school boy. The good side of the movie is, that the humans are at last defeated!! Really defeated, the population is near the extinction (children are dieing - two times explicit in the movie: 1. a baby!!! maybe one month old and a girl in age of max ten - what a violence...). And the bad-asses won and I think it is the first time in such sci-fi galaxy fight movie. I also appreciate the design of the cylons (not only of the humanoid cylon:-) a good job with these ships - I like the design of the ships by both of them - human an cylons. The human ships are a good never version of the old ones. And galactica - really pretty with these docks, I liked that. But this is all, only the design is not enough. The acting was really bad, the whole plot was expectable (only two things not - the human-cylon on the ragnardocks and the human-cylon at the end).The dialogs were trivial (and in the Slovak dabbing just stupid, but that is not fault of the movie). The whole movie looked like a pilot film for a series, but who would shoot such series? What it would be about? One star for the design the second one for the near extinction of humanity.

Kim Novak's a witch on the prowl for a mortal lover, and James Stewart's her choice. Scintillating comedy of manners, from the Broadway stage; shot by James Wong Howe in Witch Color, and performed by a sterling cast. Ernie Kovacs is wonderful as the perpetually dishevelled writer Redlitch. I love this movie, though few others seem to. Kim alone makes it a winner in my Book. Ha! My #5 film of 1958.

When I saw that this film was only 80 minutes long, I thought we were in trouble. Condensing the gigantic W. Somerset Maugham novel down to a movie that clocks in at under an hour and a half seemed like a disaster waiting to happen. But you know, the movie's not half bad, and it even manages to retain much of what makes the book resonate so much with its readers.<br /><br />I've heard many film buffs complain that Leslie Howard was a wet noodle of an actor, and he was, but I can't think of anyone more suited to play the role of Philip Carey than a wet noodle, for that's certainly what Carey is. Howard plays him well, which means you want to shake him and slap him upside the head repeatedly, then finally take him out and buy him a spine.<br /><br />Ah, and then there's Bette, as the girl with whom Carey is obsessed and who brings his world crashing down around him. I didn't know what on earth the appeal of Mildred was in the book, and the movie stays true to that detail. But as played by Davis, she does become the most fascinating character in the story, and if she's nasty and unlikable, she's at least the most dynamic person on screen at any given time. Davis's performance here is credited with changing the course of screen acting, much as Brando's would do nearly 20 years later when he screamed out "Stella!!" in that little-known Tennesee Williams play, and it's not hard to see why. Davis is intense to the point of scary. She makes no effort to wring any sympathy from the audience, and she allows herself to look ugly and most unglamorous. Her appearance when Carey walks in on her late in the film to find her dead or nearly dead of an unnamed disease (though not much care is taken to hide the fact that it's an STD) is shocking. Of course, it helps that this movie squeaked out just before the Production Code went into effect; if it had been made a year later, you can bet things would have been a bit different.<br /><br />Yes, much of the novel, and many of its most interesting parts, are left on the cutting room floor, and the story really does become about Carey and Mildred and not much else. I found that to be the least interesting and most tedious part of Maugham's novel, but it is the part that gives the novel its title and seems to be the part that readers are still drawn to now, so it strikes me as a wise decision on the part of the film makers that they chose to adapt the novel the way they did.<br /><br />Grade: B+

Wow. I just saw Demon Wind a little while ago, and I don't think I'll ever be the same. It has the power to inspire nightmares, but for all the wrong reasons, actually.<br /><br />Never before has humanity seen such a gratuitous change in make-up, for no damn reason. Or, similarly, so much bad zombie (?) makeup that makes you hungry for those Halloween green marshmallows.<br /><br />Or so much naked old lady, for that matter. But then, there was "The Shining."<br /><br />The plot here is so amateurish that it actually almost holds a little bit of charm, as does the dialog. The last shot of the film is just so silly that its beyond description. It's like some drunk college student got together with some pals and decided to throw Bruce Willis type dialog together with (I guess?) teenybopper dialog from some Elm Street film. The result is jarring, and it'd be truly funny if it was intended that way.<br /><br />Ah, what the hey. I'll laugh anyway.<br /><br />Hell, get together with your friends and watch this. But make absolutely sure you're drunk first. Or, you may go insane. Particularly if you're a college film student.<br /><br />Cheers.

An absolutely atrocious adaptation of the wonderful children's book. Crude and inappropriate humor, some scary parts, and a sickening side story about the mom's boyfriend wanting to send the boy away to military school to get him out of the way makes this totally inappropriate for the kids who will most likely want to see it because of the book (3-8) yr olds. Don't waste your money, your time, or your good judgement.

It's difficult to know where this adaptation starts going wrong, because I think the problem begins with the books themselves. Alexander McCall Smith has worked out that you read them not for the detective stories, but for his deeply condescending and completely spurious vision of an Africa that does not exist. He's done for Botswana what Borat did for Kazakhstan - not as successfully, but based in as much fact.<br /><br />Once I realised this, it ceased to gall me that Jill Scott, an American singer/actress, is cast as Mma Ramotswe. If she is to represent a land that is not Africa, how appropriate that she is a black woman who is not African? She's not the only American on the cast; Mma Makutsi is played by Anika Noni Rose. Both women are far, far too young for the roles they're playing, and far too glamorous. Both brutally murder the local accents, and both focus so entirely on this brutality that they fail to offer much in the way of acting. Scott's Mma Ramotswe is bouncy, cute and soft. Rose's Mma Makutsi is an annoying motor-mouthed bitch.<br /><br />The result is almost unwatchable. The principal cast is redeemed only by the presence of Lucian Msamati, who turns in a decent performance as Mr JLB Matekoni. Hes comes off smarter and more intense than in the books, but I find myself unable to blame Msamati for this - he's a shining light in an ocean of suckage. The contradictions between his performance and the books are clearly laid at the feet of whichever committee of butchers wrote the script.<br /><br />To me, McCall Smith's writing has always been highly entertaining yet notoriously bad. He refuses to be edited. As a result, his books contain experiments in grammar that border on the scientific, and characters that change name mid-sentence. It is therefore something of an achievement that the writing team on this project actually made it worse.<br /><br />The dialogue is now largely Anglicised. Characters speak of "opening up" and "sensitivity to needs". Mma Ramotswe and Mr JLB Matekoni flirt openly. Mma Makutsi moans about not having a computer, but given her constantly restyled hair, makeup and jewellery, I'm surprised she doesn't have a MacBook in her handbag along with her Visa card.<br /><br />So what are we left with here? It's difficult to be upset with this crappy adaptation because honestly, most of the things I like about the original books are apocryphal anyway. McCall Smith paints a fictional Botswana populated with cute, non-threatening black people who are full of amusing and palatable wisdom-nuggets. It reads well despite linguistic travesty, but it is a vision of how a certain type of white person wishes black people were. It just isn't true.<br /><br />Given that, it's hardly surprising that this show sucks as much as it does. It remains to be seen whether European and American audiences will even notice, however.

I originally saw this movie in a movie theater on Times Square in the late eighties. Who would have thought this film would spawn two sequels and have this cult following.Night of the Demons was like most other films that came out at the time.A group of horny teenagers find themselves trapped in some isolated local and then are killed off one at a time in various gruesome ways.Come to think of it the formula still is used and still seems to work as evidenced by Saw II that I recently saw.<br /><br />I saw Mimi Kinkade at a Fangoria convention about six years ago and she was so gentle hearted!I guess that makes her a pretty good actress if she could make a career out of playing this demon possessed woman in all these horror flicks.Anyway, I just this film again on VHS cassette and this movie still holds up.A little slow at the beginning as I remembered when I first saw it but then it quickly picks up pace. One of the eighties horror classics and worth a look!

After having seen a lot of Greek movies I feel very suspicious against most of them. But after watching this I felt astonished. The movies is great without a big try. You cannot claim that the screenplay is so great or the photography is perfect or something technical. It's a real story and it is happening in Greek rural areas in places forgotten from God. The movie is like a punch in the stomach and I would really wish that things are not like this. It obviously talks about the xenophobia of the Greek people (the ignorance)to anything different. The problem of this guy is not that he is an ex-convicted. The problem is that he is not one of these people. He is different and they do not want them (that's why all the good things he is doing turn boomerang to him). And also speaks about the apathy of the people, because there are some people who are against the hunting of the King, but they do not dare to say their opinion. In the end you can clearly see the hypocrisy of the society being religious and trying to act like God says, but at the same time acting so unfairly to the King. This shows how easily people rationalize their feelings or their beliefs according to the established system. In the end you can have a positive lesson from this very bad story, meaning that you can understand and be part of this society only if you want to become one of them. If you want to remain different and even alone, you are lost (and it is not far from reality) I think it is tragic that the story is real and this should be a bell for everybody. No comment for the main actor because he is already given an award and I believe that his play was great. Small comment for Hatzisavvas (plays the policeman), he is like a dinosaur, he has played a lot of roles and I'm sure that this role for him was very easy but he plays it so great that you cannot deny him a big bravo. I definitely recommend this movie to anybody who wants to see a good Greek movie.

A fragment in the life of one of the first female painters to achieve historical renown, "Artemisia" tells the true story of a young Italian woman's impassioned pursuit of artistic expression and the vicissitudes she encounters. The film features sumptuous costuming and sets and a good cast and acting. However, it is muddled in its attempt to depict the esoterics of the art and the time and is uninspired in its representation of the passion of the artist as painted on canvas and explored through her involvements with men. A good film for those interested in renaissance painting or period films.

After a decade of turbulent unrest, American movies began to switch gears and turn their cameras away from war-torn battlefields, political corruption, and general social unease to the more intimate world of family dysfunction. The toll the selfish Baby Boomers began to take on the American family as they grew up and had kids of their own was making itself felt.<br /><br />"Kramer vs. Kramer" is one of the first of these dysfunctional family dramas that would continue to be so popular throughout the 1980s, and it's one of the best. It gets a rather bum rap now, because it's known as the film that beat "Apocalypse Now" for the 1979 Best Picture Academy Award, but comparing these two films is like comparing a banana to a marinated chicken breast: they're not remotely the same, but can't we enjoy them both? Director/writer Robert Benton doesn't try to do anything fancy with his movie; its strength lies in its performances, those of Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep particularly, playing a divorced couple fighting childishly and selfishly over their son. The courtroom scene in which they duke it out for custody, and in which each is forced to hurt the other in terrible ways, is devastating, and feels authentic. The movie doesn't present Hoffman's solid dad as a hero, or Streep's straying mom as a villain. They're neither good or bad as people -- they're simply bad at being married.<br /><br />The film is tear-jerky at the finale, but not in a manipulative way. It earns its right to elicit sobs.<br /><br />Grade: A

I love this show. I watched every episode last year. I bought the DVDs. And I tune into to watch tonight and I see for some reason you have retooled this great show. And you have taken what made it work and ruined it. You took one of the best aspects of the show away which was the 4 friends. Sam, Sully, Lizzy and Piper. I love the other characters as well, but they are good in small dozes like Derek, Darcy and even Sully. It is like the show lost some of its family and everyone else is trying to hard to fill in. It is overdose. While things are funny in small dozes when you are exposed to it all the time it goes from funny to annoying. I was so looking forward to the return of this show. So please bring back the charm. Even if you could not fit Piper into the show at least bring Lizzy back. But I loved those girls. They brought the fun. The show was about Sam trying to live his business life and handle his personal life and friends as well. That was the charm. And that great dog as well.<br /><br />I hope the network (FOX) forced the writers to do this and the writers did not willingly do this to the show. I will give the show a couple more episodes before I give up, but tonight's episodes were bad. I made a big deal out of the show returning tonight and had people over and I felt like a fool, because no one was laughing except 2-3 times. I apologized to them and said I don't know what happened. And about 10 minutes into the episode I realized they were not going to show Piper or Lizzy and this was no longer a must see TV comedy.

I don't think it's necessary to outline the plot for you, because the site and other users have done a superb job of that already. That said, here's my take. This is by far the worst movie of 2005, and there have been some really, really bad ones. I don't even need to go into detail because there is NOTHING redeeming about this movie. Bad acting, bad plot, bad directing, bad special effects-you name it. If it doesn't stand alone as the worst film ever made, it's tied with some other piece of crap. I'd be embarrassed to have my friends know I was in this movie. But hey, most people that are gonna see it will do so no matter what reviews it gets, so more power to ya. When you feel the gaping void between your neurons two hours into your evening, don't blame me.

The entire movie, an artful adaptation of one of Joyce's "Dubliners" stories, takes place on the night of January 6 (Epiphany), 1906. Most of the film takes place at an annual party given by three spinsters (two sisters and their niece), where a group of upper-class Dubliners gather for an evening of music, recitations and dinner. While there is very little plot per se, the interaction and conversation among the group reveals much about Dublin in the early 20th century when the stirrings for independence were just beginning. The cast, all talented Irish stage actors with the exception of Anjelica Huston, are universally wonderful, and one actually feels he is a guest at the gathering himself. The poignant final scene, between Ms. Huston and the amazing Donal McCann, reveals much about the marriage of the characters. There is poignancy mixed with humor and insight, and for those who like quiet, thoughtful movies, "The Dead" is highly recommended. My wife is from Dublin, we make a ritual of watching this wonderful movie every January 6th. After many viewings it never fails to move me, and each time I glean something that I've missed before.

Barman just wanted to make a movie because he wanted to. Just as simple as that, and he succeeded. Not only in his goal, but also in making a wonderful movie, especially visually. He knows how to use pans, slow-motion sequences, tracking shots, crane shots, etc. in a beautiful, smooth way. This gives the movie a very relaxing feel to it.<br /><br />The story is about the lives of 8 very different characters who have nothing in common except one thing: a party that they all attend to, which also is the turnpoint of this movie. The beauty of this picture lies not in the question how the characters have effect on eachother (in comparance with a similar, of course better movie like Magnolia). I simply don't think that that was Barman's idea. The beauty lies in the different details of experiences that people go through which makes or breaks their lives. Barman is very successful in telling those little stories that describe little experiences. He knows people..... and Antwerp.<br /><br />The soundtrack of the movie is also excellent, but not a surprise as we know that Barman is also a very succesful songwriter and musician with his band dEUS. The music is sometimes hot and at the same time relaxing which contributes to the sunny, smooth feel of the movie. Other times we hear funky pop/rock-melodies which give some scenes the strength that they need.<br /><br />There's only one flaw, and that's the last half an hour. Was it the runtime, which was breaking me up? Or weren't the last scenes that fresh and accurate than the scenes until then? I can't figure it out...<br /><br />All in all a beautiful sunny movie which lifts the Belgian cinema up.<br /><br />8 out of 10!<br /><br />(It's the breeze that flows through a girl's hair on a sunny afternoon making her even more beautiful; it's the fresh breeze that makes you relax when it passes you at a crowded party when someone opens the door; it's the breeze that carries the perfume from that beautiful girl sitting next to you in the park who you just met a week ago; it's the breeze.....)<br /><br />

Although DiG! was being hailed as being closest to what the music industry is like it is highly fabricated. The director has misled the audience into believing the Brian Jonestown Massacre disappeared off the face of the earth post-'98. And the rivalry between the Dandy Warhols and Jonestown has been milked. The truth of the matter is not really exposed in this film.<br /><br />That said this film is endlessly quotable and is an interesting watch as we get a look at two groups of very talented musicians creating their art. One of the best things this film has going for it is a unique perspective between the indie music scene and the larger corporate scene.<br /><br />Recommended mostly for the music and the two fantastic bands.

The plot in this movie is very thin, and there is not much acting. Val Kilmer--I don't know why he agreed to do this movie--plays a minor role as a gang leader. In short, the movie is tedious to watch.<br /><br />One guy, who sort of resembles an archeology/religion professor, is exploring a subterranean area of Moscow, that has some history connected to railway construction and the Bolshevik revolution. A church tragedy in that history makes the exploration "spiritual" and spirits of a malevolent intent haunt the underground ruins. A friend of the professor decides to find his friend in the underground and hires a couple of Russian guides. The entire movie is based on this plot and contains much repeated footage of the underground, and some camera effects; much like those seen in "Day Watch", "Night Watch", etc.

FREDDY has gone from scary to funny,in this 6th installment in the Nightmare series.<br /><br /> It's been 2 years,well actually 11 since this film takes place in 2001.And FREDDY has killed every last kid on Elm street except one,John Doe(Jacobb from part 5,even doe the film gives on hint who he is),in which he uses to bring more children to come to Elm street.Not only does FREDDY gets his wishes,but he also gets his daughter back to Elm street.When she finds out what is happening,she and other kids decide to kill FREDDY once and for all.We also get to see some of FREDDY's eerie backgrounds.<br /><br /> Rachel Talalay,who has been contected to the nightmare series for a long time by now.Many people hate this film,but I liked it.It tried to bring out what FREDDY was doing with his wisecrackes...COMDEY and makes the series more funny than scary.So this film is really a comdey sore to speak.It is not the wrost in the series,part 2 still holds it.<br /><br />

Well what I can say about this movie is that it's great to see so many Asian faces. What I didn't like about the film was that it was full of stereotypes of what typical racial characters would do in their role. The Asian girl without confidence who has to play someone else to get ahead, the white guy infatuated with Asian culture and chooses to leave his white world behind for the land of yellow and the "keeping it real" black cab driver. Plus all the coke, shanghai tang and dunkin donuts product placement was a bit too obvious. The story plot itself was fun but pretty much how I thought the story would unravel. Then again when watching romantic comedies you can't expect much but then again I would have been wanted to just be surprised at least once. The parents are the best part of the flick.

I really disliked this movie....mainly because of the main characters! They are both immature, selfish, and self-centered people. They hurt EVERYBODY around them playing their silly game. The visual effects were good but what good are they if there are no characters that you connect with or a story line that is interesting. Am I supposed to be happy when these two psycho people FINALLY consummate their love for each other? <br /><br />After watching this movie I was thinking "This is supposed be the #1 smash from France?"........<br /><br />*spoiler* <br /><br />As for the end: GOOD RIDDANCE! They both deserve each other! <br /><br />

during eddie murphy's stand up a women from the audience yells at eddie and a man from the audience responds. what is said is,, women - DO MR ROB (this is a character from Saturday night live), the man responds with SHUT UP BITCH. unlike the previous post saying the women yelled do gumby, this is incorrect, although the post-er said he was there they must have a hearing problem! despite what the post-er says about not being able to here it on DVD have a close listen as you actually can hear it on the DVD - DO MR ROB!!!! i hope this helps anyone curious out the outburst cheers gaz!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!

Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare starts as dream demon Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund) leaves a teenager (Shon Greenblatt) on the outskirt's of Springwood with no memory of himself, who he is or why he is there. The local police pick him up & take him to a youth centre where child psychiatrist Maggie Burroughs (Lisa Zane) interviews him, she finds a newspaper cutting in his pocket which leads the two to Elm Street in Springwood where they discover that no children live there & therefore no victims for Freddy kill anyone. It all turns out that it's an elaborate plan by Freddy to find his daughter & use her to escape Springwood. When Maggie realises what Freddy is up to her & some kids decide they have to kill Freddy once & for all...<br /><br />Directed by Rachel Talalay this was made with the intention of being the final A Nightmare on Elm Street film which by this time had reached five, of course as any horror film fan know's if there's still money to be made from a franchise or a character then there's no way in hell Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare was going to be the last one which, of course, it wasn't. The A Nightmare on Elm Street series has been a franchise of diminishing returns as the films dropped in quality as the series progressed until we got here & Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare which for my money is probably the worst out of the lot of them. The film moves at a reasonable pace & it's rarely boring but it's so silly, childish & feels like some sort of live-action cartoon with some awful set-piece horror scenes that seem a million miles from Wes Craven's suspenseful & effective early 80's original. The sequence where stoner Spencer is trapped inside a video game being played by Freddy is terrible on it's own but then we are treated to shots of his body back in reality bouncing around the house from wall to wall & floor to ceiling which is quite the most ridiculous thing I've seen in a while, or maybe the early scenes when the John Doe kid falls from a plane down to the ground just like the Coyote cartoon character in the Road Runner cartoons or the absurd sight of Freddy threatening the deaf Carlos with pins that he intends to drop to the floor to make a loud noise or when he eventually kills him by scraping his knives across a blackboard. You can't take this seriously & I was just sitting there not quite believing what I was seeing. When they do finally try to kill Freddy the hero is given a secret powerful special weapon, yeah that's right a pair of cardboard 3-D glasses! The character's are poor, the dialogue is poor & the plot is confusing, it doesn't really stick to the Elm Street continuity & overall the film is a bit of a mess, the best thing I can say about it is that it has quite a bit of unintentional humour & you can certainly laugh at it.<br /><br />The film has major tonal problems as it tries to be dark, scary & sinister yet it's so silly & simply looks ridiculous at times that any attempt at being serious falls completely flat. There's not much gore in this one, there's some cut off fingers, some stabbings, someone falls on a bed of nails & that's about it. The body count is extremely low here with only three death's. The final twenty or so minutes of Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare was in fact shot in 3-D although the version I saw presented this part as normal so I can't comment on how well this does or doesn't work but you can definitely see shots which are meant to be seen in 3-D which take advantage of the process. The special effects vary, some are quite good actually while other's are terrible & Freddy's burnt make-up this time looks quite poor.<br /><br />This apparently had a budget of about $5,000,000 (it had an opening weekend box-office take of $12,000,000) & the film has a few nice visual touches & gags which makes the thing feel even more cartoony than it already is. The acting is really poor from the main leads although there are a few odd cameos including Tom Arnold & Roseanne, Johnny Depp & rocker Alice Cooper.<br /><br />Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare is probably the worst of the entire series & apart from some unintentional laugh value there's not much here to recommend or enjoy. Fans of the series will probably like it & defend it but for me this is about as far from Wes Craven's original classic shocker as it gets. Followed by New Nightmare (1994) which tried to take Freddy Krueger & the series in a new & different direction.

Intended as light entertainment, this film is indeed successful as such during its first half, but then succumbs to a rapidly foundering script that drops it down. Harry (Judd Nelson), a "reformed" burglar, and Daphne (Gina Gershon), an aspiring actress, are employed as live window mannequins at a department store where one evening they are late in leaving and are locked within, whereupon they witness, from their less than protective glass observation point, an apparent homicide occurring on the street. The ostensible murderer, Miles Raymond (Nick Mancuso), a local sculptor, returns the following day to observe the mannequins since he realizes that they are the only possible witnesses to the prior night's violent event and, when one of the posing pair "flinches", the fun begins. Daphne and Harry report their observations at a local police station, but when the detective taking a crime report remembers Harry's criminal background, he becomes cynical. There are a great many ways in which a film can become hackneyed, and this one manages to utilize most of them, including an obligatory slow motion bedroom scene of passion. A low budget affair shot in Vancouver, even police procedural aspects are displayed by rote. The always capable Gershon tries to make something of her role, but Mancuso is incredibly histrionic, bizarrely so, as he attacks his lines with an obvious loose rein. Although the film sags into nonsense, cinematographer Glen MacPherson prefers to not follow suit, as he sets up with camera and lighting some splendidly realised compositions that a viewer may focus upon while ignoring plot holes and witless dialogue. A well-crafted score, appropriately based upon the action, is contributed by Hal Beckett. The mentioned dialogue is initially somewhat fresh and delivered well in a bantering manner by Nelson and Gershon, but in a subsequent context of flawed continuity and logic, predictability takes over. The direction reflects a lack of original ideas or point of view, and post-production flaws set the work back farther than should be expected for a basic thriller.