Datasets:

ukyh

/

imdb

like 0

The remake of H.B. Halicki's classic seventies chase film is simply horrible. Along with Vanishing Point, Gone in 60 Seconds represent the quintessential car chase films. The remake takes the original and stands it on its head. Whereas Halicki gave us 75% car chase and 25% supporting drama, in GISS 2000 we get 25% car chase and 75% supporting drama. Cage as super man, saves his brother, kisses the girl. MTV edits, tits and ass. Save your money, rent the original. At least Halicki didn't live to see his baby (he wrote, produced, directed, and starred in the '74' film) degraded in this manner.

I bought this on DVD for my brother who is a big Michelle Pfeiffer fan. I decided to watch it myself earlier this week.<br /><br />It is a reasonably entertaining piece containing two completely separate story lines. The section with Michelle Pfeiffer was by far the more interesting of the two. She plays a rising Hollywood actress who has had many short unfulfilling relationships. She literally bumps into Brian Kerwin (A regular married guy with Kids)after driving her car into the back of his. After being initially hostile to one another he offers to drive her home as she no longer feels comfortable to drive. Romance develops eventually leading to tragedy when his wife finds out. What happens at the end I was not prepared for but the slow pacing and routine TV direction takes any drama out of the plot.<br /><br />The other section involves an old Studio boss played by Darren McGavin. This section actually has the better cast with Kenneth McMillan, Lois Chiles, Steven Bauer & Stella Stevens. They all want something from the studio boss but in the end when he is asked to resign, they all realize their careers will now be going nowhere. <br /><br />It passes the time but is not all that interesting and I am glad this was not bought for me. I am not a Michelle Pffeifer fan but she was admittedly the only actor worth watching in this film and even in 1983 she was a decent actress. Overall though unless you are a fan of hers avoid this as it is very routine.

Silly, simplistic, and short, GUN CRAZY (VOLUME 1: A WOMAN FROM NOWHERE) goes nowhere.<br /><br />This brief (just over sixty minutes) tale isn't so much inspired by the classic spaghetti Westerns as it is a rip-off of Sam Raimi's THE QUICK & THE DEAD (his admitted homage to the spaghetti Westerns) brought into a contemporary setting. In QUICK & DEAD, Sharon Stone's character seeks revenge against the dastardly sheriff (played by Gene Hackman) who, when she was but an urchin, placed the fate of her father (a brief cameo by Gary Sinise) in her hands; she accidentally shot him through the head. In GUN CRAZY, Saki (played by the nimble Ryoko Yonekura) seeks revenge against the dastardly Mr. Tojo (played with minimalist appeal by Shingo Tsurumi), who, when she was but an urchin, placed the fate of her father in her hands; she let her foot slip off the clutch, and dear ole dad was drawn and quartered by a semi truck. The only significant difference, despite the settings, is the fact that Tojo sadistically cripples Saki with … well, I won't spoil that for you in case you decide to watch it.<br /><br />In short, Saki – a pale imitation of the Clint Eastwood's 'Man With No Name' – rides into the town – basically, there's a auto shop and a tavern alongside an American military base, so I guess that suffices for a town – corrupted by Tojo, the local crimelord with a ridiculously high price on his head for reasons never explained or explored. Confessing her true self as a bounty hunter, Saki takes on the local gunmen in shootouts whose choreography bares more than a passing similarity to the works of Johnny To and John Woo. Of course, by the end of the film Saki has endured her fair amount of torture at the hands of the bad guys, but she rises to the occasion – on her knees, in a laughable attempt at a surprise ending – and vanquishes all of her enemies with a rocket launcher.<br /><br />Don't ask where she gets the rocket launcher. Just watch it for yourself. Try not to laugh.<br /><br />The image quality is average for the DVD release. There is a grainy quality to several sequences, but, all in all, this isn't a bad transfer. The sound quality leaves a bit to the imagination at times, but, again, it isn't a bad transfer.<br /><br />Rather, it's a bad film.

This movie should not be viewed unless you are trying to kill yourself. I think this movie could actually cause severe brain damage. The main characters are the whiny non-hero Kevin, Amy, his bratty, ungodly conservative girlfriend, Kyle, a dork in red shorts who enjoys phone sex, Daphne, a scrawny, horny girl who is supposed to be "cool" and has no sense of how to dress, and her oversexed boyfriend Nick, an army recruit who can make an innuendo out of anything. No, I'm not a pervert, that's REALLY how the movie goes. The movie itself is an over-sexed rip-off of 1986's Gremlins, only you'll never find a trace of Gizmo anywhere. No, these Hobgoblins, unleashed by Wimpy Man (I'm sorry, Kevin), make someone's wildest dreams come true, and then kill the victims. Yes, you guessed it-Eventually, they wind up in a strip club, where the nerdy Amy's greatest dream is revealed-She wants to be a stripper! Look, I watched this flick via MST3K, and even with Mike Nelson, Tom Servo, and Crow T. Robot making a laughing-stock out of this cinematic trainwreck and it still made me bleed from both eyes. Not really, but I wish I had. I'm not giving you anymore plot, because reliving it gives me this great urge to drive a pitchfork through my brain. Besides, it's not like there's a plot worth mentioning. They should put a Surgeon's General Warning on this film.

This may or may not be the worst movie that Steve Martin has ever made, but it certainly was far from his best. Obviously, he did this crap for the pay check. Dreck like this certainly does nothing to enhance his reputation as a funny man. What he doesn't seem to grasp is that when people go to see a Steve Martin movie, they expect to be entertained, not bored to tears. It's sad that he dragged Dan Aykroyd and Phil Hartman down with him. I don't understand why talented people can't get a grip on the fact that people don't want to see them in lousy movies. If you're going to call a movie a comedy, then it should be funny. This wasn't. Shame on the US military for allowing itself to be associated with this pabulum, too. Full Metal Jacket had more laughs than this miserable excuse for a "service comedy." Surely, Phil Silvers is rolling over in his grave.

This is just horrible, really horrible trash. Yes, we've got beautiful naked women dancing and having sex. But while this may work in the mechanism of a porn movie – may have even been a hit as a porn movie – this tries to mask itself as a "film" with actual things to say, with real emotion and struggle. It isn't. It's an excuse to get some girls naked and have a fun time. I'm sure all of these women (and men) in this particular movie could have faired decently in the porn movie business of the 1970s . . . but not in the actual movie business.<br /><br />The acting was hackneyed, so bad, I mean real terrible. The writing was even worse. I can't lay all blame on these actors – they had nothing to work with. The very broad structure or plot of the movie could possibly be done and done well with good writers and competent actors. The very broad structure or plot is that of a psychotic man who spends his time shooting people from afar, as a sniper. These shootings were motivated from men not respecting their women enough. If there was more writing - better writing, much better writing - and less gratuitous sexual imagery we might have something to work with.<br /><br />This movie should have been shot, made and marketed a hardcore porn movie all along; it would have made more money. It practically is a hardcore porn film already, and it remains the only non-porn movie I've seen that shows a male erect penis.

This is without doubt Rajnikanth's worst movies ever. The first part is held in place with solid comedy from Goundamani but it progressively gets worse and worse and completely illogical. Our hero also takes a dig at Saints with the same name (Baba) through a corny and utterly lame one-liner. The first half has Rajni uttering his usual array of oneliners and style and in the second half, becomes a quasi saint after a beggar takes him through a interdimensional portal to the Himalayas where Babaji (not the famous Saints he took a dig at earlier) gives him special powers for no apparent reason (other than karma). This is really starting to get interesting now isn't it? <br /><br />The rest of the movie is about him wasting his magic boons and powers and fighting off politicians and related black magic. The usual predictable crap with hilarious implementation. Oh and the black magic never worked on our hero because he just happened to have a Param Vir...er....Shakti Chakra with him. The bad guys and the usual politician villains are clichéd, overworked and in the end, completely insignificant to the plot which itself doesn't go anywhere.<br /><br />But despite all the flaws, it was fun to kill time with and yell Baba related one-liners during public events. Its also fun to watch others curse about this movie. AR Rehman is said to have composed the tracks for his movie through the cell phone. Thats how important he considered it.<br /><br />Rajni is very popular in Japan and he has included two characters (one of them is called Keiko...why not Samsung?) of Japanese origin in this movie just for the sake of it. But the way they are portrayed, dressed and treated is absolutely pathetic. The Japanese may stop watching Rajni movies after seeing that. This movie was probably promotional material for Rajni entering politics but the results of the movie itself would have killed off any of his political dreams.<br /><br />Fun if you turn your brain off though.

I've heard about this movie for many years, and finally got a chance to see it. A massive murdering of cheerleaders back in 1963 and 1969 eventually cause a cheerleading camp to close up. Fast forward to 1982, and Bambi, a former student, opens it back up with new recruits, among them Candy (Carol Kane), Glenn (Judge Reinhold), and Sandy (Debralee Scott). One by one, they are murdered by the killer, until only one remains. It is then when we find out who did it and why.<br /><br />Also in the movie are Tom Smothers doing a terrible accent as a Canadian Mountie, and Paul Reubens doing his Pee-Wee Herman schtick. The plot overall isn't very well developed, and quite lame, but some funny scenes do occur, namely the House of Bad Pies and the strip poker scene. The ending seems like it's thrown together, which is a shame.<br /><br />Overall, good for about ten or fifteen minutes total, the rest you can just fast forward through. Maybe catch it on TV, but it's not worth buying.

Little Man, now on DVD, is a Wayans Brothers flop. It's the tale of a smaller than a midget criminal played by Marlon Wayans, who hides a diamond in a lady's purse after a heist. He and his partner Tracy Morgan cook up the genius plan to disguise Marlon as a baby and plant him at the lady's home. He then goes through all sorts of "Home Alone" or "Child's Play" like mayhem to get the jewel back and be treated like a baby. I was surprised by how low the humor was in this film. The jokes have been done in other places so many times, that they aren't cute or funny. I almost think the movie might have been funnier if they didn't use CGI and used the small actor who Marlon's face was pasted over. In watching the deleted scenes (minus CGI) this actor was funny in a Mini-me like way, but they chose a different route. A few cameos and Tracy Morgan make some funny scenes..Spend your rental fee $ on Borat if you want some real laughs these days.<br /><br />http://mcmusicnotes.blogspot.com

I've read comments that you shouldn't watch this film if you're looking for stirring Shakespearian dialogue. This is true, unfortunately, because all the stirring dialogue, this wonderful play contains, has been cut, and replaced with songs. I've read this play, and recently was lucky enough to see it performed, at it remains one of my favourite Shakespearian Comedies, but this movie seems to take all that I like about it away. The Princess, though no doubt doing what she was directed to do, had no regal bearing, and all the girls seemed to lose the cleverness of their characters - also affected by unwise cuts, which not only took away the female characters already sparse dialogue, but took comments out of context - it was a little unnerving to hear the Princess proclaim; "We are wise girls to mock our lovers so!", when mocking had not taken place at all. The news reels throughout the film also disrupted the flow, and took away many excellent scenes, as they showed the information in the scenes after them, and were in modern phrasing. In conclusion, an excellent play, ruined by an odd concept, and unwise cuts. Kenneth, I usually love what you do. What were you thinking?

What a disgrace! I was checking this out hoping it would be an undiscovered James Garner gem and what a stinker it turned out to be! The production quality was fine, but the plot was undeniably lame and I can honestly say that I am only a couple hours older and a lot dumber now. The movie really had no redeeming qualities and if this kind of stuff keeps coming out, it will give Hallmark a bad name. For those of you who insist on knowing what it was about, it's about nothing, and in this case, it's not a good thing. We are subjected to watching one old ornery woman who is one of the dumbest creatures ever to roam the earth, who happens to be married to a real sweetheart who is probably the only person alive that could put up with her. She drags him through one mess after another, gets him into one embarrassing situation after another, and is proud of herself the whole time. Then the movie ends. What a relief that was! Not worth the time it would take to watch it, so do yourself a favor and skip this one, you'll be glad you did if you knew how bad this one really is.

Horror movies can be a lot of fun with low budgets, bad acting, and a bit of panache. I think the film is just missing panache, because, one thuddingly dull scene after another, people make laughably harmless claw-handed grabs at the air. If it weren't so boring, it might be funny.<br /><br />A horror film can go a long way with a tired concept like "college kids in a haunted house," in much the same way the Evil Dead movies had a lot of fun with a similar standard plotline. Hallow's End, unfortunately, doesn't go a long way. Actually, it doesn't go anywhere. It spends the better part of an hour setting up faceless and anonymous characters with what seem like endless interpersonal drama. I have nothing against character development, not even in a horror movie, but these are strictly one-dimensional characters (the alpha-male, the milquetoast, the... um... throwaway characters that exist mostly for sex scenes.) Spending forty-plus bloodless, droning minutes with them was more horrific than when the bloodshed started.<br /><br />Well, implied bloodshed anyway. When the college kids turn into whatever they dressed as for their haunted house (one's a vampire, one's wearing O.R. scrubs and some white pancake) they look pretty much the way they did in their amateur haunted house costumes; The Dead Hate The Living, using a similar theme, is a masterwork in comparison. There isn't really any gore to speak of, nor are there any real scares.<br /><br />I've thought about this one from almost every approach. If it was supposed to be a tight, suspenseful horror movie (which would explain why things moved so slowly), the pathetic sex scenes and cheap monsters would invalidate it. If it was supposed to be a genuine blood & guts horror movie (which would explain the schlock)... where's the blood and guts? And the anticlimax is one of the unexciting endings to a movie I've ever seen. It's the kind of movie that, though it doesn't have a narrator through the film, is bookended by voice-overs because all of the meaningless dialogue just wasn't enough.<br /><br />This was a hard one... coming out of it, I wonder if I've just sat through a christian horror film. Maybe the "I know hell exists" of the opening wasn't meant that way, but there are some hints (or misdirection-- I'm not sure which). For all the profanity in the film, a line like "gosh-darnit" comes off a little absurd, and so does most of the crucifix worshipping, god-fearing, and satan-dreading, especially after some lecherous T&A sex scenes (one heterosexual, one lesbian).<br /><br />If it a christian company (Highland Myst's logo even has a bit of a crucifix resemblance), then this film weighs in heavily for the atheist camp. An omnipotent being can't be this bad a filmmaker.<br /><br />

Anyone who has seen 'Shine',Scott Hicks film of the heartbreaking yet ultimately joyful life of the pianist David Helfgotts; will I am sure realise that 'The SOLOIST' is very poor in comparison.It is as slow as a lullaby( I took five breaks answering emails just to wake up). The depiction of the homeless area way over the top and extremely self indulgent, on a par I fear with the awful beach battle depiction in Joe Wrights other disaster Attonment. .J Fox performance was an extremely poor example of acting and lacked credibility from the offset.Downey on the other hand; although struggling with a badly paced film, still manages to charm,9Is it me or is he turning into George Clooney in more ways than one?). Comparing both these well known so called 'STAR'actors though is unnecessary as the light that shines brightest as far as acting is concerned must be that of 'shine's' Geoeffry Rush who's brilliant performance definitely SHONE far brighter in my sky. With both 'Attonment' and 'The Soloist' the written word wins far more prizes for empathy of subject. Read the book and articles or wait for the DVD its bound to be in the bargain basement soon.

A bickering, American family, vacationing in the west, discover a strange ghost town in the middle of the desert. Little do they know that this ghost town was once a test site for nuclear bombs, and a deadly presence is stalking them. I generally love mystery-horror films like this. "Cube", Spielberg's "Duel" and "The Birds" are all great examples of movies that give no answers but nonetheless leave us intrigued and wanting more. Apparently, "Disappearance" writer/director Walter Klenhard was trying to make just that kind of film, and whether or not he succeeded is up to the viewer. I personally think he got about half way there, then the film just sunk.<br /><br />The actors are all kind of just "ho-hum". Their not especially bad but we as an audience never really feel their fear and they react to situations in unrealistic ways. Is anyone else absolutely SICK of characters just walking out off to investigate strange sounds?!?!? At least give them SOME kind of justification for doing so!?!?!?<br /><br />As far as made-for-TV films go it's an above average fair for sure. Director Klenhard Should be commended for really milking the desert environment for everything it offered and some of the setting were striking. There's a really cool scene where two characters find an old nuclear test ground were the sand had been completely melted to glass for as far as the eye could see. I wonder if that was real…<br /><br />No gore to speak of, and the 'creatures'…or what ever the hell it is that's after these people…are never shown, not to mention that we are never even given a real clue as to what they are (Mutants, aliens, ghosts or ancient evil Indian spirits…Oh, that really narrows it down for us!) or where the come from. <br /><br />There are lots of clichés here, too. Why is it that towns-folk in these kinds of films are always really, really dumb? Why is there always an old guy everyone thinks is crazy that turns out to be correct? Why? Why? Why? How 'bout a NEW scenario, folks! <br /><br />"Disappearance" tries to be different and intelligent but ultimately fails in that in many ways it's too familiar to us fans of direct-to-video horror fodder. Hey, I've seen much worse films, and disappearance ain't bad, it's just too… Average.<br /><br />4/10.

You know this is gonna be a cheesy movie when:<br /><br />1. It was made it the 50's 2. It's in black and white. 3. It has no name actors! 4. Screaming makes up for the lack of special effects!<br /><br />Well not to be outdone - this movie brilliantly incorporated all four of the above elements to turn this into a true cinematic blunder.<br /><br />Okay - shhhhh but I am gonna discuss special effects here - or lack of them - <br /><br />Did you catch the underwater scenes? It looks like it was poorly filmed through an aquarium - note the cape flapping in the breeze.<br /><br />And the repeated re-use of Stock Footage, (exterior house shots, the bridges scenes -- great enhanced the K-R-A-F-Tiness of this film - not since "PLAN 9" - have I seen such creative usage of stock footage.<br /><br />And hey where there was a lack of special effects - not to worry - screaming DOES take the place of special effects in this movie as well. Yes this movie even cleverly used that old hack trick.<br /><br />Grab the popcorn - set your brain on stun (several fermented beverages DEFINITELY helps), sit back, and wonder: why the heck did they put this on film again?<br /><br />Wayno<br /><br />

I didn't really expect much from "The Night Listener" and I actually never heard of it until I saw the cover in the videostore. However, the movie is very effective when it comes to building up suspension and tension. On occasion it drags a little, but it actually helps to keep you wondering what's going to happen and more importantly: when. As the movie progresses, the character played by Robin Williams gets dragged into some kind of "cat and mouse" spiel to the point where he becomes obsessed with finding out the truth and existence about a 14 year old abused kid that no-one seemed to have ever seen in person. The Night Listener is an interesting story, which is great in building up the suspense throughout the movie and you're pretty much kept in the dark of who is lying and what's real. However, in the end it kind of disappoints and doesn't live up to the potential it could have had. It doesn't really give you a detailed or plausible explanation about the other main character, which would have been helpful and interesting.

Michael Keaton has really never been a good actor; in the Tim Burton Batman movies he always falls in the shadows of his great villains. Here, he stars as a widowed husband that picks up radio frequencies that seems like is dead people that tries making contact with the living...<br /><br />Well, this is supposed to be a pretty shocking thriller, but it really misses about every spot there is shocking you. Because there's way too much stuff that ends up unexplained, undiscovered and uninteresting. So where's the shocking excitement when it all gets so bad movie made in the first place that WHITE NOISE makes a fool out of itself? Truly bad acting and horrifying edited, this movie is nothing to watch. Michael Keaton tries making a thriller comeback but ends up missing the target more than ever.

This series has its ups and occasional downs, and the latter is the case, here. There's an agreeable amount of spatter, with an inventive implementation of the Baby Cart's weapons, but the editing film is a seriously disjointed, the film-making itself rougher than usual. At times, the action slows to a crawl as the camera follows the wordless wanderings of the "cub," who nearly gets lost early on. All in all, disappointment.<br /><br />That said, there's a spaghetti eastern quality to the music and action that may win the approval of dedicated viewers. This installment spends much of its time following the minor misadventures of the little boy, who begins to stare into the abyss of death his father opened for him.

I got all excited when I saw the ads for this movie because I recently read the book and really enjoyed it. The movie, however, did not meet my expectations. Having read the book recently prepared me for big let down as often happens when stories are translated into movies. The characters didn't seem to fit very well with the book. The direction was weak. I had a hard time getting into the characters. There wasn't a real connection with the viewer about what was going on. The dialog didn't explain adequately what was happening. It just seemed slapped together and rushed through. All in all I was very disappointed with the movie. I suppose if you haven't read the book, it might be ok by itself. At the very least, it might entice you to read the book, which you'll probably enjoy more.<br /><br />

This solid little horror film is actually one of Renny Harlin's best. The story is pretty routine stuff, but the atmosphere is what really makes it come alive; in fact, the ghost story is almost an afterthought. The real horror comes from the prison setting itself, and Renny H. spares no detail in showing us how bad the conditions are inside that crumbling, leaking, rat-infested old hellhole (with a sadistic warden, too!) Viggo Mortensen is excellent as usual in the lead role, supported by some very authentic-looking prisoners (there are no pretty boys in this cast.) Horror fans should check this one out.

This movie was probably the worst movie I have ever seen. Here are the things that immediately jump out at me: 1. The woods were more like hills in Los Angeles with a couple trees and brush. Not scary whatsoever. News flash, if you are filming in the Southern California area, big bear is only an hour away. They actually have trees there.<br /><br />2. The writing was absolutely without a doubt the worst dialogue I have ever experienced. Every possible line in the movie was unoriginal, cliché, or just plain stupid. For instance the name of the camp is "camp blood" (lame), the name of the clown is "the killer clown" (lame). What is a clown doing in a forest anyway? Was that the only mask they could find? 3. The last but certainly the least was the acting. Absolutely the worst group of actors and actresses ever assembled. A virtual cornucopia of shitty lines and poor acting. Worst part by far was when then randomly flash back to this fat foreign girl getting naked for a a photograph. It's a really long scene and I guess she was supposed to be sexy, but she was NOT. Also, and this was one of the few enjoyable parts of the movie for me, was this tool who is supposed to be "athletic." For instance when he is bored in the movie he grabs a couple rocks and starts doing curls with them. Then later on he is supposed to be running for the clown and it is immediately clear with his very "girl like" run, that he is quite far from athletic. Oh and to the girl who played Kat, good Lord stop singing. That song you sang for the credits makes me want to kill myself.<br /><br />If for some reason you do see this movie, I would at least recommend watching the special features. The group of jackasses who made this film talk about it as if it is this really original story. In fact one of the girls actually says that she let some of her friends read the screenplay and none of them could predict the ending. Apparently she hangs out with special kids.

I was one of those "few Americans" that grew up with all of Gerry Andersen's marvelous creations. Thunderbirds was a great series for the time and would have made a great action/adventure movie if only the writers could have figured out where to target it.<br /><br />I expected it to be a romp, but I did not expect it to aim at such a low age group. Like Lost in Space, this could have been both visually stunning and exciting. It should have focused on more action/adventure and the goal of the original series... saving people in trouble.<br /><br />Instead, it focused on Alan saving the day instead of his brothers (who were cast too young anyway vs. the original). The breakout part was Lady Penelope and Parker. I didn't care too much for the characters in the original, but I was grateful for them in the movie. They stole the show!<br /><br />I always enjoyed Thunderbirds more for the high-tech than the stories, and even that did not get enough screen time as far as I was concerned. I would have enjoyed seeing more of the cool gadgets.<br /><br />But then, I'm just a big kid... ;)

The King Maker is a film about a series of real (citation needed) events that occurred during the Portuguese Occupation in Indochina.<br /><br />Although the costumes and art direction are commendable, the movie still fails to impress the viewer. The acting, in particular, was extremely poor. Some of the actors are trying hard to let tears down and the accents, both real and fake, are extremely irritating. The storyline was also too dumb and too stupid to be true and it seemed more like a history lesson. The movie couldn't even capture that sort of regal and century-old air and it looked more like a botched attempt to make an Asian version of Elizabeth.<br /><br />Final say? Costumes and art direction give the film a breath of fresh air, but the execution was extremely poor and the actors couldn't even give natural bursts of emotion. In short, the movie sounded more like hullabaloo than a script.

This is the only movie that my wife and I have ever walked out on. Totally sucked. We saw it in Omaha even. Not funny at all, looks like a 14 year old kid wrote the humor. I can't believe these real politicians were actually in the movie. awful.

The only thing that surprises me more than the number of people who liked this movie is that it was directed by Clint Eastwood, whose work I admire immensely. The leads had absolutely no chemistry. Not for a second could I believe that there was anything deeper than lust between them. The story just didn't ring true. Add to that stilted conversation, tons of stereotypes, and an incredibly slow plot that basically leads nowhere, and you've got yourself a real stinker. Kay Lenz's nude scenes might be worthwhile for those seeking some salacious fare, but otherwise this is a colossal waste of time. My thoughts as I watched the movie was that itwould have been better titled "Cheesy."

Hollywood's attempt to turn Jack London's life into a "Jack London" adventure film isn't a bad idea; certainly, he led an interesting, and sometimes adventurous, life. This film, however, winds up flat and unsatisfying. Most importantly, it lacks integrity. Michael O'Shea (as London) has some Londonesque speeches; and, it's nice to see his bearded Jack receive "The Call of the Wild" after spending some quality time alone, in the snowy mountains, with his dog, "Buck". Virginia Mayo and Susan Hayward are both very pretty. The film draws unfortunate "Yellow Peril" parallels between London's life and World War II, which are both strained and insulting. <br /><br />** Jack London (11/24/43) Alfred Santell ~ Michael O'Shea, Susan Hayward, Virginia Mayo

This is your only spoiler warning. What a sad state of our cinema when unprofessional junk like this is considered "Oscar worthy".<br /><br />I divide material into three levels. The first is the stage theatre. Here the viewer is stagnant and the power rests in the presentation of the actor and, most importantly, in the power of the writer. A good playwright is better than a good screenwriter because he or she knows the ways of words better. The best playwrights know how to create imagery that the barren stage cannot show.<br /><br />The second level is film. In this medium, a weaker writer can be used, but the viewer is not sitting in one spot the entire time. With film, the context can take the qualities of visual poetry and meaning in addition to strong writing. Furthermore, film can manipulate everday elements like sound and color in ways that are almost surreal.<br /><br />The final level is literature. In this context, everything is imagined by the author, translated onto paper, and then re-imagined by the reader. Far more detail can go into a novel than is conceivable for a film studio.<br /><br />This is why adaptations can go up, but never down. Novelizations are never better than the base film (see the dime-per-dozen ones at your local book store), whereas the film cannot convey the same power as the original book (Catch-22 and LotR). Movies can rarely be made into plays and plays can always be made into movies.<br /><br />As for 'The Last Picture Show', it fails. It is a film that should stick to the stage because the director is too stupid to shoot anything right. The characters talk the same and act the same, it's pure futility. Add to that an obnoxious soundtrack and you have an entirely unwatchable film.<br /><br />I saw this in my high school drama class with about 20 other wannabe thespians. The instructor raved about how sad the movie was. What is sad is how such stagnant work is considered depressing when the material itself is hilarious. Had this been in color the scenes of impotence, the pool party, and the old hooker would be considered great comedy. Look what Lucas did with 'American Graffiti' a few years later.<br /><br />The American secondary education system needs to start teaching ABOUT film rather than trying to teach WITH film. Two visually powerful downbeat films: Apocalypse Now and Barry Lyndon. Rely on them, not this. It's the 'Last' I want to see of it. 1 out of 5.

I wanted to like Magnolia. The plot reminded me of Grand Canyon (which I liked). 4 different lives/stories that come together at the end but Magnolia took a wrong turn halfway through the movie and I was lost. I almost turned it off right then and there but I felt I should hang in there until the end, little did I know it would be another torturous 1 1/2 hours. Thank god I rented instead of seeing it in the theatre. I almost screamed out in frustration after 2 hours. The biggest kick in the pants was the ending frog scene. My DVD player still hasn't forgiven me and I don't blame it one bit. It was a unique movie, but a bad, boring, and pointless movie.

Let me just say I loved the original Boogeyman. Sure, it's a flawed clichéd 80s horror movie, but hey those types are fun to watch! And plus it gave us something a bit different. So I gladly bought it and to my surprise this movie came along with it (only copy they had actually) so I thought "Eh, what the hell" and bought it. Mistake #1. So that night I felt in the mood to watch a movie (I actually bought tons that day) and figured this was the shortest out of all the ones I bought so I'll just watch this and hit the sack. Mistake #2. Yes, I have heard how bad it was but I was willing to take a chance.<br /><br />So a few minutes into the movie and there's the first flashback. I think nothing of it at first. Then the new footage with the prediction of the chick in the bathtub and I'm kinda liking the direction it's going in. Then the next flashback which is a bit longer and I'm sitting there thinking "Yes I've seen the first Boogeyman! I know what happens so move along!" Then the next one comes up and I figure screw it and fast forward through it. Then the final one (Maybe I fast forwarded through the explanation but why was she lying topless on the mirror? At least she could've shown them!) and I decide to fast forward through it and then the climax and the movie was over! WTF? What happened to the prediction stuff? What happened to the long hair dude (Did he tap that or what?)? And more importantly what kind of weed was the writer and director smoking when making this awful POS??!!! And what was the point? Was Annie just having flashbacks of what happened in the first movie? Or was the stuff from the first movie just happening at the same time as this? The latter could make sense because the stabbing of Pantyhose Face happened in 1978 according to the characters in this movie and it was 15 years later. Wait a minute, no it wouldn't! Because Lacey (who the movie questionably renamed Nancy! Is Uli too dumb to remember his movie characters' names?) would be 20 years old since she was 5 when that happened and not only is she married to someone who looks 30ish but also has a kid who looks around 7 and 10! Did she get around during middle school? And also why would Pantyhose be after Annie? What connection does she even have with the characters of the original movie? And a BIG HUGE MOVIE MISTAKE I found in this movie is that when the doctor is writing in his notebook does anyone notice that he's just SCRIBBLING? Wow, how professional, Doc! So, what is the explanation for all of the questions I asked above? IT'S A POINTLESS MOVIE WITH NO THOUGHT PUT INTO IT AT ALL! I will try to find a copy of the original movie that comes with just that movie and that's it (Maybe a couple of extra features, any Special Edition of it yet?). Then I will return this DVD and hopefully this review and all the others will prevent those who haven't seen it from seeing it thus making movie stores get rid of it and this movie may not exist anymore! Please let that be so! Sorry this review is so long. I'm just angry at this movie I had to vent somehow

Another cult strikes again. This isn't a spoiler, because the REAL ending comes after you research the folks who brought this overly-long, pseudo-scientific infomercial...Ramtha's School of Enlightenment.<br /><br />When any religion/philosophy needs to hide behind an OZ-like screen of deceit, I walk away. Thank Ramtha I watched a borrowed copy of this movie on the recommendation of a "friend"...to have wasted precious resources on this New-Age lobotomizer would have been tragic. I can only hope that they "truly believe they can walk on water" enough to take that guidance to it's "logical" conclusion...in other words; walk, drown...or shut up :-) As a movie...it deserves a strong "1" on it's entertainment value, especially for creating the most dislikable character in film history (the photographer's roommate...eeeeeek!). If you must see this film, borrow it from one of the brainwashed folks who recommended it.

Dahmer, a young confused man. Dahmer, a confusing movie. Granted, I had a few beers while watching the movie, but that doesn't explain why I got so bored by this flick.<br /><br />Its flashbacks are nothing but confusing and annoying, and there's no real storyline with a beginning and an end, the only thing that made sense in the movie was the explaining text in the beginning and at the very end of the movie. The inbetween stuff, which would be the movie, is just boring images and a waste of time. <br /><br />We never see actual murders, everything is just a bunch of insinuations. Sometimes you even just get a feeling that Dahmer's dreaming the entire thing, but you know he isn't, since it's<br /><br />based on a true story and this actually happened, at least most of it. But what happened? It's not easy to tell.<br /><br />I do not encourage people to waste time on this movie. I<br /><br />didn't like it one bit and I felt cheated when it suddenly ended. <br /><br />*/*****

Some things need to be clarified. The picture of Mark Ferris is not the Mark Ferris who starred in this movie. I know that because he was my dad. Please remove that picture. Also, Mark Ferris was the writer, at least one of them. I have been trying to find a copy or a way to see this movie again. It has been years and if someone can point me in the direction of obtaining a copy, that would be great. The movie wasn't all that bad, and trying to compare it to todays world of Star Wars and other high tech sci fi's it futile. If you watch it, just enjoy it for the rediculousness and humor it possesses. Lighten up on being movie snobs and enjoy some less creative and innovated films.

This movie was a mess. It had the absolute worst editing I have ever seen. It was almost like at the end of a scene the writer wanted to go to commercial, and the filmmaker added a second of black screen to fulfill the writers dream.<br /><br />Under the messy direction and editing, there was a glimmer of something good. A good idea, a compelling spark. But somewhere it went wrong.<br /><br />The story is about a quasi-psychic priest who is trying to solve a string of murders. The first thing that is hard to bite into is Richard Grieco as a priest. Well the part doesn't call for him to be a good priest and he succeeds rather well. The second problem is Dennis Hopper as the crazy bad guy. He always plays the crazy bad guy. Very ho hum.<br /><br />Oh, a thought occured to me that maybe all the jumpy, horrible editing and disconnected plot was trying to add a sense of the confusion the character (Grieco) was experiencing. And just to prove that it was contrived they rolled the credits backwords. Not a good sign for any movie.<br /><br />

The Ladies Man is a funny movie. There's not much thought behind it, but what do you expect from an SNL movie? It's actually better than most SNL movies (i.e. Superstar or A Night At The Roxbury) Tim Meadows and Will Ferrell were both very funny. Chris Parnell was also funny in his short scene (one of the funnier ones in the movie). Other than that, the rest of the cast is average and is just there to support Meadows. I've definitely seen funnier movies, but I've seen dumber ones too. Again, it's not exactly a deep movie, but it's good for a few laughs. It was funnier as a skit though. But still, if you're looking for a pretty funny movie, I'd recommend this one. Just don't think about it too much, or you'll hate it.<br /><br />Rating: 6/10

I don't believe they made this film. Completely unnecessary. The first film was okay. But there was no need for a sequel, certainly not after a television series that was already a sequel to the first film. This film feels like a soap-opera. The writing is so bad, it's utterly simple. The jokes don't come across, the acting is flat, it's shot like a soap, it lacks any direction. The first film had a good emotional spine behind it. Every character had a little arc. It was very simple then but somehow it worked and I could see the merit of that film. But this time around, there is no cohesive story-line. The characters are dull stereotypes and nothing interesting happens. One good thing: the Brazilian boy who plays Axel Daeseleire's son is pretty well cast. That was their one moment of creative success on this film. I hear they already shot a second television series as a sequel to 'Team Spirit 2' but please God, don't let them make a third feature installment...

This is a poor film by any standard. The story in Match Point had a certain intrigue, and the direction and writing a certain fascination (Woody Allen mixing his own culture with that of the classic English murder and exploring what can be done with it).<br /><br />Scoop, however has none of this. It is poorly written, the two leads are hopelessly wooden and the story itself has no interest at all. The genre that it spoofs requires at least some sort of subplot with witty explanations and tie-ups (why are tarot cards and keys kept under French horns in locked rooms?).<br /><br />Allen's delightful and witty versions of various Hollywood genres (Curse of the Jade Scorpion/Purple Rose of Cairo etc) have given us so much pleasure over the years. Even Hollywood Ending had a great central idea. Sadly his inspiration has deserted him this time.

Picture the fugly annoying goth kids from college in a scat film, throw in a pinch of story and a whole lot of awful acting, and you are still not even close to how bad this movie is.<br /><br />Shot badly, bad effects, worse acting. Contrived attempt at shocking horror. Everyone I've showed this to gets kinda depressed watching it. The sex scenes are disturbing, not necessarily for their content, but more because they're just something you want to end as soon as possible. The last sex scene is just foul, even before she gets to the guy.<br /><br />I'm one of those people that loves to watch movies that people hate, which is why I picked this one up. But for your own sake, save yourself the time and avoid this abhorrence. It's that bad. I literally threw it in the garbage.

Don't get me wrong, I assumed this movie would be stupid, I honestly did, I gave it an incredibly low standard to meet. The only reason I even saw it was because there were a bunch of girls going (different story for a different time). As I began watching I noticed something, this film was terrible. Now there are two types of terrible, there's Freddy vs. Jason terrible, where you and your friends sit back and laugh and joke about how terrible it is, and then there is a movie like this. The Cat in The Hat failed to create even a momentary interest in me. As I watched the first bit of it not only was I bored senseless, but I felt as though I had in some way been violated by the horrendousness of said movie. Mike Myers is usually brilliant, I love the majority of his work, but something in this movie didn't click. One of the things that the director/producers/writers/whatevers changed was that they refused to use any of the colors of the original book (red, black, white) on any character but the Cat. Coincidentally or not, they also refused to capture any of the original (and i hate to use this word, but it fits) zaniness of the original. The book was like an Ice Cream Sunday, colorful and delicious, and the movie was about as bland and hard to swallow as sawdust.<br /><br />Avoid this like a leprous prostitute.

This movie was crap with a capital "C." The opening scene showed promise. But that "promise" was broken shortly after the viewer learns where the plot is going.<br /><br />And the wooden statue, Morty, who was rather creepy in the original film, looks plain goofy in this one. It was so obviously just a guy in a cheap plastic costume. (And by the way, who else thinks "Morty" is one of the most un-scary names on planet earth? It ranks right up there with "Jimmy" or "Fred" when it comes to horror value. Or why not just name the wooden statute Henry-freakin'-Kissinger. "Run, it's Dr. Kissinger!" That'd be about as scary as "Morty.)<br /><br />And then there's a scene where the "hero" hits his father's tombstone with---"a sledgehammer?" you might guess--"a two-by-four?" someone might venture. No, he angrily beats his father's tombstone with a twig---a freakin' twig. But worse than that, once the characters walk away, the tombstone actually, and inexplicably, bleeds. Oh brother!<br /><br />There's also a Native American guy who lives with the main character's grandparents, but apparently, does nothing except Morty-maintenance. He perpetuates creepy Morty-legends, warns those who scoff, and even fixes Morty's arm when it becomes damaged during a childish prank. But for all his respect for and tenderness toward Morty, does Morty give a rat's hairy behind? No.<br /><br />The movie drags on, and eventually several people die in ways that correspond to their worst fears (sort of). This film is a real yawner. Don't rent it.

This movie was recently released on DVD in the US and I finally got the chance to see this hard-to-find gem. It even came with original theatrical previews of other Italian horror classics like "SPASMO" and "BEYOND THE DARKNESS". Unfortunately, the previews were the best thing about this movie.<br /><br />"ZOMBI 3" in a bizarre way is actually linked to the infamous Lucio Fulci "ZOMBIE" franchise which began in 1979. Similarly compared to "ZOMBIE", "ZOMBI 3" consists of a threadbare plot and a handful of extremely bad actors that keeps this 'horror' trash barely afloat. The gore is nearly non-existent (unless one is frightened of people running around with green moss on their faces) and the English dubbing is a notch below embarrassing.<br /><br />The plot this time around involves some sort of covert military operation with a bunch of inept scientists (ie. an idiotic male and his stupid female side-kick) who are developing some sort of chemical called "Death One" that is supposed to re-animate the dead. Unless my ears need to be checked, I don't even recall a REASON for the research of "Death One". It seems to EXIST only to wreak havoc upon the poor souls who made the mistake of choosing to 'star' in this cinematic laugh-fest.<br /><br />Anyway, "Death One" is experimented on a corpse (whom I swear looked like Yul Brynner), and after it is injected into his system, he sits upright and his head explodes! The sound effects are also quite hilarious - as the corpse's face bubbles with green slime, the sound of 'paper crumpling' can be heard. The "Death One" toxin is transported outside and is 'hi-jacked' by a group of thieves where one makes off with it, but infects himself after cutting himself on an exposed vial.<br /><br />Needless to say, the guy turns into a zombie, but not before he makes his timely escape to a cheap motel, infects a lowly porter and murders a maid by pushing her face into a bathroom mirror(!). The military catch wind of this and immediately take action before 'eliminating' everyone who is unlucky enough to be within the 'contamination zone' and turn the motel upside down. They find the infected thief and burn his body, only to have the smoke infect a flock of birds that are flying over the chimney stack(!).<br /><br />We cut to the introduction of a group of men who are on leave from the army, listening to 'groovy music' that is coming out of a little dinky boom-box while trailing a trailer-load of slutty girls who are leaning out of the windows and showing off their chests. Can someone say "zombie food"? We also have a sub-plot involving a girl and her boyfriend driving a car who stop to inspect a group of birds lying on the road... the same birds that were infected by the 'zombie' smoke! <br /><br />The birds attack the boyfriend and the girl drives off to a deserted gas station to seek water. This is one of the most incredibly hilarious moments of the movie. She walks around this old dirty, rusty and obviously abandoned building where she continues to ask aloud, "HELLO? IS THERE ANYONE HERE? PLEASE, I JUST NEED SOME WATER!" She encounters a group of zombies, one of which is chained to a wall (!) and the other is swinging a machete. After a bit of rumbling and tumbling around on the ground, she escapes but not before blowing up the gas station with her lighter.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the birds attack the trailer-load of whores and one girl gets pecked and infected. They all pull up to the same motel where the original infection took place, and this is where the second most hilarious moment of the film takes place. After a matter of hours (a day at the most), the same motel is now caked in dust, has vines growing throughout it, and looks like it has been sitting derelict for years. Anyway, what better place to take refuge than this particular building? Needless to say, the group begins to break down as several people walk off together to get themselves stuck in an incredibly stupid situation involving a zombie attack.<br /><br />The third most hilarious moment concerns a man and a woman who explore a deserted village, of which the woman comments, "THIS PLACE IS A DUMP!" She then proceeds to get 'pushed' off a balcony by a zombie into pirahna(?) infested water where she has her legs bitten off and turns into a zombie within seconds! Meanwhile, her friend back at the motel who got pecked and infected HOURS earlier is still TURNING into a zombie!<br /><br />Unfortunately, there are just too many inconsistencies in this movie that makes this movie just too stupid for words. For example, the time rate concerning infected people being 'zombified' differs greatly. Sometimes it takes seconds, other times it takes hours. Some zombies run, others drag their feet and walk really slow. Some even do kung-fu moves, while others hide under stacks of hay to surprise people. Some of the zombies even talk! The funniest moment of course is the infamous 'zombie head in the fridge' gag which 'elevates' itself in mid-air and 'attacks' a stupid man who goes looking for food. Funnily enough, his girlfriend gets her throat torn out by it's 'headless' counter-part (LMAO!).<br /><br />The biggest disappointment for me though was the lack of story-lines involving the people who are in fact killed by zombies. We never get to see them come back as zombies, in fact the only ones we do see 'zombified' are the ones pecked by the birds and the one girl who gets her legs bitten off. Other than that, I was at least expecting the couple who were killed in the kitchen and/or the guy who was killed on the bridge to come back as zombies. It is also amazing that these zombies only take a 'few bites' and then move on to their next victim. <br /><br />The most laughable moment was of course the zombie fetus. A pregnant woman who has been infected lies on a bed in a hospital. A woman who seems to have a lot of 'medical knowledge' tries to deliver the baby (!) and has her face pulled off by a zombie, before having her head pushed into the woman's stomach where a hand bursts out and proceeds to rip the rest of her face off. Timeless!<br /><br />As usual, all the characters are perfect stereotypes of this genre. The megalomaniacal military officer, the pathetic useless squealing women who scream to get killed, the obvious characters who are ABOUT to get killed (ie. watch for the man chasing a chicken!) I guess this movie really is a comedy. There were many laughable scenes, such as the shed that gets blown up with a hand grenade (obviously the scene where the entire budget was spent) and a climatic scene where a man screams, "I'M THIRSTY.... THIRSTY FOR YOUR BLOOD!". The costumes are really bad - the same zombies reappear throughout the course of the film, wearing the same 'Asian-like' clothing that may be found in a Bruce Lee film, and watch out for the blue 60's skirt the girl at the motel is wearing when she and her boyfriend bump into the infected man.<br /><br />The end of the film leaves open the door as usual for the apocalyptic story-line. A radio DJ who narrates throughout the whole movie turns out to be a zombie himself and warns his listeners about the 'beginning of the end' while the two survivors take off in a helicopter. Hardly "DAWN OF THE DEAD" material if you ask me.<br /><br />Regardless, this movie does deliver many laughs. The gore is minimal, and what gore there is, it is very unconvincing, let alone unimaginative. The usual mix of black blood, thick green goo oozing out of weeping sores and 'zombie make-up' consisting of green moss. "ZOMBI 3" makes for a good rental for a sleep-over party or a night of beer and popcorn. Other than that, horror fans should stay away.<br /><br />3 out of 10

It was all over with the slashers around 88 so it was time for the cheesy rip offs of those older movies. The Brain is well done, the script reminded me of Videodrome but then in a more cheesy way as said before. The acting can go through with it. But it's the effects that makes you laugh, the so called Brain is really a turkey and the blood is never shown. The opening sequence is what makes this movie worth watching, the hallucinations are really nicely done and reminded me of Nightmare on Elm Street, remember the telephone coming alive.... Some how you keep watching this flick, waiting what is happening next. It's viewable for all freaks out there cause there isn't any gore in it and as said the blood isn't there neither but there is nudity for the perverts. I have seen worser movies than this one, only wished they had made it bloodier...

This straight-to-video duffer is another nail in the coffin of Rick Moranis's career. As is the Disney tradition, quality is sacrificed in the name of a quick cash-in; this is a lazy retread with Moranis accidentally shrinking himself and a few relatives so they can repeat all the best scenes from the original movie. Instantly dated visual effects and crummy dialogue abound in this cheesy lamer, which did nothing but make me pine for the days of 'The Incredible Shrinking Man', when this kind of thing was done properly. Shockingly, this is directed by top cinematographer Dean Cundey, who should either stick to the day job or pick better material next time.

I've probably been spoilt by having firstly seen the 1973 version with Michael Jayston and Sorcha Cusack so the 1983 adaptation is such a disappointment. I just didn't get any chemistry between the 2 main stars. A lot of staring and theatrical acting just doesn't do it for me, and what was all that about putting Tim in the role of Rochester. Had the casting director actually ever read the book. Very strange! He's a fine actor but Mr. Rochester he definitely isn't! And Zelah was just, well, strange, bit of a mix matched couple. In it's favour the supporting cast were pretty good and the Lowood scenes for me were the best of the adaptation, but overall didn't capture any of the magic of the novel. Certainly wouldn't ask anyone to watch it as a true adaptation of the novel. A real let down!

I'm a sucker for a good romance, but this one doesn't qualify as either good or a romance. I had the plot nailed down before the credits were through. With such poor dialog, plot and character development, I suggest investing your hour and a half elsehere. I had to rush out and rent Serendipity for the third time so I could get the bad taste of this one out of my mouth.

If Alien, Jurassic Park and countless other sci fi horror movies are your cup of tea, add a lot of sugar and you'll get this one down. The film begins in jolly old England around 1100ad and then jumps to present day California. Our hero Carver (Dean Cain) is the new Security Chief and Military Advisor for a Science Lab 400 feet underground. He arrives (Carver is also a helicopter pilot) with the lead Scientist and we soon find out it's a cloning lab and they have something newly found to clone. Is it a Dinosaur or what? As with the above movies, all hell breaks loose and our characters start getting picked off. The special effects on the Monster are pretty good for a "direct to video" movie and Dean Cain does what he gets paid for. But forget the rest of the group as we find out why we have never seen them before. Again, don't go in with high expectations and you'll be ok.

This movie was made by a bunch of white guys that went to school together. Well there's nothing wrong with that, except it looks like it was made by a bunch of white guys that went to school together. 90 percent of the cast are white males about same age. It's almost like watching a bunch of guys at boys camp who turned the camera on themselves. The movie has no plot. It simply repeats the same action of blood bath after blood bath. There are some funny scenes and comedic bits. But they don't redeem the flat monotony.<br /><br />The graphic cartoon scenes are used to cover the stuff that was obviously beyond their budget or resources to do, and not done very well at that. Anything that can't be done with white guys running around on the beach covered in blood is done with cheap animation.<br /><br />I went to see this film after seeing the trailer, which makes it look like a Tarrentino piece. Well, the trailer scenes are as good as they ever get. Ther rest of it just repeats the same kind of mundane, inane comedy. It works at times, but it gets boring after the same stuff comes at you over and over. It's more like a string of Satuday Night Live skits than a movie. It's a hit-you-over-the-head-with-it kind of comedy. I can see where the story idea is intriguing. But, in this film post apocalyptic America is much like Medevil England. In fact Wheatlry says the story ideas came from that era. He plans to make a Part 2. I guess he thinks he's Tarrentino or maybe doing a parody thing.<br /><br />At the opening in LA, Wheatley mentioned he will bring back pretty much the same cast in part 2. He was asked if he might consider a more diverse cast in the next one, to which he replied, well yea, sure.

I watched the Unrated version of this film and realised about 30 minutes into it that I was never getting my time back. I persevered to the end hoping that the dialogue would improve, the martial arts would look realistic eventually, the special FX would actually look special. I was so wrong. I love Horror, I am a complete gore hound. I number some of the eighties splatter flicks amongst the greats of the film world. This however was not made in the eighties, if this film had come out in the early eighties the fax could be forgiven for looking so bad. It wasn't so it hasn't got that defence. The dialogue is terrible with so many bad lines I was wincing at the writing rather than squirming at torture. I don't like Hostel, never have, I thought it was over rated, over hyped and I felt nothing for the protagonists, however it shines as a beacon to greatness next to this garbage. The back of the cover for Live Feed promised a twist you would never see coming, I'm still waiting for the twist that was promised.

1993 was the year. This was long before Phillip Seymour Thomas had won an Oscar. Who knew I would be an extra in a movie with him? I was actually a paid extra in "My Boyfriend's Back," which was shot in a suburb of Austin called Georgetown, TX. The original title was "Johnny Zombie" (thank God the producers had a change of heart!) I was in the theater scene. I rushed out to watch the movie the day it was released in theaters. It is more of a comedy than a horror movie. But... for a good laugh, you might want to check it out. Nothing that is even close to "Dawn of the Dead" or even "Shaun of the Dead" quality, but the cheese factor is good enough. ciao

As we all know Hollywood enjoys changing historical events around for our enjoyment, and 44 minutes is one of those hollywoodized movies. For example the bank robbers never did go back in the bank when they started shooting at the LAPD yet in the movie we see them go back inside twice! Another example is the number of LAPD officers who were shot near the end of the movie, this is far from the truth! But of course Hollywood must have a good bloody ending so they *add* some more blood and guts. Some events were combined and many of the lead actors played several different people but this is what Hollywood has always done so why complain? I guess the only sad part is that I have watched some one hour documentaries about the North Hollywood shootout on TLC that were far better then this!

This was a crappy movie, with a whole lotta non-sense and too many loose-ends to count. I only watched this movie because one of my favorite actors (Ron Livingston) made a cameo in it, and I continued watching it because as a girl, I love any movie that includes male nudity for a change. Later, I found myself wondering just how much more ridiculous the storyline could get, and each time it got...more... ridiculous.<br /><br />Sean Crawley (good-looking Chris L. McKenna, whom I've never seen before - but LOVED his little nude scene)is making ends meet as a painter, when he meets electrician Duke Wayne (George Wendt from "Cheers"). Thinking he's getting more work from Duke, Sean agrees to meet contractor Ray Matthews (Daniel Baldwin, playing a stereotypically evil guy). Ray is being investigated by a City Hall accountant (Ron Livingston in a cameo, who I've been in love with from "Office Space" up to "Sex & the City"). Ray end up offering the apparently desperate-for- cash Sean $13k to kill the accountant, and Sean accepts the job. Sean stalks out the accountant, whose wife (Kari Wuhrer) he finds himself attracted to, completes the hit, and leaves - taking the file of information against Ray with him. Sean quickly learns he was being used, that Ray never intended to pay him, and Sean uses the file as leverage to get his money.<br /><br />Up to this point, it's a descent flick...generally worth watching. But as soon as Ray, Duke and their crew kidnap Sean to muscle the information about the file out of him, it just got dumber and dumber (and still DUMBER...), until finally it seemed like the film's writer, Charlie Higson, had snapped out of a 10-day writing hangover and realized he needed to desperately figure out how to wrap up the series of implausible messes he created before a deadline or something. Without simply detailing the movie, let's just say that in every-single-scene you watch after the kidnapping, you find yourself gasping "what the f**K!," baffled by the ongoing nonsense as Sean follows a fairly graphic and gross path towards redemption. In the end, so many loose-ends are left in the movie, that you begin to regret that you even watched it.<br /><br />This is a movie that you should only watch after it hits cable, and you should have enough beer and friends around to mock the film to it's full value. It's supposed to be a psychological thriller, and McKenna is a decent actor, but it's hard to give yourself to the movie when you have "Norm" from "Cheers" and a Baldwin brother doing the dirty work, and a kidnapping strategy that really makes no damned sense. Guys will love the violence, blood and guts scenes, and the absolutely unnecessary sex scenes and boob shots. Girls will enjoy handsome Sean's gratuitous crotch shot in a mainstream movie, when its almost always the girls that get stripped down in a movie. Personally, I hate that the only actor worth watching for more than his looks (Ron Livingston) is only in the first one-third of the movie.

Remember the good ol' animated batman show from the 90's? The one that people praised? The one that people of all ages could all appreciate? The one that showed batman as a real detective instead of the Hulk in a bat suit? The one that had villains you could relate to? The one that had villains with real motives?<br /><br />Well clearly, Warner Bros. doesn't. Hence this dreck.<br /><br />Honestly, do these people know anything about batman? Have they even looked at a batman comic before? Do they know Batman's meant to be a 'detective'? Putting together 2 clues does not make you a detective! That makes you a slightly intelligent monkey!<br /><br />This is the basic layout for an episode:<br /><br />Penguin steals something. 'Opening credits'. Batman finds dead giveaway of where he is. Batman goes there and get's into trouble. Commercial. Batman finds obvious/ stupid way out of it. Penguin escapes. Penguin does something obvious again. Batman follows. They do kung-fu (by the way everyone, and i mean EVERYONE know's kung-fu for some reason). Batman punch's penguin. he get's knocked out. goes to arkham. (Note: it's usually a different villain every episode)<br /><br />Well as you may have noticed from that, Batman's not a great detective. "Joker left this piece of cotton candy on the ground, maybe he's at the old amusement park"! Yeah maybe, he was there the last 6 times.<br /><br />And I've already mentioned this but, EVERYONE KNOWS KUNG-FU! EVEN PENGUIN! what where they thinking? (probably because it's from the people who made that Jackie Chan animated series)<br /><br />What's really upsetting is that the show is just action. No smarts. None. If batman needs think, he'll use technology, then do some kung-fu.<br /><br />But hey, let's not forget the villains. Afterall, what would batman be without his rogues gallery?<br /><br />Well first off, I gotta say, kudos for originality. I don't think other batman media would have envisioned joker and a dread-locked monkey man, riddler like an emo, and poison ivy as a minor (which is kind of confusing when you think about, isn't her sexuality meant to be her main strength?)<br /><br />What's even more crap however is that, every character is now a 2-Dimensional, stereotypical crook.<br /><br />E.G.<br /><br />Killer Croc wants to flood Gotham for no reason.<br /><br />Man-Bat is a power hungry mad scientist who is obsessed with bats for some unexplained reason.<br /><br />Penguin just wants to steal everything. For no reason.<br /><br />noticing a pattern here?<br /><br />But the most insulting has got to be Mr Freeze.<br /><br />Do you remember the Emmy award winning 'Heart of Ice' episode from Batman: The Animated Series? The one that gave Mr Freeze motives for his crimes? The episode that was so good that it was used in the comics over his original back story (mad scientist)? The one that made him a victim, with a goal? Hell, even Batman & Robin acknowledged that, using that as Mr Freezes origin in that P.O.S. movie.<br /><br />Well this series says "F#ck that" and makes Mr Freeze a jewelry robber before his accident, with only wealth in his mind, then gets frozen and gives him the power to make things cold. He then continues to steal jewels for no reason, while saying sh!t lines like "Have an ice day".<br /><br />Maybe they did watch Batman &Robin after all.<br /><br />But hey, look on the bright side. This series makes you feel nothing for the villains so that means that you're a good person. Good for you.

Why is it that any film about Cleopatra, the last phaoroh brings out the worst in movie making? Whatever attraction the woman had for the greatest Roman of them all, Julius Ceasar, and his successor, Mark Anthony, never seems to come across on the screen as other than the antics of over sexed high school seniors. Despite lavish sets and costumes, this movie is as bad as any Italian "sandals and toga" extravaganza of the 50's. Admittedly, this kind of spectacular belongs on the big screen, which is why "Gladiator" went over well, but "Gladiator" did not have all the romance novel sex.<br /><br />Miss Varela has as little acting talent as Elizabeth Taylor, but Timothy Dalton has talent to spare. Pity some of it didn't wash off on the others.

Faith Domergue (better known as "Dr. Ruth" in THIS ISLAND EARTH) is the only reason to watch this film. The story is very thin, and once the Air Force buddies return to the States with a Cobra Curse upon them the action is just a waiting game. See Faith the Snake Woman and try to pretend the rest isn't happening.

I love the 80s slasher flicks and I remember when "Silent Night/Deadly Night" was pulled from our theaters, I was very disappointed, so I was very excited to see some of these on Fear.net. You Better Watch Out was what I've come to expect of these types of movies. The quality of the special effects were laughable by today's standards, the character development too long, but all in all it was laugh out loud funny! <br /><br />The scenes where he loses it because Santa, aka dad, is feeling up his mom and later when the mob is actually shown lighting torches - not flashlights as you would in the 80s, but real torches! - really tickled my funny bone. However, the scenes where he was checking on the kids in his neighborhood gave me a creepy feeling of a different nature. I also enjoyed trying to figure out who some of these character actors were. It took me awhile to figure out that the main character was the lovable teddy bear on Brothers.

Its not the cast. A finer group of actors, you could not find. Its not the setting. The director is in love with New York City, and by the end of the film, so are we all! Woody Allen could not improve upon what Bogdonovich has done here. If you are going to fall in love, or find love, Manhattan is the place to go. No, the problem with the movie is the script. There is none. The actors fall in love at first sight, words are unnecessary. In the director's own experience in Hollywood that is what happens when they go to work on the set. It is reality to him, and his peers, but it is a fantasy to most of us in the real world. So, in the end, the movie is hollow, and shallow, and message-less.

Tapeheads, a scrappy, intermittently funny spoof of the music video business, might have been the perfect comedic short, and stars John Cusack and Tim Robbins are effortlessly in the swing of the nonsensical chaos involved. They play two semi-savvy security guards in Los Angeles who start their own company, Video Aces, making hilarious videos for groups, parties, and one deathbed star. It's too bad the filmmakers had to invent a dim side-plot to pad the running time (shenanigans involving a crooked politician and his henchmen which doesn't do much except take away from the movie's primary strength, sending-up the music culture of the late-'80s). Still, Cusack and Robbins create a couple of originals here: nerdy but loose, street-smart without being hipsters or posers, these guys are on the same nutty wavelength, and they never put each other down. They're the real thing in buddy-comedies. *1/2 from ****

Much as we all love Al Pacino, it was painful to see him in this movie. A publicity hack at the grubby ending of what seems to have once been a distinguished and idealistic career Pacino plays his part looking like an unmade bed and assaulting everyone with a totally bogus and inconsistent southern accent.<br /><br />The plot spools out this way and that with so many loose ends and improbabilities that the mind reels (and then retreats).<br /><br />Kim Basinger is there, not doing much. Her scenes with Pacino are flat and unconvincing. Hard to believe they meant a lot to each other. There's no energy there.<br /><br />Tea Leone, on the other hand, lit up the screen. She was electric and her scenes with Pacino were by far the most interesting in the movie, but not enough to save Al from embarrassment.

Definitely one of funny man Eddie Murphy's lesser films is this nonsense about a kidnapped mystical child, three hundred year old dragons and a "Chosen One".<br /><br />Murphy is the "Chosen One" in question, and as the opening song suggests, he is "the best man in the world". A finder of lost and missing children, he is approached by a mysterious Tibetan woman (Charlotte Lewis) who tells him he is "The Chosen One", and that it is his destiny to find and rescue "The Golden Child". For if the child were to die, compassion would die with him, as he is the bearer of compassion.<br /><br />If all this hocus pocus rubbish hasn't ruined it for you now, it surely will once the movie begins. Suffice to say the plot is abominable and destroys the whole film. Meant to be another vehicle for Murphy's egotistical brand of humour (the comedy isn't so great mind you), the movie fails on many levels. Even Charles Dance as the evil Sardo Numspa can't do much for proceedings. Very silly and disappointing.<br /><br />Sunday, December 12, 1993 - T.V.

Cement is a bad movie about a bad cop (Penn) with a bad attitude and a bad disposition who has a bad guy in a bad way up to his cajones in fast drying concrete. While we're waiting for the cement to dry and the film to figure out what it's about, we're periodically jerked back in time without rhyme or reason so we can watch events leading up to the cement thing. A boring junk flick overall, "Cement" suffers from lack of a story, a clumsy execution, and that most ubiquitous of filmdom's faults; no reason to care. A time killer for the needy couch potato at best. (D+)

This third Pokemon movie is too abstract for younger kids to follow and too repetitious to entertain older kids. The message of the film-- about dealing with loss-- is subverted by the return of the young girl's father during the film's credits. Team Rocket provide some amusement, but they're not really part of the small plot, so they don't appear very often.

I should never have started this film, and stopped watching after 3/4's. I missed the really botched ending. This film was a disappointment because it could have been so much better. It had nice atmosphere, a top notch cast and director, good locations. But a baaaaaad story line, a bad script. I paid attention to Kenneth Branagh's southern accent--it was better than the script. The plot was stupid--driven by characters acting in unreal and improbable ways. No one behaves like this outside of Hollywood scripts.

I usually don't walk out of a movie, but halfway thru I did. This movie promised something different, but I kept thinking haven't I seen that before? Spoiler Alert! Back in 1, the spaceship crashes and lands on earth, well, all these years later, with a super adult on board no less, this thing still manages to burn up and crash! What, this advanced civilization can't seem to develop landing gear? For an industry that's so liberal, we get to see another Woody Allen movie, no blacks please! Superman runs around saving people, making sure he sticks to Europe and the US, don't go into darkie areas please. Maybe I could stomach this about 30 years ago, but now now.

And how many actors can he get to stand in for his own neurotic, compulsive uber-New Yorker persona? In this film Woody is played by Will Ferrell in what is mercifully less a direct impersonation than the one Kenneth Branagh did in "Celebrity." It's an annoyingly repetitive story now: nebbishy, neurotic man with a wife or girlfriend falls madly in love with a shiksa queen upon which he projects all manner of perfection. Everyone lives in perfect gigantic apartments in great Manhattan neighborhoods, everyone constantly patronizes expensive, exclusive restaurants during which all the characters relate fascinating anecdotes and discuss arcane philosophy, there is always a trip to the Hamptons during which the nebbishy main character spazzes out about sand and physical exertion and possible exposure to diseases, and then of course, said main character feels guilty about his lust for the shiksa queen but pursues her anyway, sometimes succeeding, sometimes failing, etc.<br /><br />This a tired formula, and proof that Allen isn't really a great film artist at all. He just seems like a dirty old man with the libido and emotions of a 20-year-old who is intent upon telling the same boring old stories again and again.

Yes, even as a fan of shows like survivor and the apprentice, this show is pretty bad. I didn't mind the first couple of shows, but then realizing how pathetic everyone was to actually go on the show in the first place.The antics of Alex and Aaron giving men a bad name at the way they cheated on or dumped their choice at the first opportunity really was not a good look for the show.<br /><br />Ryan, you can have Trista. She had the most annoying voice I've ever heard on television, and she definitely wasn't the smartest girl around (very media savvy, but I doubt there's much more there).<br /><br />I haven't really watched any of the shows since, apart from the occastional re-run on daytime TV. I think the point of reality TV is to treat it as "entertaining trash". View it as something you can laugh over, and don't have to think too hard about ( I don't watch CSI its like reality TV-tired and clichéd, but you have to think too much anyway while watching).<br /><br />A couple of thoughts on some reasons fro going on the show. At the very first 'the woman tell all" Woman such as Amy ( who had a lot of class about her) commented that she had tried every scene aka the bar and club scene to meet a guy and it wasn't happening for her. Hey Amy, how about joining a club? getting a hobby? doing charity work? changing your job to one where you meet more guys? gees, all I know is that going to a bar is not the ideal place to meet a future partner.<br /><br />Amy and many of the other girls seemed to be obsessed with the idea of meeting "the perfect man'. Clue to ladies: he doesn't exist. There are, however, many great guys out there that would make great husbands, some who may be right for you! they may not earn six figures a year or be a JFK junior look alike, but they are great guys all the same. The shallowness of woman on this show is quite unbelievable. Im still a youngster, at was lead to believe that woman gradually grew out of their shallowness as they got older and more realistic about their future partner. This show is proving otherwise.<br /><br />Overall this show does a lot to confirm many stereotypes of how woman view men in society. It really is a terrible show and I think all of these types of shows should just stop being made. The best dating shows by a country mile are Blind Date and The Fifth Wheel because they are fun. Nothing is manned more between the "couples" than a simple night out. the bachelor, sadly takes itself way too seriously.

***SPOILERS*** Like some evil Tinkers-to-Evers-to-Chance double-play combination we have in "Omen IV" the evil seed of the deceased AntiChrist Damien Thorn come back. Terrorizing his parents his schoolmates his neighbors and finally the entire world as a she named Delia York, Asia Vieila. After being given to a "deserving" couple the Yorks Karen & Gene, Fay Grant & Michael Woods,by the Catholic Church's St. Francis orphanage.<br /><br />Little Delia didn't waste any time making her peasants felt by scratching her mom at a house party. Later Delia almost get killed by a runaway truck only to have herself saved by this "Devil Dog" named Ryder. Going to school Delia takes care of the local bully by getting the big guy to wet himself in front of all his classmates. Later when his father threatens the Yorks with a law suit she has his head sliced off in a self-induced traffic accident! Delia is someone that you never mess with if you know what's good for you.<br /><br />Meanwhile Dalia's dad Gene becomes a big man in town on his own, or so he thinks, by getting elected to the congress as a champion of the clean air and green trees crowd instead of letting the smog and concrete boys take over the neighborhood with his eye now on he White House itself! Did his bratty and strange daughter Delia have anything to do with Gene York's sudden good fortune?<br /><br />It's only later when Jo, Ann Hearen, is hired as Delia's nanny that the truth's comes out about her strange and evil powers. Jo a New Age type realizes that Delia is a bit weird, after turning all her white crystals black, and calls her New Age Guru Noah, Jim Byrnes, to come over and check her out. Noah is so upset by what he sees in Delia Kirilian color vibrations ,all black and blue with a little pinch of red, that it flips him out so bad that he almost crashed into Delia's moms car.<br /><br />Taken on a trip to a psychic festival by Jo Delia turns the entire event into an inferno setting the place, through mental telepathy, on fire and heaving everyone there run for cover including poor Noah who was at the festival and ended up with his leg broken. The and shaken and battered Guru was so shook up by the whole experience that he later checked out of the country to become a hermit in the Tibetan wilderness. <br /><br />Jo herself is later thrown out, with the help of the sweet and cuddly family pet Ryder, of a second floor window to her death because she knew and talked too much. It's when Karen is again pregnant that she decides, finally, to find out the truth about the real parents of Delia. That's when she,and we in the audience, come face to face with the truth. She's not only the feared AntiChrist of Revelations she's his twin sister! Her brother the AntiChrist himself is about to come on the scene as her kid brother the sill unborn Alexander York!<br /><br />Three times were more then enough for the AntiChrist coming back to earth to bring about Armageddon. The movie going public were already getting a little tired of of him and his evil adventures. With a fourth really not necessary since Daimen Thorn, the original AntiChrist, had been dead and buried for years. Were put through the usual ringer with no one believing that little Delia is "Thee" AntiChrist until it was almost too late to stop her in her deadly rounds of destroying the entire human race. The movie as bad as it is is also far too long, 97 minutes, for a horror flick that could well have told it's story is as little as 80 minutes.<br /><br />Having a private eye Earl Knight, Mchael Learner,and later a former Catholic nun sister Yvonne,Megan Lehch,and now faith healer Felichy in the film only to be killed off didn't help the plot either. It only prolonged the suffering of those of us watching the movie. You could see the surprise ending coming almost as soon as the film "Omen IV" began with the bases being cleared for Delia's eventual takeover of the civilized as well as uncivilized world. What was a bit of a surprise was Delia doing it with a little help from friends.

This was one of the most ridiculous and badly directed movies I've seen in a very long time. I've never liked Spike Lee, but thought I'd give this one a try: bad mistake. The movie is supposed to show how the Son of Sam real life murders affected a neighborhood in the summer of 1977; what it really did was center around the most boring characters that I doubt anyone cared for as far as their drug problems, marriage problems, and so on, etc. The scenes that depict the murders are just that, and nothing more; a shooting and then it's back to Saturday Night Fever! What's even more ridiculous is Spike Lee's choice to show up as a reporter in the movie: Spike, trust me, you're no Hitchcock, stay out of the movies, it makes them even worse off. The most silly scene had to be the dog speaking in a goofy voice, which was depicted in a scene before it where it was supposed to have been shot??? Spike, what were you thinking when you made this film? Not thinking at all is my guess. People who think they'll see a crime drama, take my advice and do not waste your time or money on this loser. You're better off watching Jerry Springer in this case! Waste of film, I gave it a 1 out of 10: awful dud.

Unfortunately for me, the first Busby Berkeley movie I ever watched was "42nd Street." I then expected all of his stuff to be that good. I found out that wasn't necessarily the case, even here, with my all-time favorite classic-era actor James Cagney.<br /><br />Oh, the musical numbers at the end are as spectacular as always, but the story is like many of the others and quite tiresome. They seem to always involve screaming, unhappy show producers. In this film, it's Cagney who winds up shouting things out so often that he gives me a headache after awhile and his character wears thin....fast!<br /><br />Even the songs in here are anywhere near "42nd Street" class, songs you could hum for years and years - decades, I should say. The songs in this movie are not memorable. No, this is one of the few early Cagney films - and Berkeley films - I totally dislike and was very disappointed with while watching.

I usually start by relaying the premise of the film, but before anyone makes any hasty judgments about my review, let me preface it by saying that I'm someone who likes most films (just check my other reviews). Alone in the Dark is a film by director Uwe Boll, whose film right before this one was House of the Dead (2003). Like Alone in the Dark, it was also a film adaptation of a video game. Almost everyone hated it. Well, I loved it. I even gave it a 10 out of 10! My point in stating this (which will surely turn some readers off immediately) is that if even I hated Alone in the Dark, there must be something wrong with it.<br /><br />The Premise: Who am I kidding? Attempting to state a premise for this film is about as easy as trying to balance the United States' budget, but here it goes anyway. Some archaeologists discovered evidence of some lost American Indian tribe. The Indian tribe apparently had discovered some means of broaching the "second world", which was evil in nature. The bad stuff wiped them out, but not before they could lock the door to the evil world and throw away the key. Later, some scientist/government researcher who had been experimenting with the paranormal, and specifically this tribe, decided to experiment on some kids, to try to produce some kind of hybrid with the second world. (Believe it or not--everything up to this point and then some is told to us in a written prologue to the film--it's just white text scrolling across a black screen with a voice-over also reading it to us). Then, there was something about the kids being in an orphanage, but the government takes them back out, and then a bunch of people are searching for archaeological relics, and there are super humans roaming around, and a bunch of military people are called in and on and on.<br /><br />In fact, the exposition never really stops. It's like a neverending backstory from hell. There are enough ideas here to fill at least 10 films, maybe 25. But not one of them is presented in a coherent way to create one good film. In addition to the mystical lost Indian tribe and the superhumans, we also get monsters that resemble a cross between Alien and a werewolf, worms that invade your body and turn into snake-like aliens, tunneling worms underground, zombies, Starship Trooper-like wars, evil scientists, underground lairs, gold mines, spooky warehouses, impalements, big mostly unused museums, government conspiracies, golden trunks pulled out of the sea, nuns, explosions, complex backstabbing plots, a very ambiguous romance, car chases, home invasions, kitchen sinks . . . wait, I can't remember if that last one was in the film. Even more amazingly (amusingly?), in Fangoria #240, producer Shawn Williamson was quoted as saying, "We're spending much more time on story, being very meticulous about that". Tara Reid called Alone in the Dark "a smarter film".<br /><br />Let me not mislead anyone. A lot of that stuff above might sound yummy to the potential audience for this film, but the problem is that nothing has the slightest connection to anything else. I usually had no idea what any setting's relation was to any other setting, why we were there, or what anyone was doing (at least when each scene began). It's just a random mishmash of settings and clichés, as if director Uwe Boll had 250 unrelated ideas in a hat and pulled them out like lottery numbers. Then when he was done, he and editor Richard Schwadel decided to cut the film by using dice, then reassembled it by throwing the I Ching. Sometimes the film plays like an extended director's reel (which is a combination of short, varied, unrelated scenes that directors circulate to try to get work), but perhaps that's being too generous. I'm not sure Boll would get work if this were his reel. <br /><br />Just as I tend to at least like most films, I tend to like most actors and most performances. It's very rare that I say that a performance was bad. Well, Tara Reid was bad here--and I'm someone who usually likes Reid. I don't know what happened. For a large percentage of the film, they just move her around the set like a prop. They might as well have just bought a blow-up doll. That would have saved them money that they could have used for some cgi ghosts and vampires in castle and graveyard settings. Maybe they chose to move her around like a pretty piece of driftwood after they saw the dailies of her mumbling nonsense dialogue in a monotone that's usually reserved for entertaining mother-in-laws.<br /><br />And speaking of that dialogue, a lot of Alone in the Dark plays like a Godzilla film without Godzilla. By that, I mean that it's a lot of pseudo-scientific gobbledy-gook. At least in Godzilla films, there's a campiness to it, because they know how ridiculous it is, and there's a big payoff in that we get to see Godzilla destroy downtown and battle a giant gnat with radioactive death beams shooting from its eyes or something.<br /><br />Just what Stephen Dorff and Christian Slater are doing here, besides overacting and filing lawsuits against their agents, is difficult to say. I can't say that I thought anyone in the film had a decent performance, although maybe Slater at least saw the cigar. I think that's unprecedented for me.<br /><br />Still, I didn't give this film a 1. There was some competent cinematography, even if Boll and Schwadel made mincemeat out of it, and the hard rock tunes over the end credits were good. Heck, even the novelette prologue wasn't so bad. I actually thought the film had promise at that point. But this may just be the worst film I've ever seen with a budget of 20 million or more.

Ghost Town starts as Kate Barrett (Catherine Hickland) drives along an isolated desert road, her car suddenly breaks down & she hears horses hoofs approaching... Deputy Sheriff Langley (Frank Luz) of Riverton County is called in to investigate Kate's disappearance after her father reports her missing. He finds her broken down car & drives off looking for her, unfortunately his car breaks down too & he has to walk. Langley ends up at at a deserted rundown ghost town, much to his shock Langley soon discovers that it is quite literally a ghost town as it's populated by the ghosts of it's former residents & is run by the evil Devlin (Jimmie F. Skaggs) who has kidnapped Kate for reasons never explained & it's up to Langley to rescue her & end the towns curse...<br /><br />The one & only directorial effort of Richard Governor this odd film didn't really do much for me & I didn't like it all that much. The script by Duke Sandefur tries to mix the horror & western genres which it doesn't do to any great effect. Have you ever wondered why there aren't more horror western hybrid films out there? Well, neither have I but if I were to ask myself such a question I would find all the answers in Ghost Town because it's not very good. The two genres just don't mix that well. There are plenty of clichés, on the western side of things there's the innocent townsfolk who are to scared to stand up to a gang of thugs who are terrorising them, the shoot-outs in the main street, saloon bars with swing doors & prostitutes upstairs & horror wise there's plenty of cobwebs, some ghosts, an ancient curse, talking corpses & a few violent kills. I was just very underwhelmed by it, I suppose there's nothing terribly wrong with it other than it's just dull & the two genres don't sit together that well. There are a few holes in the plot too, why did Devlin kidnap Kate? I know she resembled his previous girlfriend but how did he know that & what was he going to do with her anyway? We never know why this ghost town is full of ghosts either, I mean what's keeping them there & what caused them to come back as ghosts? Then there's the bit at the end where Devlin after being shot says he can't be killed only for Langley to kill him a few seconds later, I mean why didn't the bullets work in the first place?<br /><br />Director Governor does alright, there's a nice horror film atmosphere with some well lit cobweb strewn sets & the standard Hollywood western town is represented here with a central street with wooden buildings lining either side of it. I wouldn't say it's scary because it isn't, there's not much tension either & the film drags in places despite being only just over 80 odd minutes in length. Forget about any gore, there a few bloody gunshot wounds, an after the fact shot of two people with their throats slit & someone is impaled with a metal pole & that's it.<br /><br />I'd have imagined the budget was pretty small here, it's reasonably well made & is competent if nothing else. Credit where credit's due the period costumes & sets are pretty good actually. The acting is alright but no-ones going to win any awards.<br /><br />Ghost Town is a strange film, I'm not really sure who it's meant to appeal to & it certainly didn't appeal to me. Anyone looking for a western will be annoyed with the dumb horror elements while anyone looking for a horror film will be bored by the western elements. It's something a bit different but that doesn't mean it's any good, worth a watch if your desperate but don't bust a gut to see it.

This was the WORST movie I have ever seen! Molly (molly hall) could not act AT ALL! she had no emotion it was all blah blah blah like she was reading out of a boring text book. The smart kid and the kid who loves food (there names weren't worth remembering) were so annoying it drove me crazy.When ever the talked it was about some scientific thing or food. Mollys Dad didn't show enough emotion about his daughter missing. The police officer and Mollys dad said the same thing like four times. it was just horrible. Everything was repeated way to much. Beatrice should have had something bad happen to her for being so mean. I just wasted a moment in my life by watching this movie!

How Irish critics rave about this movie is beyond me. Overacted by the usual band of Irish actors dragged out for every Irish movie. Terrible script, with forced character quirks (the brown sauce). Romanticising all that is bad about Dublin. The attitude of 'ah, it's a dump but sure isnt it great all the same'. Plenty of tidbits purely for American audiences (the supermarket boss and his horribly forced catchphrase). And the nail in the coffin was Colm Meaney's character. A great actor forced to play this part that could've been written by a five year old. Cringeworthy stuff. The best thing about this movie is Farrell, and it's a bad when you have to say that. Well, at least he wasnt putting on his dreadful American accent. International Audiences be warned: stay at home and watch Snatch and Lock Stock. You'll have a better time. Intermission is a walk-outer

From the creators of Shrek………….. OK, that grabbed my attention.<br /><br />Well the creators of Shrek also made Madagascar. Madagascar was half as good as Shrek.<br /><br />And now Flushed Away is half as good as Madagascar.<br /><br />That means Flushed Away isn't good. The animation and all that special effects were extremely good but the movie wasn't.<br /><br />The story of this movie was only meant for kids. It's seriously not possible for adults to actually love this flick.<br /><br />But there were many jokes meant for adults. I bet kids dint understand the jokes.<br /><br />Despite that I dint like this flick.<br /><br />I am completely disappointed. 4/10

Left Behind is the kind of "we know what we know cause we know it" movie that Christians (and most any other naive person) needs to help them feel like what they "THINK" and "BELIEVE" (not "KNOW") is right. But, at the same time I feel bad for the little guys, because this is not a well made film. It does not help ANY message. I work at a video store, and I KNOW the ONLY reason people went to see this movie was because they were religious and they thought it was. ANYBODY on this earth who THINKS they know what will happen in the future is wrong, unless they think they know that they don't know. I've had about enough (but only after I've had too much) of these people walking around with their noses in the air thinking that a movies starring a semi-talented TV actor means something above me.<br /><br />Please, if you love yourself you'll stay away. I refuse to go into any detail about this movie (not because A-I didn't see it (because I did), B-it was too shocking for my atheist-self to handle (because it wasn't), or C-I really don't have anything to say bad about it (because I do). The Reason, (which is a word nobody who helped make this movie understands) is that I want this movie out of my head, I want that it was made out of my head, I want that I watched ALL OF IT WITH AN OPEN MIND out of my head, I want the message that Kirk so proudly and coachly gives at the end of the movie out of my head. I only want all the things that were in my head BEFORE viewing this movies there, anything directly connected with this movie that's floating in my head GET OUT! My peaceful rage is ending. I'm sorry that somebody in this world went to the theater to see this movie about what could happen in the future (but won't) when they could have given that Seven Dollars Plus to any number of Human, Animal, or Rain Forest charity. But if they did that then they wouldn't be able to "BELIEVE" in the fact that it's real, they might have to fact what is. LEFT BEHIND ZERO (out of ****)

this was the most pointless film i have ever seen as there was no plot and the actors did not seem to care. 90% of the film had absolutely no plot whatsoever, i laughed so much my ribs began to ache. the bit where the old men when to capture Robert Duvall was ludicrous. on a directorial level making a noir film does not involve lots of raining sequences and pointless closeups on the main character. this is a failed attempt to create a noir thriller and instead alienates the viewer with incoherent scenes. seeing as this was based on a 'manuscript' by john Grisham i do not count this as one of his book to film adaptations as it displays none of the suspense and engaging storyline as films such as 'the firm' or 'the rainmaker'.

***THIS POST CONTAINS SPOILER(S)*** <br /><br />I'm not a big fan of Chuck Norris as an actor, but I worship him in all other ways. He also have his own fan web site with "Chuck Norris facts" that is really entertaining. But this movie looks like someone was joking with the audience putting all those "facts" into one movie. I really don't remember when I wasted my time more than with this "action". I don't know what's the worst this movie can offer you: unoriginal and thousand-times-made plot of terrorists who are trying to nuke US by smuggling nuke on US soil or perhaps that "great" dialogs and Chucks words of wisdom about life and everything else. Someone may find the worst that terrorists actually speak English in everyday life. It's a never ending list of crap. Not to mention huge amount of archive footage used in film, that is kinda annoying. The chief terrorist send his comrades message through the media when he is captured and the only guy smart enough to see the treat is: Chuck Norris, of course. NO ONE else in America is not smart enough to see that! And the whole action in capturing chief is just ridiculous. One man is sent to walk through a whole terrorist camp UNARMED (I'm lying, he had a KNIFE), escapes his stalkers with JET PACK and then para glides for few hundred, maybe even thousand kilometers to nearest shore (Afganistan border is 450 km far away from nearest shore), where he is rescued by submarine. I hoped that at least fighting scenes will be good, but that's even more funny than the plot. If you didn't know, 85% of terrorist are masters of some martial art, but Chuck and CO beat the sh*t out of them. Not only they kill them easily, they can kick and throw them away by a single move and the bad guys fly few meters like dolls. You may ask me did I watch this movie to the end? I did. Why? Because I just wanted to see who, of these two super heroes, will defuse the nuclear bomb of few hundred megatons and size of a MICROWAVE. And then I realized what fool I am. Of course, it's Chuck's movie after all. And not only he singlehandedly defuse nuke with tweezers, but he do it - TWICE!! I could write a book about all the stupid things in this movie, but I would spend my life spawn.<br /><br />So, makers of this movie made another Chuck Norris fact to be added on his web site: Can Chuck Norris defuse nuclear bomb? Yes and he can do it twice!

If the only sex you've ever had is with a farm animal, then the tag line for this movie is probably still misleading.<br /><br />This is by far one of the most boring movies I've had the pleasure to try and watch lately. I found the DVD lying around at my friend's house, and I made the sad mistake of not burning it.<br /><br />I am unable to tell any details without spoiling the movie because there are only about 5 details to this movie. Just try to imagine someone making a movie about things on c-span only the fictional movie is 10 times less interesting than the most boring debate on c-span.<br /><br />I think there is a conspiracy somewhere in this movie, but I was unable to tell exactly what it was after I gouched my eyeballs out and threw them at Richard Gere.

Way back in 1967, a certain director had no idea about a galaxy, far away or near. He was trying to complete a movie with the title THX etc. this short is a remanufactured history of a certain George. i am sorry it has only cuteness to defend it. This is merely an advertising promo for the director, actors, et. al. It has little intrinsic artistic value. It is a brochure. The lead playing George, is very fine, as is the Leia character, and the ersatz Darth character. All else is plain commercial dross. What a waste. Still, it got the job done I guess. The rest of the movie is merely treading water to kill time I guess. a brochure only.

You can't really go far when the initial story isn't all that great. The premise of cyborg's needing blood is just dopey.<br /><br />The script is blasé'. The actors don't have much to work with. The sets were staged out in the desert to cut costs. It's a trademark that if the background is the desert, then the movie has no budget.<br /><br />Lack of budget is okay, if there's a story. "Solarbabies" and "Blood of Champions" are examples of decent work from no $. but this movie looks as if they had to scrape their change together just to buy the cameraman a sandwich. Again, forgivable if only the story didn't just plain suck.<br /><br />Finally, this movie commits the biggest crime of all: It doesn't finish! It simply ends as if it's a commercial break away from the rest of the movie. But the rest never comes. Just odd.<br /><br />Just bad.

I remember when this came out a lot of kids were nuts about it. I guess I was a bit too old to get all excited and I was a fan of real martial arts films and always found this a bit cheesy.<br /><br />In the early 90's we were swamped with programs such as this making kids feel like they could fight and be a power ranger or an equal to these kids on 3 Ninjas. I think eventually parents and film makers alike got sick of it because all we had in reality was abunch of kids going around punching and hitting everyone.<br /><br />Many kids movies have some big point they're trying to make and its nice for your kids to watch and get the message, this one doesn't have any message at all...it just exploits a million difference things in less than 90 minutes.<br /><br />The movie has no great visual qualities but would one expect it to? The acting is pretty bad. Victor Wong is a cool actor but it was embarrassing to see him here.. The short, fat, gimped eyed old fart as a powerful ninja that was just hilarious. The kids over acted way too much and the youngest ninja Tum Tum was maybe the worst kid actor I have ever seen.<br /><br />The movie has a plot that anyone knows before they even read the review. 3 ninjas...yea you know they're gonna fight a bunch of bad guys and win obviously... Need I say more. Sorry if I spoiled it for anyone.<br /><br />With all that said KIDS WILL LOVE IT. This movie is aimed at kids and only children could enjoy it. If you don't mind your kid seeing movies about kids fighting this is a good movie to let them see. If you don't mind allowing your children to see complete garbage that has nothing to do with real martial arts, real acting or reality period then you have found a movie for your kids... I say kids because I think even the girls will like it... I recall all the girls having a crush on Rocky.<br /><br />2 out of 10 stars because I think you can make a movie for kids and still make it enjoyable for adults..this movie failed big time at that.. It is beyond cheesy and nothing original or unique and I would not allow a child of mine to watch it... Kung Fu the TV series is on DVD and there's tons of great Shaw Brothers films out there...Why not show your children things that will really entertain them and not make them dumb along the way, perhaps even teach them some moves and not just how to kick a man between the legs as grandpa did on 3 Ninjas...no no no...never kick a man between the legs ...never .. thats so unninja like.

I watched this movie last night on one of the pay-per-view channels, and while watching it I quickly wondered why I bothered. In all honesty I really did expect something more from this film. Maybe something along the lines of 'Conspiracy Theory'. Why? Maybe because of the casting. I mean, Nicolas Cage and Harvey Keitel, after all. Not to mention Jon Voight and Christopher Plummer. Now I'm wondering, why did they bother? But instead of an absorbing action cum mystery drama I was caught up in a pastiche of breakneck silliness a là 'The Goonies', which to my great surprise appears to have garnered some actual critical praise. Perhaps it's because 'The Goonies' was clearly targeted toward the pre-teen and teen audiences. Whereas 'National Treasure', judging from the previews, was seriously intended to appeal to an adult audience.<br /><br />Suspension of disbelief is one thing. It's how one can enjoy sci-fi and horror. But I found myself actually resisting the heaping tablespoons of paranoid and conspiracy-laden tripe being shoved at the audience. Oh, the screenwriter threw around all the jargon intended to evoke a sense of serious engaged wonderment. "Wow! The Masons. The Knights Templars. You know, this could really be true!" I think the writer really lost me when Gates said the Founding Fathers hid the treasure to keep it out of the hands of the British! And just were did the Knights Templar come from? New Jersey? Oh, I forget. From France! Which goes a long way to explain how it ended up in Philadelphia during the Revolution. It was brought there by agents of Napoleon! Anyway, you see what I'm getting at. The premise of the movie is interesting. And I really do think it could have succeeded as a serious mystery drama. But it just comes off as another kid flick in grown-up clothing. In the end I think it asks the audience not simply to suspend belief but to render itself willfully ignorant to an insulting degree.<br /><br />I've just finished watching several items by Werner Herzog and Istvan Szabo. It's a shock to switch from fine dining to Hollywood Big Mac and fries.<br /><br />Okay, okay. If you pant over chases, explosions, and 'gee-whiz' gimmickry you'll enjoy 'National Treasure'. But it's the sort of movie, well, have you ever stood outside a cinema waiting to get in while the previous audience comes out? And all the young kids are talking excitedly among themselves and saying things like, "Wow! Did you see how that thing blew up? That was so cool!" 'National Treasure' is that kind of movie.

Predictable, hackneyed & poorly written. Foolishly I reasoned such a prominent cast would not be involved unless it had merit. I guess competition amongst actors is so intense these days (and will only get worse) that one cannot pick and choose much any more. Early on we were given an inkling who was was instrumental in the assassination and we had it rammed down our throats ever since. The movie lacked intrigue, giving us little insight into the victim and only one possible motive for the murder. Some of the discourse was, frankly, embarrassing! It's hard to believe anyone would even consider, let alone commit to, the spending of tens of millions of dollars to make this tripe.

This movie deserves credit for its original approach. It combines elements of theater, film, and epic storytelling. Unfortunately, it falls flat on all levels. The films biggest weakness is it's unwillingness to commit to anything; it has camp, moralistic, and epic elements without ever committing to any of them. As for the story itself, Chretien de Troyes is spinning in his grave at this horrible adaptation which turns the lovable, unbearably innocent Percival into a most ungallant and rude churl.<br /><br />Most likely two types of people will see this, francophiles or Arthuriophiles. Speaking as one of the latter, I found the movie unwatchable and an incredibly shabby, disrespectful treatment of a beautiful story.

This thing is horrible. The Ben Affleck character is self-centered and gleefully sadistic--punch-you-in-the-nose fratboy sadistic. And he's the romantic HERO! His cartoonish character does not change from beginning to end, but his money ultimately allows him to buy happiness.<br /><br />If I were a Socialist, I would screed beyond belief, but I'm not a Socialist.<br /><br />We capitalists like a little Christmas magic from time to time. This ain't magic. I don't know what it is. It's just awful. And it's a horrible waste of talent. O'Hara has been making me laugh hysterically since the late '70s. Gandolfini. Applegate. These people were all underused. If Ben was out of the equation, these folks might have dreamed up something excellent.

A youth gets a bad hair day, goes out on a hill, and falls into where he can't escape. Then, he meets MR. ATLAS, a "mythological" dude from 2,000 years ago as his very best friend, and an Arnold Schwarzenegger look-and-sound-alike. His Herculean strength helps the boy out of danger, and later adjusts to modern life. So what's the big deal? This is the lousiest idea for a "family" outing! Either way, this one shouldn't have been attempted at all, really! Our fictional character of might and brawn is nothing more than a typical stranger who appears ordinary to the rest of the universe. To add to the blasphemy is the lack of anything new or appealing, and before you know it, there is some attempted violence that doesn't qualify this as "family" entertainment. The scene where Atlas complains of his undershorts is gaggling, though. Just spend a nice, quiet afternoon in the park for a change.

It is so rare that I get to rate a movie without having some reservation as to whether I should have gone up one or down one but this one.....Did the explosion rate a notch higher, or one down because my brain hurt trying to CREATE a plot. No, THIS ONE....yeah, a solid, no brainer.....ONE/ten

My God. This movie was awful. I can't complain about it too much. I went to see it just to be grossed out. It did suffice, sort of. It's funny that the most disgusting part of the movie was in the very, very beginning where the woman is extremely vividly forced to give birth to a horribly mutated baby.<br /><br />I also think that it's funny that the most notable actor in the movie was the Hispanic soldier, who was a supporting actor in Next Friday. Everyone in the movie did a horrible acting job. It was some of the worst acting I've ever paid to see. <br /><br />I also expected that it would be much more gruesome than the first one. It wasn't. I expected it to be more gruesome because it's a sequel and horror movie sequels are usually much less successful than their predecessors. I expected it to be more gruesome since gore and violence usually sell a horror movie these days (Grudge 2, Saw 3, Jeepers Creepers 1 & 2, Dead Silence), but It actually wasn't nearly as gruesome as the first one, which was yet another disappointment. <br /><br />The mutants in the first one were kind of disturbing but the filmmakers were trying so hard in this one to make them creepy that they were absolutely hilarious.<br /><br />I also hated the entire concept of showing the clip of the female soldier's son on her camera-phone saying "I love you, mommy" FOUR TIMES. It was stupid to show it in the first place because they were just trying to make us feel worse for the vulnerable mother than the rest of the soldiers, and it was even more stupid to keep trying to make us feel even WORSE for her by showing it three more times for no reason. This movie was a joke.

Oh dear, what a horrid movie.<br /><br />The production was so cheap and nasty... Remember the shot from "the Natural", where the lightning hits the tree (leaving a glowing stump) that Roy Hobbs makes a bat from?? Well the producers of this movie used that same scene to prefix a scene where a tree branch slammed into the house.<br /><br />I wonder if they paid to use the footage from The Natural, or did they just hope that no-one who would watch the film would pick it up ?<br /><br />Then at the end where they were getting trying to get away in the truck. Such over-acting in the cabin. <br /><br />A really bad film, a really bad film.

Hated it. If you believe that everyone in the South is dumb, morally bankrupt, stupid, violent, a religious nut, or a child molester, then this film may be for you. Everyone is poor and seemingly ignorant. In one scene, two older men are talking in a general store and one mentions that he had molested a set of sisters before they could tie their shoes. The man seemed proud of his actions, and the other man clearly took it as a normal part of life. Very nice. A teenage girl walks the back roads looking for her sister and no one offers to help her -- despite an obvious limp and lack of food or water (no backpack, etc.). Strathairn's character is not only thoroughly disgusting and slimy, but he is shown to be a religious believer who (typical for Hollywood) reflects the vile nature of Christians. A scene in the movie is highly reminiscent of the end of Cape Fear (the one with DeNiro) -- Bible verses being spouted by the bad guy. I am from the Great Northwest, but found this film offensive because of the wonderful people I know who are from NC, WV, AL, MS, KY, TN, etc.

To review this movie, I without any doubt would have to quote that memorable scene in Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction" (1994) when Jules and Vincent are talking about Mia Wallace and what she does for a living. Jules tells Vincent that the "Only thing she did worthwhile was pilot". Vincent asks "What the hell is a pilot?" and Jules goes into a very well description of what a TV pilot is: "Well, the way they make shows is, they make one show. That show's called a 'pilot'. Then they show that show to the people who make shows, and on the strength of that one show they decide if they're going to make more shows. Some pilots get picked and become television programs. Some don't, become nothing. She starred in one of the ones that became nothing." Now to stretch on what Jules was talking about, there are BILLIONS of television shows/pilots that were never aired because they simply were not...well, good. Probably the most notorious pilot that comes to mind is "W*A*L*T*E*R", a spin-off to "M*A*S*H" with Gary "Radar" Burghoff as the lead. Hmmm, would somebody really want to be watching Radar for a half-hour trying to solve crimes? Hence, the show was never picked up. What many people don't know (or what they thought they knew) is that pilots are hardly ever shown on the air, for they are made strictly for the Television networks for them to decide. Some have made they're way past and got onto the air (The pilot for the animated series "American Dad" comes to mind, as the show's serial itself didn't begin until nearly four months later. However, there are times were we should all be glad pilots never make it to air, and this here is why.<br /><br />"Black Bart", a supposed tie-in with the Mel Brooks comedy classic, "Blazing Saddles", is a stale and bland "sitcom" with little heart and no soul. "Saddles" was a controversial comedy, nevertheless, with it's racist humor and vulgar comedy, which comes to mind "what idiot decided this would make a great television show FOR PRIME TIME TV?!?" I say "supposed", because none of the memorable characters from the movie, aside from Bart, on in this mess of a TV show. Mel Brooks wasn't even involved with the production of the serial and this was the first mistake in a long line (In a related story, I recently found out about an unaired TV pilot for a series based on the movie "Clerks." that Kevin Smith was no involved in....you see what happens?!?).<br /><br />Set somewhere around the same time as the movie (or at all), the story circles around the only Black sheriff in the wild west, named appropriately 'Black' Bart, who is this time played by future Academy Award winner Louis Gossett Jr., obviously before his stint in "real" acting, whereas in this he is playing a "G-rated" Richard Pryor. Most of the other characters are carbon (if not, really bad) copies of the characters in the movie: Jim, The Waco Kid is replaced by a similar looking character named Reb Jordan, a former Confederate soldier who is quick with the gun. Lilian Von Schtupp is now Belle Buzzer, a more of a ripoff of the character being that she's a show dancer and a German with a Marlene Dietrich-type accent and personality. While that's pretty much the end in similarities, The lead "bad guy" in the story is Fern Malaga, played by Noble Willingham, who I assumed would've been Hedley Lamar if Warner Bros. secured the rights to the name (See trivia for "Blazing Saddles") and his son Curley...I dunno, Taggart I suppose? The story is a poor excuse for a sitcom, much less a pilot. Bart deals with the mayor's drunk son and he's out-of-control behavior which has caused the town to spin. Really, it's a story that tries to introduce all the characters in the "series" and doesn't focus on the variety and context that would make this an "alright" show. I can't really call it a sitcom (and even if I wanted to) and that's primarily the fact it was shot on the backlot at Warner Bros. Studios and later added a laugh track, so the show is set up almost exactly like "M*A*S*H" (complete with a bland and dull "laughing" that is identical to the series). The acting is so-so, but there's one part that always make me laugh, and that's when the actor playing Reb Jordan almost seems to forget his lines and tries really hard to remember them while trying to sputter out a piece of dialogue. HA! The script is rather dull and is attempts to make racism more humorous than it was in the movie (Surprisingly, they use the word "N***er" numerous amount of times through a 22-minute episode, rather touchy for it's time period and even for today) and it gets repetitive.<br /><br />If you ever get your hands on this unseen piece of sssss...surly interesting novelty item, watch it just for the sake of the feeling for watching pilots (It's on the collector's edition of "Blazing Saddles", God knows why). There, yourself get a first hand chance for the reason why many movie tie-in pilots never air.

In 17th Century Japan, there lived a samurai who would set the standard for the ages. His name was Mayeda. He is sent on an epic journey across the world to acquire 5,000 muscats from the King of Spain. Whilst at sea a violent storm swallows their precious gold intended to buy the weapons and almost takes their lives. Mayeda must battle all odds to survive and the secure the fate of his beloved Japan. Shogun Mayeda is a multi million dollar action adventure epic set across three continents.<br /><br />Starring cinema legends Sho Kosugi (Tenchu: Stealth Assassins), Christopher Lee (Star Wars, Lord of the Rings Trilogy), John Rhys Davies (Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Indiana Jones Trilogy) and Toshiro Milfune (The Seven Samurai, Throne of Blood), Shogun Mayeda (Kabuto) is a film masterpiece.<br /><br />The Osaka winning stunt team bought to the screen by Bob Ivy bring exciting battle/action sequences such as the opening battle against the Eastern army, the attack on Mayeda's ship carrying priceless jewels and the final confrontation between Sho Kosugi and David Essex. A fine musical score by famed composer John Scott is also present. Director Sho Kusugi was not even nominated for an Oscar for this film which deals with the emotional strife such as the death of Mayedas family, the search for love and acceptance after grieving, all of which is dealt with extremely well. Highly recommended cinematic masterpiece.<br /><br />Please note: All of the above is opposite for the film in question.

The Crush is a pleasant enough 40-something friends romantic chick flick for the first two-thirds or so, as it tries to be a Brit "Sex and the City". <br /><br />I particularly enjoyed the turn-around of the trophy young hunk whose character is not much fleshed out (come to think of it we didn't see all that much physical flesh of him either and Kenny Doughty is worth seeing more of). <br /><br />They sure make a lot more deal of young man/older woman than was made of the opposite in either version of "Sabrina" (neither movie do I like) or for that matter with the Douglas/Zeta-Jones or Dion/Svengali nuptials.<br /><br />Surrounding Andie MacDowell as an ex pat otherwise are welcome familiars from Brit dramas and comedies, such as tart-tongued Anna Chancellor. <br /><br />The plot twists towards the end feel very deus ex machina. But it wasn't until the credits came up at the end that I realized what might really be wrong. Just as with "Sex and the City," the writer/director is male, here first-timer Scot John McKay, and I think he really wanted to do a script about three gay men, probably about them coming out in relation to their lovers and at work (the characters are a school principal, a cop and a doctor), which would have been a better and more interesting movie. The working title for the film was "The Sad F*cker's Club" which would have made its parallels with the gay "Broken Hearts Club" even more obvious.<br /><br />(originally written 4/6/2002)

Amateur, no budget films can be surprisingly good ... this however is not one of them.<br /><br />Ah, another Brad Sykes atrocity. The acting is hideous, except for Emmy Smith who shows some promise. The camera "direction" needs serious reworking. And no more "hold the camera and run" gimmicks either; it just doesn't work. The special effects are unimaginative, there's a problem when the effect can be identified in real time. If you're going to rip off an ear, please don't let us see the actor's real ear beneath the blood. The scenery is bland and boring (same as Mr. Sykes other ventures), and the music is a cross between cheap motel porn and really bad guitar driven metal (see the scenery comment).<br /><br />Did I mention the lack of any real plot, or character development? Apparently, the scriptwriter didn't.<br /><br />Whoever is funding this guy ... please stop. I've seen some of his other "home movies" (which I will not plug) and they are just as bad. Normally, a "director" will grow and learn from his previous efforts ... not this guy. It's one thing to be an amateur filmmaker, but anyone can be a hack.<br /><br />Definitely not even a popcorn film ... of course, chewing on popcorn kernels would be less painful than this effort.<br /><br />Award: The worst ever military push-ups in a film.

Not sure why this movie seems to have gotten such rave reviews.<br /><br />While watching "Bang" one night on TV, I found myself bored by the nonsensical, random plot which was occurring on screen. The entire movie seems to be nothing more than an exercise in meaningless, artsy-fartsy self-indulgence on the part of the filmmaker. The fact that the director/writer goes by a one name moniker only reinforces this sense of pretentiousness. <br /><br />Those interested in indie flicks would be better off looking for something better written and dare I say, more entertaining than this complete waste of time.

I must say, when I read the storyline on the back of the case, It sounded really interesting, but when I started to watch the movie seemed boring at first and even more at the end. Some scenes are way too long and the story has not been worked out properly.

I think that it was just pointless to produce a second part of a movie like "My Girl". "My Girl" was a very good movie but it is ridiculous making a second part of a movie in which one of the main characters (Macaulay Culkin as Thomas J.) dies. The story was over after the first movie. I wonder why someone tried to find a way to make the story going on. That was senseless!

This kind of storytelling is unacceptable The only reason this film is anywhere above the 5 stars out of 10 line is because it's got George Lucas behind it, and it has the words "Star" and "Wars" in its title. That is an insult to aspiring filmmakers, and many others out there who have made clearly superior films with superior story, writing and acting, but did not get the credit. This is a travesty.<br /><br />First things first. The story. Anakin's evolution? There is none. Apart from a little make-up around the eyes, and a little yelling, there is none. He becomes young, stupid, cocky Anakin Skywalker to Darth Vader in a single blow. The only thing consistent about Darth Vader in the original series was his intelligence, how good he was at almost everything he did, planning, fighting, you name it. The only consistent thing about Anakin that is perceived in the prequel trilogy is his consistent stupidity. He even loses his body because of a bout of stupid cockiness.<br /><br />What part of the Emperor Palpatine telling him legends of the Sith does not point to the Emperor being a Sith? Unacceptable!<br /><br />The fight scenes used too many digital doubles. Everyone's flying all over the place like teddy bears in a make-believe doll house. Count Dooku, Emperor Palpatine, Anakin, Obi-Wan, almost every fighter had a rubbery digital double jumping around.<br /><br />In one specific fight scene, Obi-Wan and Anakin in the climactic battle, they both actually stop in the middle of parries and ripostes, to twirl their sabers a few times while inches apart. I realize the fights are choreographed, but that just got me shaking my head in disbelief and disgust.<br /><br />The writing was awful. All the dialogue was of tremendously low quality. The good actors like Ewan McGregor and Natalie Portman did the best they could with their lines, but that just wasn't enough. I can't say enough bad things about this film. Too much special effects, plot holes bigger than the centre of the universe, and absolutely no insights into any of the characters. This is the biggest mistake of this film: nothing new is offered. We know the rough picture of everything, all Lucas did was colour it in.<br /><br />We knew Anakin lost his limbs. We knew Luke and Leia are brother and sister, we knew Luke is Anakin's son, we knew Obi-Wan and Yoda go to exile, we knew everything. Nothing new is offered in this film. If that's all the fans wanted, then that's fine, Lucas couldn't have gone wrong.<br /><br />But when Anakin finally becomes Darth Vader, and he asks after Padme, and hears she is dead, he reaches out his arms awkwardly and screams "Nooooooooooooooooooooo." That scene screamed B-movie all the way, and I was half expecting Darth Vader to go "DANGER WILL ROBINSON, DANGER" at any time. That is what this is. A B-movie, disguised by a huge budget and a ultra-loyalist fan base that will settle with anything now that the first two movies have pulled their standards down to the pits of the Earth.

...but it's certainly not without merit. Already writer-director Preston Sturges is experimenting with unusual cinematic effects in telling his stories, creating broadly drawn yet distinctive characters and situations, and writing clever and sometimes unexpectedly wise and compassionate dialogue. (No wonder the Coen brothers' next movie is going to be an homage to Sturges.)<br /><br />The major problem is that the plot's not all the way there yet; it lacks surprise, the unexpected plot twists and sudden changes of fortune that keep viewers guessing. The coffee slogan is a lousy thing to hang the plot upon, and the ending is thoroughly predictable. Frank Capra does this sort of thing much better.<br /><br />If you're new to Preston Sturges, check out "The Lady Eve" or "Sullivan's Travels" or "The Miracle of Morgan's Creek" first. If you've seen these already, then go ahead and watch this one.

When Rodney Dangerfield is on a roll, he's hilarious. In My 5 Wives, he's not on a roll. The timing of the one-liners is off, but they're the best thing going for the movie. The five women who play the wives don't add up to one whole actress between them. The plot is very weak. Even the premise is pretty weak; there are a few jokes about having multiple wives, but the situation has little to do with anything else in the movie. Most of the movie could play the same way even if Rodney's character had only one wife, so the premise seems more like an old man's fantasy than a key part of the comedy. Another old man's fantasy: we're supposed to accept that Rodney's character is an athletic skier.<br /><br />Jerry Stiller seems to be phoning in his role just to do a buddy a favor, and the rest of the name actors must simply be desperate for work.<br /><br />The odd nods to political correctness later in the movie don't really do anything for the movie. For those who like their movies politically correct, the non-PC humor is still there in the first place, and the seeming apologies for it still don't get the point. For those who hate seeing a movie cave in to political correctness, the PC add-ins are just annoying digressions.<br /><br />This has to be the mildest R-rated movie I've ever seen. There are some racy jokes, and the bedroom scenes would have made shocking TV 40 years ago, but that's about it. Maybe it was the topless men (kidding).<br /><br />The DVD features interviews where the cast members seem to find depth and importance in this movie and in their roles. I kept wondering if they were serious or kidding. They seem to be serious, but I kept thinking, "They must be kidding!" There's also a peculiar disclaimer suggesting that since the movie never actually names the Mormons or the Church of Latter-Day Saints, that somehow it's not about them. Never mind that the movie features a polygamous religion in Utah, and makes reference to Brigham Young.<br /><br />In short, My 5 Wives was a disappointment. I was hoping for Rodney on a roll, but the best I can say for the movie is that Rodney was looking pretty good for a guy who was pushing 80 at the time.

Annie's wig does not look good. she is not cute and pretty enough to play Annie. Annie sticks out in the movie, as her outfits look like Halloween costumes. terrible acting and terrible plots. This movie is such a change from the 1982 version. I think that a younger and smaller girl should have had the lead role. Ashley Johnson portrays a very boyish Annie. Not appealing at all. At least the casting director got it right with Daddy Warbucks. Ms. Hannigan was also miscast. Camilla Belle played Molly alright. "Warning" this movie might insult your IQ so you might just want to only show it to very young children. 8 and younger. Some of the plots are too fictional and could hardly take place in the real world.

I saw his film at the Ann Arbor Film Festival. I am a film student at the Univeristy of Michigan so I know a thing or two about film. And Crispin Glover's film is outrageous. He basically exploits the mentally challenged. Not only is Shirly Temple the anti-Christ (which I admit is a little funny) telling the mentally challenged to kill each other, but there is an obsession with killing snails. Crispin also plays with the idea of being in love with one of his actors who is as they all are, mentally challenged. PETA and Human Rights should be all over this thing. It's not 'counter-culture' as Crispin stated at the Ann Arbor Film Festival, it's exploitation.