Datasets:

---

wt-golf

/

imdb-1k

like 0

I liked Boyle's performance, but that's about the only positive thing I can say. Everything was overdone to the point of absurdity. Most of the actors spoke like you would expect your 9-year-old nephew to speak if he were pretending to be a jaded, stone-hearted cop, or an ultra-evil villain. The raspy voice-overs seemed amateurish to me. I could go buy a cheap synthesizer and crank out better opening music. And what's with the whole 1984ish police torture stuff? It was totally superfluous and had nothing to do with the actual events of the story. Cox added a lot of things, in fact, that he apparently thought would be really cool, but had nothing to do with the story. That's a big disappointment because one of the things that makes Borges' stories so good is his minimalism -- they are tightly bound, with no superfluous details. This movie is just the opposite. I stopped watching after the scene where Lonnrot is questioning the guy from the Yidische Zaitung, or thereabouts. I wasted $4 renting this, but at least I can get some satisfaction from writing this review and hopefully saving others from making the same mistake.

Main theme in this Dirty Harry is that revenge is a dish best served cold. Sandra Locke is as cold in this film as she is beautiful. Locke is an "8" normally, but, with a deadly pistol in her purse, "cocked" for the bad guys, she climbs all the way up the scale to a "10". Having been gang-raped, along with her younger sister, some years ago, Locke, as Jennifer Spencer, has tried to block out the attack from her life, as best she can. Her sister, tho, is almost comatose as a result of the trauma, so the memory is never far from her mind. One day, Jennifer sees one of her attackers on the street in S.F.; she buys a pistol, follows him to a bar, lets him pick her up, then when they're alone in his Cadillac, beginning to make love, she shoots him....once in the genitals, once in the brain - - this in the opening scene!! Ya gotta love this spunky lady. She's got her priorities straight. Plus, Jennifer is a professional artist, putting all her anger on canvas UNTIL NOW. After executing her first perp, Jennifer curiously watches Det. Insp. Harry Callahan process the fresh crime scene after the body is found in the Caddy. Then, she insults some creepy teenage bucks who are hassling women on the street, visits her sister in a nursing home, then goes a'hunting in San Paolo, CA "up the coast" where the rape event took place years ago. With more bullets in her suitcase and more resolve in her mind, our heroine relives the rape inside her head with vivid recall, as she comes closer to executing each subsequent rapist. Not uncommon to us right- wingers, when it comes to sentencing or executing a violent criminal, don't be sorrowful for his own wretched humanity, we REMEMBER the CRIME and the SUFFERING he inflicted. Such recalled events steels Jennifer to pull the trigger on each of her attackers - once in the genitals, once in the brain. Throughout the movie, scenes of Jennifer's revenge are interspersed with good, IL' Dirty Harry blowing away some gangstas in a coffee shop, remember "Go ahead. MAKE my day."? Later on, he threatens to step on a punk kid (who'd just insulted Callahan) in a courthouse elevator like he'd step on dog- s**t....leaving a young female govt employee staring after Clint as if to say "I want to have your baby." My favorite scene is only about 30 minutes into the action, when Harry threatens and frightens a murderous Mafia boss named Threlkis into a fatal coronary during his granddaughter's wedding reception at the Mark Hopkins hotel. Michael Grazzo (Pantangeli in Godfather II) does a wonderful job as the sinful Mafia Don, even if he's only in one scene, dying in a most-convincing manner. However, Harry's troubles aren't over with yet! The elevator punk's gang AND Threlkis' henchmen each attempt to assassinate Harry in two close-ordered scenes, and most of them bad guys end up dying horribly. Yup, some of the gun-play comes off as uninspired screen violence....looking like Clint the Director may have been tired that day of shooting this movie. But, there's only so many ways you can dispatch a man with bullets. The punk kids die much more creatively, though, as they both burn to death and drown in S.F. Bay. Warms my heart. With so much violent intent directed at Insp. Callahan, his bosses send him to San Paolo to try to get some background on the "22 caliber vasectomy killing" as Jennifer Spencer's crime is now known, but not before Harry delivers one of his famous sermons-to-the- chowder-headed-liberals. Love that Harry. While our hero' up annoying the local cops and citizens in San Paolo, two more murders happen, same M.O., on a sleazy, lazy fisherman and on an equally-creepy hardware entrepreneur. Then Harry meets Jennifer! They find they both agree on subjects such as Law and Order, Making the Guilty Pay, etc. Could a hot, love scene be in the offing soon? We're led to believe just that. Characters abound in this Real-Man meets Real-Woman crime drama, and we get to meet a brassy bull-dyke named Raye Parkins who's both irritating and entertaining. Raye set up Jennifer's rape for her "boyfriend" years before, and she'll get hers eventually. The San Paolo Police Chief, played by reliable Eastwood co-star Pat Hingle (the Hanging Judge in 'Hang Em High'), is strangely at odds with Callahan's detective work related to the 22-cal vasectomies, until we find out that his own adolescent son was one of the gang of rapists. Much like Jennifer's sister, Chief Janning's son is now a comatose adult, but driven mad by guilt. It can't end here, though. The dyke's rapist boyfriend, Mick, now a kinky-sex jerk of a criminal, drives in from Vegas becuz Raye's dropped a dime on Jennifer, summoning him up to San Paolo to prevent more executions. Mick sleeps at Raye's house, but his timing is all wrong, and he's arrested before he can spend more time with Raye, mostly due to the fact that she's since been sent to the Island of the Eternal Lesboes by a shot from Jennifer's revolver. Psycho Mick makes bail at long last, with Jennifer gunning for him. A desperate chase ensues, as Harry tries to keep these two from killing each other. It all turns out well in the end, with the good gal and the good guy walking off into the sunset together to a beautiful Roberta Flack blues song.

You know how sometimes you can watch a crappy movie with friends and laugh at all the shortcomings of the movie? Well this was beyond that. I bought the DVD at Tower Records because it was like $3.00 and I'd heard this was a movie you could laugh at. It is really nothing short of pathetic. About 30 minutes into the movie, my friends started asking me to turn it off. Around 45 minutes they begged me. After an hour, we compromised to fast forward to the end, so we could see how the conflict was resolved (and because we had been watching the whole time for Matt Walsh). Seriously, don't watch this movie. It is beyond painful.

This is a case of a bunch of people thinking they are so clever they have a story that fits the time. Remember the all-around political conspiracies caught on camera in the years leading to the Watergate and a little later? Most movies trying to cash in on made-for-TV 'o so powerful, o so mind numbing' conspiracies were in fact caught in their own navel-gazing attitude.<br /><br />I was never a fan of The Conversation which I find as much dated as others conspiracy stints of the time but Coppola was true to his main character and Hackman was a pretty engaging actor to observe. I mean these conspiracy movies are mostly drowning in the character pool of noir heroes. Lots of questions unanswered, lots of dis-communication... Well this takes at least Bergman to build a movie about such un-visual bases.<br /><br />The Next Man is a perfect example of its time: one political soup served with an idealistic character and an horrendous conspiracy tightening its web around him. Neither part is interesting in itself and the whole doesn't get any better. In fact you can tell how much it will be bad from the very first sequences piling up 'watcha that' murders without ever advancing any storyline. Pedestrian directing at its worst as most of the movie is one pompous accumulation of scenes revolving around violence naively brought under the viewer's eyes.

Sondra Locke stinks in this film, but then she was an awful 'actress' anyway. Unfortunately, she drags everyone else (including then =real life boyfriend Clint Eastwood down the drain with her. But what was Clint Eastwood thinking when he agreed to star in this one? One read of the script should have told him that this one was going to be a real snorer. It's an exceptionally weak story, basically no story or plot at all. Add in bored, poor acting, even from the normally good Eastwood. There's absolutely no action except a couple arguments and as far as I was concerned, this film ranks up at the top of the heap of natural sleep enhancers. Wow! Could a film BE any more boring? I think watching paint dry or the grass grow might be more fun. A real stinker. Don't bother with this one.

Before Nicholas Cage was a big action star, he was a great actor. This lesser-known movie is where Cage gives one of his best performances. "Red Rock West" was a low-budget, almost un-known film, but is one of my favorite movies of all time. I discovered it walking down the video store aisle, and wanted to see Cage and Hopper (Who also is great in the movie) appear together. Go get this one, and I'm sure you won't be disappointed.

Julie Waters is outstanding and Adrian Pasdar a revelation in a very warm, very real, and extraordinarily entertaining look at the complications gender dysphoria and transvestism cause in a young executive's life. At the heart of this movie is the very real truth that you must accept yourself before you can hope for others to accept you.

I'm not going to criticize the movie. There isn't that much to talk about. It has good animal actions scenes which were probably pretty astonishing at the time. Clyde Beatty isn't exactly a matinée idol. He's a little slight and not particularly good looking. But that's OK. He's the man in that lion cage. We know that when he can't take the time away from his lions to tend to his girlfriend, he will end up on an island with her and have to save the day. Someone said earlier that it is a history lesson. The scenes at the circus are of another day, especially the kids who hang around. I didn't realize that even back in the thirties, they sailed on three masted schooners. It looked like something out of 1860. I guess that's the stock footage they had. No wonder the thing got wrecked. They're always talking about fixing her up. There's even a dirigible. It tells us a little about male female relationships at the time, a kind of giggly silliness. But if you don't take it too seriously, you can have fun watching it.

<br /><br />This movie sucks. Ridiculous "school" athmosphere, unbelievable students that are very bad and behave like criminals but then later after the "good teacher" Nick Nolte taught them they became as good and as quiet as kittens.<br /><br />If this works for you, it doesn't for me. 0 out of 10

Thanks Jymn Magon, for creating Disney's 2 best cartoons ever. This show has improved very much over the years. As a kid, I didn't like it because I thought it was a rip-off of Ducktales, which was my favorite Disney thing at the time (like Grandmoffromero). Then later on though it was good but not great. But after reading the reviews here, I decided to give it another chance & bought the DVD set & watched the whole pilot the first day I got it, & was very pleasantly surprised. It's still my favorite episode, although the series did live up to it. And by the end of disc 1, I knew this was going to be a top tenner.<br /><br />The characters are so complex & charming. My favorite has got to be Wildcat. He's absolutely hilarious and sweet to boot. My next favorite is Baloo, the best pilot on the show. I can see why 'ol Jymn built the show around him. Then it's Kit Cloudkicker. He & Baloo have the best relationship in the series. After that, Louie. Jim Cummings did a perfect job of impersonating the original voice. After him, Rebecca. She has made me laugh pretty hard, and I do believe she and Baloo eventually marry. And finally(for the heroes), Molly. Although she's my least favorite, I still like her. I think she's a very cute character(much better than Webby from Ducktales). And the villains were very original. Don Karnage & his air pirates always crack me up, Kahn is ice-cold and ruthless, and the Thembrians are always at least amusing.<br /><br />As said before, the stories range from hilarious(Time Waits For No Bear, Romance of Red Chimp) to nothing short of touching(The Old Man & the Seaduck, Paradise Lost), to fun, funny & exciting adventures(In Search of Ancient Blunders & my favorite For Whom the Bell Klangs). These are only a few of my favorite episodes. Anyway, Talespin is Disney's best, aside from Gummi Bears Some reasons for this? GB had a decent amount of my favorite character(Cubbi), while TS didn't have enough of Wildcat. But in the end Talespin remains a classic. BOTTOM LINE- 10/10 6th best cartoon ever.

Skippy from Family Ties goes from clean-cut to metal kid in this fairly cheesy movie. The film seems like it was made in response to all those upset parents who claimed metal music was turning their kids evil or making them kill themselves - except in this one a dead satanic metal star is trying to come back from the grave (using Skippy to help out). And while the plot is corny and cliche, the corniness (for example, an evil green fog taking off a girl's clothes)and the soundtrack are what make the movie so hilarious (and great). And of course, there's nothing like Ozzy Osbourne playing a preacher who's asking what happened to the love song :). Definitely a movie for having a few friends over for a good laugh. And while you're at it, make it a double feature with Slumber Party Massacre 2 - there's an "evil rocker" (as stated on the video box)driller killer in black leather w/fringe. A must see for cheesy movie fans.

Well, on it's credit side (if it can be said to have one), Timothy Hines DID manage to capture the original setting of H.G. Wells' outstanding novella. But other than that - well, to call a spade a spade - it sucks bigtime. What the Master Ed Wood could have done with the alleged $20 million dollar budget! Timothy Hines really does make Mr. Wood, who was a flawed genius anyway, look like the best filmmaker of all time. The special effects (I guess you'd call them that) are not even up to computer game standards. The acting is, well, perhaps about dinner theater comparable, and the accents are atrocious. At the risk of sounding offensive, a lot of the acting from the principal male characters is (especially Poor Ogilvy), well, ahem, . . . GAY! Poor Ogilvy minces and flounces about the bogus English countryside, waving his asbestos white handkerchief about as if it were heat resistant armor. Hey, the Stormtroopers in "Star Wars" had neat white body armor too, and it didn't work either, they still got blasted. Even when Ogilvy and Company get fried by the Martians' 'Heat Ray'(?), they flounce and mince in some weird kind of dance, even when they're theoretically DEAD and reduced to skeletons, which persist in unseemly dancing and writhing. Maybe Timothy Hines rented the skeletons from Ray Harryhausen, being left over from "Jason And The Argonauts". Or was it "Josie And The Pussycats"? I dunno. The soldiers, presumably because they're 'military', all seem to just rather unconvincingly explode, like the soldier on crutches and his unfortunate comrades carrying the stretcher just beyond him. Wow! I loved it! But the 'soldiers' all looked like they were either fascist troops from the Spanish Civil War, or Boer Commandos (which would be more or less correct for the period. Perhaps that was some bit of shrewd subtlety on the part of that wicked genius Hines?). Oddly enough, the character of the Curate looks exactly like he's drawn in the original illustrations by Warwick Goble, and he also turns in the most convincing job of acting. Oh, yeah. Musn't forget the THUNDER CHILD. In the book, the warship is described as an ironclad torpedo-ram. It was MEANT to RAM enemy ships. Yet, it's bow was crumpled after ramming the Tinker-Toy constructed Martian War Machines, with a tiny jagged hole in the forepeak, and she sank. An ironclad warship like THUNDERCHILD could've rammed the TITANIC and survived, but I guess the Royal Navy was bound by the same lowest-bidder constraints as our own Military. The costumes are all wrong, especially the British Army and Police uniforms, cobbled together mostly from USMC Alphas. And Timbo, in an obvious homage to Western Films Of Yore, has obviously set his movie in Wild Western England, because all his riders are using western saddles. The accents being used by just about everyone appear to be a mixture of some kind of Scottish regional accent used by Clan Macabre, and magically delicious Irish accents from County Malarky. On the credit side, and contrary to what one reviewer wrote, the only genuine, authentic feature of this Thing is the artillery. The guns are not from the Civil War, but appear to my eye and research as bona-fide British nine or 12 pounder Rifled Breach Loaders, perfectly authentic to the period. So was the ammunition shown being used. But the Artilleryman, who is a driver in the Horse Artillery, was not shown correctly driving his limber. You don't sit on the frigging limber box and drive a gun team, you ride the nearside wheel horses. The Opening, using what I believe is authentic period film footage, is okay, and the score's not bad. However, to the best of my knowledge Weybridge has never had an underground, and it certainly didn't in 1898.<br /><br />But growing up reading this novel, I am very disappointed. Even more disappointed then I was at Spielberg's zillion dollar, special effects laden version. Maybe his version would have profited by swapping Anthony Piana for Tom Cruise, and vice versa. I have a lot more to say, but I'll let it go at this for now: I wish somebody would make a GOOD version of "War Of The Worlds" that's faithful to the original. Timmy's vision is fine for a high school film class, or maybe I should say pretentiously stupid for a college-level film student, and about as bad, which is about the best I can say for this thing, but that's about it. Oh, yeah. Just where DID the budget go? And what happened to Michael Caine? I'd like to hear HIS comments! I have a sneaking suspicion that Timbo "Orson Wood" Hines' breathtaking, bound-breaking cinema masterpiece just might be the risk-taking director's ticket to cult stardom, because, I must confess a guilty pleasure at watching this movie, which I didn't pay for anyway but was thoughtfully sent to me by a friend who burned a DVD copy for me, with no malicious intent that I've been able to determine. I must add here that I thought Blackmoon's dubbed and abridged version was not only a vast improvement, but an absolute, hysterically funny (in a good way) treat to watch. I find it hard to watch Master Timbo's version after Blackmoon. Keep it up, Tim! Make your own version of "DUNE", now. It just awaits the hand of a master like you! And all you headupyourass snobs who hated Cloverfield? FORGET IT. It CANNOT BEAT TIMBO HINES ARTISTRY FOR SHEER HILARIOUS AWFULNESS! HEY GET A LIFE!TIMBO IS WORSE THAN THE MASTER ED WOOD! I KID YOU NOT!

Worst mistake of my life.<br /><br />I picked this movie up at Target for $5 because I figured, "Hey, it's Sandler I can get some cheap laughs". I was wrong, completely wrong. Mid-way through the film all three of my friends were asleep and I was still suffering. Worst plot, Worst script, Worst movie I have ever seen. I wanted to hit my head up against a wall for an hour, then I'd stop, and you know why? Because it felt damn good. Upon bashing my head in i stuck that damn movie in the microwave and watched it burn....and that felt better than anything else I've ever done. It took American Psycho, Army of Darkness, and Kill Bill just to get over that crap. I HATE YOU SANDLER FOR ACTUALLY GOING THROUGH WITH THIS AND RUINING A WHOLE DAY OF MY LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

<br /><br /> What can I say? This is one of the most perfect films ever made. Its a throwback to the glitxy,sterling romantic comedies of the 1940s..but with a modern touch.The screenplay bursts with wit,charm,humor and tenderness,the cinematograpy is breathtaking(NYC never looked so beautiful),and of course there is the cast! Dudley Moore turns in the performance of his career as Loveable,drunken Arthur Bach. He is also wistful and real..one of the film's best lines is his poignant "Not Everyone who drinks is a poet...some of us drink because we're not poets." The great Sir John Gielgud won a much deserved Oscar for his splendid performance as Hobson,Arthur's valet and caretaker.Although He considered it a "take the money and run role",He brings to the character all the talent ,experience and bravura of an expert tragidian and a sly comedian. The supporting cast is also out of thisworld,from Geraldine Fitzgerald's sassy Grandma Bach to Stephen Elliott's bombastic Mafioso.<br /><br /> The score is also extremely memorable and compliments the film perfectly.The only real problem with the film is the ill fated sequel it spawned.

I was excited to view a Cataluña´s film in the Berlin´s competition. But after the presentation I was total disappointed and furious. Too much blood, too much time, too much themes for nothing. The Spanish Civil War, like every war, was horrible. The revenge, a very human behavior, not pretty at all, is shown in uncountable films and plays, as well as the relations between homosexuals and the scepticism in Spain about Catholicism . But what Mr Villaronga try, is a pseudo tragedy that can belongs to the worst of the film´s history. It is really a pity to see Angela Molina in this movie. I advise nobody under no circumstances to go to see this film.

Guys who-ever even THINKS about watching this movie has already got some disturbance going through their heads.. This movie has NOTHING to do with Jack the Ripper (incase you thought) its another B, i mean E-Grade movie comprised of a bunch of horny teens in certain sex scenes being watched just before they get their spleens splattered on a nearby tree. Its not scary, funny or amusing. If you really feel like gory stuff with no plot, then watch Cabin Fever, at least the director did not fall asleep midway through directing this crap.only watch this if you absolutely have nothing to do in life & the only thing on TV is Oprah Winfrey crying on the TV set.

Sorry, I just didn't find the subject matter as compelling as the filmmaker did. The robot guy and the mole rat guy were pretty interesting, although Morris didn't really tell us much about them. The other two subjects were a bore. And the supposed "connections" between them didn't hold up.

I should put out an alert all over saying that the movie shouldn't be watched. It fails to a fitting tribute in such a magnificent manner that it is almost an insult to the memory of those brave men. The special effect were horrible, I hadn't expected the total failure on the part of the director to appreciate military technology. How can a machine gun which normally fires at the rate of 600 rounds per minute fire at 1/10th the speed? How can soldiers fall forward when a grenade explodes in front of them? How can people survive when there are artillery shells falling as close as 20 feet away? How come the artillery shells fall only on either side of the road and not the road itself?<br /><br />Not only did this disrespect for the weaponry appall me, it was the cliched situations and the incongruity of the dialogues which had me screaming murder. There were the standard dialogues like Ye bhi kisi ka bhai hai, ise laath mat maro and Pakistan se jyaada musalmaan to Hindustaan me hai and LOC cross mat karo ye mera hukum hai. Stupid to say the least.<br /><br />What Shobha De had written is true. The director worked without a script and it shows. There is no flow to the movie. There is no gradual progression from one battle to another. It is just one gunfight after the next with no connection to the overall scheme of the war. The explanatory scenes are awful. The chief of army staff looks unconvincing. To make matters worse the theatre people had indiscriminately cut footage to fit the four hour long movie into 3 hours.

I have read with great interest the only available comment made before mine on this movie and I would first like to say that I understand the point of view of the previous user who commented on this movie very well: viewed from an Israeli perspective, I can very well imagine that this movie touches upon very sensitive issues and that the slightest detail can have a great importance for a viewer who is more or less directly concerned by the events depicted in this movie. What I would like to say is that 'Distortion' was shown at a film festival in Geneva in November 2005 (Festival 'Cinéma tout écran') where it won the award of the audience ('Prix du public'in French). For what affects me, I liked the 'nervous camera' work of Mr Bouzaglo, who, in my opinion, portrayed an atmosphere of extreme tension and uneasiness in the movie very well, and I think that most of the swiss viewers appreciated this in the movie. This perspective, however, might seem totally 'alien' to an Israeli viewer, but not so surprising when it comes to swiss viewers, because Switzerland is a country which has NEVER been subject to any terrorist attack. It therefore comes as no surprise that the audience in Geneva judged this film with a much more 'detached' perspective.I would also like to quote what Mr Bouzaglo said when he was interviewed by a Geneva newspaper (I'm translating from French): ''After 50 years of living here and after undergoing all this violence, we may ask ourselves if it is still possible to remain normal.We might sometimes think that it would be easier to commit suicide than to go on living. We are like the characters in my movie,''on the edge of the edge''. This is the reason why the private detective, who is somehow ''voyeur'' is the happiest character in the movie, because he earns a living thanks to the system, he takes advantage of this situation'' This is, in substance, the main thing that I and the swiss public, in my opinion, pointed out in this movie, and that we did not pay attention to some inconsistencies regarding the characters in the movie which the precedent reviewer pointed out with great accuracy and humor. So, to sum up, different country=different perspective, but I think that this is somehow great, because it reassures me for what affects the future of cinema, that is to say that it well never be subject to a 'unique' of 'formatted' way of thinking.

Awful! Awful! Awful! No, I didn't like it. It was obvious what the intent of the film was: to track the wheeling and dealing of the "movers and shakers" who produce a film. In some cases, these are people who represent themselves as other than what they are. I didn't need a film to tell me how shallow some of the people in the film industry are. I suppose I'm at fault really because I expected something like "Roman Holiday".<br /><br />I'm not a movie-maker nor do I take film classes but it appeared to me that the film consisted of a series of 'two-shots' (in the main) where the actors(!) had been supplied with a loose plot-line and they were to improvise the dialogue. Henry Jaglon makes the claim that he along with Victoria Foyt actually wrote the screenplay but the impression was that the actors, cognisant of the general direction of the film, extemporised the dialogue - and it was not always successful. Such a case in point was when Ron Silver made some remark which really didn't flow along the line of the conversation (and I'm not going back to look for it!) and Greta Scacchi broke into laughter even though they were supposed to be having a serious conversation, because Silver's remark was such a non sequitur. You get the impression too that one actor deliberately tries to 'wrong foot' the other actor and break his/her concentration. Another instance of this is when a producer tells Silver to "bring the &*%#@#^ documents" (3 times). Silver looked literally lost for words. I have seen one other film which looked like a series of drama workshops on improvisation and that was awful too!<br /><br />The fact that Jaglon was able to attract Greta Scacchi (no stranger to Australia), Ron Silver, Anouk Ami, and Maximilian Schell suggests it was a 'slow news week' for them. Peter Bogdanovich had a 'what-the-hell-am-I-doing-here' look on his face at all times and I expected to hear him say: "Look, I'm a director and screenwriter - not an actor" - which would have been unnecessary to state! Faye Dunaway seemed more interested in promoting her son, Liam. Apart from the jerky delivery of the dialogue, the hand-held camera became irritating even if it was for verisimilitude - as I suspect the "natural" dialogue was - and the interest in the principals became subsumed to the interest in the various youths walking along the strand trying to insinuate themselves into shot. That at least approached Cinema Verite. So that, along with the irritating French singing during which I used the mute button, made for a generally disappointing 90-odd minutes.<br /><br />I think we should avoid apotheosising films such as this. Trying to see value in the film where it has little credit in order to substantiate a perceived transcendental level to it is misguided. There was really nothing avant-garde about it. It didn't come across as a work of art and yet it wasn't a documentary either. I know, it was a mocumentary but the real test is whether it is entertaining. I was bored out of my skull! It did have one redeeming feature: it pronounced 'Cannes' correctly so I gave it 3/10.

This movie must be in line for the most boring movie in years. Not even woody Harrison can save this movie from sinking to the bottom.<br /><br />The murder in this movie are supposed to be the point of interest in this movie but is not, nothing is of any interest. The cast are not to bad but the script are just plain awful , I just sat in utter amazement during this movie, thinking how on earth can anyone find this movie entertaining <br /><br />The producers of this movie were very clever. They made a boring movie but hid it well with the names of good actors and actresses on their cast. People will go to the blockbuster and probably see this movie and think, Woody Harrison ,Kristin Scott Thomas and Willem Dafoe this must be good and rent this movie.(boy are they in for a horrible time)<br /><br />If you like getting ripped off go and rent this movie, some people actually did enjoyed this movie but I like to watch a movie with meaning

I absolutely despise this movie. No wonder Jose Larraz "disowned" it at one point and refuses to discuss it. I admire Larraz's work, especially his more obscure slasher/sex maniac thrillers like SAVAGE LUST or SCREAM AND DIE. His work has a kind of inescapable artiness about it that he can't seem to switch off, owing in part to his secondary career as a painter & cartoonist. It's too bad he never made a Western, his vision would have been perfect.<br /><br />BLACK CANDLES is easily his most notorious film and probably his best known after the masterpiece VAMPYRES. And it's notoriety revolves around one scene where a Satanic coven enacts a bizarre rite involving extracting the reproductive fluid of a goat -- symbolizing The Beast -- as some kind of nauseating balm to be used in preparing the waif like sister of a murdered man for her role as the bride of Satan. The scene in question is staged in a way that looks rather convincing even without the display of any plumbing apparatus the goat may have been endowed with, relying upon the histrionics of the actress recruited to play the supplicant in the ritual and lots of guttural chanting on the film's recycled musical score heard in a half-dozen films attributed to Jacinto Molina. The perverse nature of the scene is more implied than shown in graphic detail, heightened somewhat by the knowledge that said supplicant is actually the teen-aged daughter of the Satanic priest. My but they had fun concocting this movie.<br /><br />The problem with it is that there isn't much to deconstruct or contemplate aside from the paper thin ROSEMARY'S BABY derived story of a woman being weaned into her role as Satan's bride by a sophisticated coven of Satanists living in the hedgrowed outlands of a very sinister Britain. Led by Eurohorror sensation Helga Line these Satanists are comprised of doctors, lawyers, land owning magnates and other upper crust dignitaries who actually owe their professional success to their worship of the devil. All you have to do is sell your soul and the world can be yours, only watch out whom you may sell out to pay back petty personal conflict or you may end up being felched with a sword.<br /><br />The film attempts to combine this heady Satanic trip with oodles or borderline graphic sex, and should correctly be regarded as a kind of apex or culmination of the sex and horror Spanish thriller traditions popularized in part by Mr. Molina & Ms. Line, and which had amazingly flourished under the disapproving eye of one Generalissimo Franco, the dictator who controlled Spain up until 1976. While he lived his decree was that Spanish cinema was to be free of graphic depictions of on-screen sex. Spanish directors often made two versions of their films, one with the sex concealed for their own screens and one with the fornication on display for export. As difficult as it was for the filmmakers to express themselves the result was a sort of interesting tension that usually results when artists flirt with the forbidden: Spanish horror from the 1970s has a very special flavor to it that is somewhat of an acquired taste. It's not for everyone.<br /><br />But in a bizarre turn of events, without Franco's influence on their culture Spanish horror sort of dried up in the late 1970s, when their Gothic castles and demonic orgies suddenly found themselves passé when compared to new sensations like JAWS and the STAR WARS phenomenon. And without Franco's constraints their were suddenly a flood of overtly graphic thrillers that came tumbling out of the pipes in the very late 70s/early 80s, of which BLACK CANDLES is perhaps the best known due to it's emphasis on sexual deviancy with a barnyard animal. Larraz' major horror films have always revolved around sexual taboos (the lesbianism of VAMPYRES, the incest of SCREAM AND DIE & DEVIATION) but here the effect of the depravity is to overshadow the rest of the production. Nobody cares about anything else but the traditionally censored trip to the Goat Barn, and watching a cut version without the scene in the barn is almost an exercise in pointlessness. The sex isn't graphic enough to rate as porn and the chills aren't chilling enough to rate as horror.<br /><br />So, BLACK CANDLES is essentially a behavior study -- Here is how high society British Satanists might behave in their secluded mansions out in the West Midlands or whatever. Between sex scenes the actors/actresses sit around and have lots of discussions. The best thing the film has going for it is an undeniably oppressive atmosphere of claustrophobia, with most of it's action taking place in the tightly confined interiors of Ms. Line's character's mansion. Nearly every avenue of fornication is hinted at so fans of soft-core sex romps with a hinting of supernatural horror will be amused, and of course the vicarious sex criminals amongst us will enjoy choking their chickens to the goat barn scene. But the ultimate conclusion of the film is silly, pretentious, intelligence insulting, and probably perfect for such an otherwise forgettable exercise in applied sleaze.<br /><br />2/10; Without the Goat Barn this movie just isn't the same, and with the scene it's probably a bit too much for most viewers. Larraz was correct to disown it.

Anemic comedy-drama, an unhappy, seemingly rushed affair featuring Cher as a woebegone housewife who slowly makes friends with the hit-man who's been hired to kill her by her husband. Chazz Palminteri, as the talkative hired gun, adapted the screenplay from his own play, with stagy set-ups and back-and-forth dialogue that quickly tires the eye and ear. An air of gloom hangs over the entire project, and director Paul Mazursky can't get Cher out of her perpetual funk (she's listless). Despite all the top talent (including Robert De Niro as one of the producers), "Faithful" is fraudulent, with no substance to the story and characters who rarely come to life. *1/2 from ****

If I had never read the book, I would have said it was a good movie. BUT I did read the book. Who ever did the screen write ruined the storyline. There is so many changes, that it wasn't really worthy of the Title. Character changes, plot changes, time line changes...<br /><br />First off who was Henry and the investigator? They weren't in the story. Henry had Mitch's persona somewhat, but Mitch wasn't a cop. No you made it so Roz, helped 'sink ' his body and used that as Zenia's blackmail against Roz. The real so called blackmail was Roz thought Zenia was sleeping with her son and wanted her to get away from him. Her son was also being blackmailed because he was hiding being Gay from his mother. Her son wasn't even really mentioned in the story. Neither I don't believe was his lover, Roz's secretary.<br /><br />Tony and West were not together in the beginning. He was actually with Zenia first while in college. The black painted apartment was their Idea, Tony just went to visit. This is where Zenia and Tony meet, become fast friends. Tony hides her love for West. Then Zenia left west, with cash from Tony, then West and Tony get together. Eventually marry, at some point West leaves Tony for Zenia again for a short time. Only to be heart broken again. Then go back to Tony. Zenia's blackmail for Tony was that Tony had written a test paper for Zenia. Now being a Professor at College she didn't want to let it get out. I will say the character who played Tony did it wonderfully.<br /><br />Charis character was a blond, not that it really matters. Zenia didn't trick her about having cancer while Augusta was alive. No she was there when Charis had a lover named billy. Augusta's father, he was a draft dodger in the Vietnam war. Eventually after Charis takes care of Zenia for months for what was actually drug withdrawal. Zenia and Billy have an affair right under Charis's nose while taking care of them both. Then Zenia turns in Billy to the government, and leaves on the ferry with him. Not with Augusta, Charis was pregnant with her tho. Charis also had a split personality, Karen was her real name.<br /><br />Zenia did not die from being cut up into piece's.... she fell or was possibly pushed (we never really knew) off the balcony and landed in a fountain. She had almost pure grade heroin in her blood and it was likely she took some not knowing and fell off as she OD'd. She was also really dieing of Cancer this time around.<br /><br />It didn't show any of the childhood memories or anything that endeared the characters to the reader. The Book was striped down to its bare bones. Then re made in someone else's vision. Why couldn't you just write your own story along the lines of what you made the movie. It was different enough, and I'm sure could have been made more so.

I'm afraid that I didn't like this movie very much. Apart from a few saving graces, it's nothing to write home about. <br /><br />J-horror has boomed for the last five-six years but the films themselves have on more than one account been repetitive and carbon copies of a previous success. This is one of them.<br /><br />Basically this is a supernatural slasher movie. The beginning is promising with chilling scenes from a morgue where a dead girl has her eyes graphically sewn together, but soon after opens them. However, after that, it's quickly downhill for this flick.<br /><br />To be kind I will start with the things I like about "Gawi". On the plus side, the visuals are gaudy and the movie looks great for it's type. For those who like their horror movies gory there are a few nicely executed (no pun intended) murder scenes. We also get a few good suspense sequences/set-pieces.<br /><br />However, there are quite a few drawbacks also...<br /><br />First of all, and my major complaint about this movie, is that the plot skips and jumps forwards and backwards in time with an alarming intensity. Usually that's not a problem for me, but here, where the students look exactly the same no matter what age they are, I was confused on more than one occasion.<br /><br />The performances are okay I guess (a little hard to tell when you don't know the language), but seem a little stiff. And for a horror movie, I don't think it was scary enough. For a while I was quite bored actually.<br /><br />Being a fan of giallo movies, I was expecting quite a lot from "Nightmare", but unfortunately I was quite disappointed.

Just Cause is one of those films that at first makes you wonder quite why it was so heavily slated when it came out - nothing special but competent enough and with an excellent supporting performance from Ed Harris. Then you hit the last third and everything starts to get increasingly silly until you've got a killer with a flashlight strapped to his forehead threatening to fillet Sean Connery's wife (a typically mannered and unconvincing Kate Capshaw) and kid (a very young Scarlet Johannsen) in an alligator skinner's shack. <br /><br />The kind of movie that's probably best seen on a plane, and even then only once.

From the beginning this movie did have a few flaws. The main character played by Hayden Christensen is a the rich young mogul who has inherited his father's considerable wealth and power, and he is struggling to both fill his father's shoes and cut the apron strings mother (and co-executive) keeps too tight. He also has the problem of having a heart condition and waiting in the limbo that is the organ donor registry. There are also minor back stories which your first instinct is to mostly ignore that become important later, such as his friendship with his surgeon (Terrence Howard) and his romance with a middle class girl (Jessica Alba). Uncreative story lines, but not bad enough to ruin the movie. The only real "oy vey!" moment was the name of Lena Olin's character. Overbearing woman named Lilith...subtle!<br /><br />The surgical scenes are not at all censored. I appreciated that, people who find surgery scenes scary might not. The horror of being awake during anesthesia was done well at first. You watch in emotional agony as Christensen screams inwardly through the chest incision and the rib spreader. The moment of irony from the trailers then comes where while he is one of the unlucky few to be awake during anesthesia, he is also luck in that it helps him learn that his surgical team is planning to murder him.<br /><br />The big twist, however, is very predictable and sends the film delving into the conspiracy and his memories of the little signs which were there but he, like us, initially missed. <br /><br />There are two more twists at the end involving his relationship with his mother. One is an impressive gesture by Olin, which comes of as unimpressive due to poor writing. The other is a secret about the family's past which seemed very tacked on and pointless.<br /><br />The initially well done anesthesia awareness drama gets lost in the poorly written conspiracy drama. There is a one final attempt to bring it back which falls flat, taking the entire movie with it.

At one end of the Eighties Warren Beatty created and starred in the literate epic Reds about the founding of the Soviet Union as seen through the eyes of iconoclast radical John Reed. It was a profound film both entertaining and with a message presented by an all star cast. At the end of the decade Warren Beatty created another kind of epic in Dick Tracy that makes no pretense to being anything other than entertainment with a whole bunch of the best actors around just having a great old time hamming it up under tons of makeup.<br /><br />That both Reds and Dick Tracy could come from the same individual speaks volumes about the range this man has as a player. In this film Beatty managed to get all the famous cartoon characters from the strip and put them in one original screenplay.<br /><br />The city's top mobster Big Boy Caprice is making a move to really eliminate competition. The film opens with him rubbing out Lips Manlis's henchmen in a Valentine Massacre style shooting and then Lips himself being fitted for a cement overcoat. But Caprice's moves are making him a target for Tracy.<br /><br />In the meantime a third mysterious and faceless individual is looking to topple Caprice himself. Will our hero sort out this thicket of crime?<br /><br />The spirit of fun this film has is truly infectious. When people like Al Pacino, Dustin Hoffman, Paul Sorvino, William Forsythe, R.G. Armstrong get themselves outrageously made-up to look like the cartoon creations of strip author Chester Gould and then indulge in an exercise of carving the biggest slice of ham, you've got to love this film.<br /><br />Al Pacino got a nomination for Best Supporting Actor, but any of these guys could have, it's only that Pacino as Big Boy Caprice gets the most screen time. Only Beatty plays it completely straight, the others all seem to play off of him. Dick Tracy won Oscars for Best Art&Set Design, Best Song written by Stephen Sondheim and introduced by Madonna, Sooner Or Later. The fact he was even able to get somebody like Sondheim to write a score for this film only shows Sondheim wanted to get in on the fun. As for Madonna, the Material Girl does more than hold her own with all these acting heavyweights as club torch singer Breathless Mahoney.<br /><br />Before this film, Dick Tracy movies were consigned to the B pictures and worse as Saturday afternoon serials. The only thing that rivals this all star extravaganza is a radio broadcast done for Armed Forces Radio during World War II that got to vinyl. Can you believe a cast like Bing Crosby, Bob Hope, Frank Sinatra, Dinah Shore, Jimmy Durante, Judy Garland, Frank Morgan, and the Andrews Sisters? Try and find a recording of that gem.<br /><br />Until then Warren Beatty's classic comic strip for the big screen will do nicely.

Some people loved "The Aristocrats" and others hated it, frequently walking out in the middle. Reactions to Eddie Izzard aren't likely to be that extreme -- if you can handle a transvestite comedian (who says he likes girls) and has a vocabulary that makes, shall we say, enough use of the "f" word that his program would be one long beep if presented on network television. Many of Izzard's fans are so devoted that they see no flaws whatsoever in his performances. On the other hand, I thought this show was occasionally flatter than Izzard's chest but also more often than not funny and, in spots, absolutely hilarious. He has a way of connecting references from routines early in the show to his later routines. He's not a story teller. He's not a joke maker. He's not a frenetic fantasist like Robin Williams. He plays around with ideas, some of which work and some of which -- a routine with the San Francisco cable car and Alcatraz, for instance -- are completely unfunny. He has a way, however, of moving gracefully past the flopped routines and extending the ones that connect. I gave this performance a 7 and might be persuaded to raise it to an 8. But a 10? No way.

Bloodsuckers has the potential to be a somewhat decent movie, the concept of military types tracking down and battling vampires in space is one with some potential in the cheesier realm of things. Even the idea of the universe being full of various different breeds of vampire, all with different attributes, many of which the characters have yet to find out about, is kind of cool as well. As to how most of the life in the galaxy outside of earth is vampire, I'm not sure how the makers meant for that to work, given the nature of vampires. Who the hell they are meant to be feeding on if almost everyone is a vampire I don't know. As it is the movie comes across a low budget mix of Firefly/Serenity and vampires movies with a dash of Aliens.<br /><br />The action parts of the movie are pretty average and derivative (Particularly of Serenity) but passable- they are reasonably well executed and there is enough gore for a vampire flick, including some of the comical blood-spurting variety. There is a lot of character stuff, most of which is tedious, coming from conflicts between characters who mostly seem like whiny, immature arseholes- primarily cowboy dude and Asian woman. There are a few character scenes that actually kind of work and the actors don't play it too badly but it mostly slows things down. A nice try at fleshing the characters out but people don't watch a movie called Bloodsuckers for character development and drama. The acting is actually okay. Michael Ironside hams it up and is as fun to watch as ever and at least of a couple of the women are hot. The space SFX aren't too bad for what is clearly a low budget work. The story is again pretty average and derivative but as I said the world created has a little bit of potential. The way things are set up Bloodsuckers really does seem like the pilot for a TV series- character dynamics introduced, the world introduced but not explored, etc. <br /><br />The film does have a some highlights and head scratching moments- the kind of stuff that actually makes these dodgy productions watchable. -The scene where our heroes interrogate a talking sock puppet chestburster type creature. Hilarious. - The "sex scene." WTF indeed. -The credit "And Michael Ironside as Muco." The most annoying aspect of it all though is the really awful and usually inappropriate pop music they have playing very loud over half the scenes of the movie. It is painful to listen to and only detracts from what is only average at best.<br /><br />Basically an okay watch is you're up for something cheesy, even if it is just for the "chestburster" scene.

Tiempo de valientes is a very fun action comedy.After his great fist movie called El fondo del mar and the spectacular TV pro-gramme Los simuladores,Damian Szifron made another great work.Tiempo de valientes looks,for moments,a movie made in Hollywood.Diego Peretti and Luis Luque are two great actors and here,they have great performances.The movie is very fun and funny and it has superb moments.Tiempo de valientes is a very fun action comedy that I totally recommend if you wanna have a great time.And I have to congrats Szifron for all the talent he has.<br /><br />Rating:9

One of my favourite films first saw it when I was about 10, which probably tells you a lot about the type of humour. Although dated the humour definitely has a charm about it. Expect to see the usual Askey & Murdoch banter so popular in its day, with lots of interesting, quirky co-characters. The lady with the parrot, the couple due to get married and are in trouble from 'her', and my favourite, the stationmaster, "Nobody knows where it comes from ... nobody knows where it goes.." Interestingly the ghost train was written by Arnold Ridley of Dads Army fame (Private Godfrey the medic) Watch it on a rainy Sunday afternoon after your lunch and smile.

I saw this movie at a college film festival back in the 70's - I have been waiting FOREVER for this movie to come out on video (finally it's out). It was made in Brazil, so I assumed that was why it hadn't made it to video yet. I have been checking video stores for the past 15 years waiting for this outstanding movie to come out! It is one of my all-time favorites - but be warned, it is weird, like Werner Herzog weird - its weirdness stems from its super-realism.<br /><br />The movie is based on a true incident back a few centuries ago, in pre-colonial times, when Europeans were first encountering the tribes in the Amazon. A white man is mistaken by a savage tribe of cannibals as their enemy, so they intend to kill him. Before they dispatch him, though, they make him part of their tribe (their custom). The entire movie is like watching a National Geographic documentary as he becomes an accepted member of their tribe. That's it. Cosmic plotline? No. Intense insight into the variety of human life? Definitely.<br /><br />Oh yeah... be warned... this film has definite nudity - this is not some Hollywood schlock flick about noble savages... this film tells it like it was (re-read above: National Geographic, super-realism)<br /><br />

I've just had the evidence that confirmed my suspicions. A bunch of kids, 14 to 22 put on the DVD of "Titanic" on a fantastic state of the art mega screen home entertainment type deal. Only two of them had actually seen it before. But they all had seen the moment of Kate, Leo and Celine Dion so many times that most of them felt they had seen the whole movie. Shortly after the epic started, they started to get restless, some of them left asking the others -- "call us when the iceberg appears" Over an hour and a half into the movie, only the two girls who had seen the movie before, were still there. They started shouting: iceberg, iceberg. A stampede followed, they all came back to see the sinking of the Titanic. They sat open mouthed, emitting Ohs and far outs. So, just like I thought when the movie first burst into the scene. What is this? One and a half hours waiting for the bloody thing to sink but what about the rest of the of it. Dr. Zivagho, for instance, had a similar running time, but think how much takes place in that film within the same period of time. In "Titanic" Leo teaches Kate how to spit. Look at the faces and hands of the, supposedly, creme de la creme in the first class dining room of the ship. Look at the historical details, if you can find them. The storyline is so thin that they have to introduce guns and shootings in a ship that is about to sink. The real sinking here is of film standards. All the efforts are focus on special effects and opening week ends. The film went on to become the highest grossing movie of all time so, what do I know?

My first exposure to "Whale Music" was the Rheostatics album of the same name, that I bought around 1993. I was reading the liner notes and the band said the album, which remains in a prominent place in my collection, was inspired by Canadian author Paul Quarrington's book.<br /><br />I picked up the book a few months later and devoured it! An amazing read! I have since re-read the book numerous times, each time finding some new element to Desmond and his desire to complete the Whale Music.<br /><br />I found the film in 1996, on video. I haven't had a lot of good experiences with Canadian film, but this one worked for me. The role of Claire could have been cast differently, but overall I think that Paul Quarrington's vision was transfered nicely from the book to the screen.<br /><br />Maury Chaykin gives a moving performance as the isolated genius. The movie deals with family relationships, love, and finding someone who understands. I would strongly recommend "Whale Music" to not only music fans, but anyone who has ever lost something or someone, and tried to find their way back to the world.

In the unlikely case that some aspiring directors are reading these comments, I'd like to offer some advice (free of charge!), from a viewer's perspective. If you want to make a serious exotic adventure film, do it. If you want to make a spoof of exotic adventure films, go ahead. DO NOT try to make both at the same time, it doesn't work. For example, having a goofy "comic relief" character killed and beheaded and following it up with a monkey shaking a tree and dropping a coconut on a cannibal's head just makes you look like you had NO IDEA what kind of movie you wanted to make. This one is boring, meandering, cheap, racist....you get the picture. A couple of smart moments and a few glimpses of nudity from Kathy Shower (way too prissy here) are hardly worth your trouble. There is a reason everyone has forgotten about this film's existence. (*1/2)

This movie is just like every other dutch movie, so if you enjoy movies such as turks fruit and de kleine blonde dood. then you might be okay with this one (even though those two have much better stories and actors) Zomerhitte starts strong enough, but even that one good scene ends up having nothing to do with the storyline. There's a lot of nudity (but me and others just could not find that girl attractive), the dialog is laughable (as we did a lot to the annoyance of other movie watchers), and some of the scenes are so completely random that this is more of an unintentional comedy than anything else (like a random scene in which an owl rips somebody's eye out...it has nothing to do with anything and is only referenced once later in a sentence saying "did you hear what happened...I was there"). the only reason I gave it a 2 is because some of the places they are at look nice...that's it. And the reason I saw it was because we went to the sneak preview (here in Holland we have a strange system regarding sneak previews, you pay less money then for a regular movie and you don't know what movie it is that you will be watching. All you know is that it's a new movie that's not yet in the theaters). My advice is to stay far away from this film, if you really want to see a good dutch movie watch temmink or zwartboek.

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.

A remarkable piece of documentary, giving a vivid depiction of a country deeply divided within itself (for further evidence, check out some of the comments on IMDb...!). Compares extremely favourably with Oliver Stone's "Comandante" (which is mainly an in-depth examination of Fidel Castro's nostril hairs). I don't know whether Chavez is everything he presents himself as being, or yet another in the long line of populist Latin-American "caudillos". Nor do I know whether he will be able to make good on the huge expectations he has clearly built up among the poor majority of Venezuelans. It's hardly reasonable to expect a film like this to be able to answer such questions - but I've certainly now got a pretty vivid idea of what's at stake, and what it feels like to be caught up in the middle of a coup. Someone says in the film "we're making history", and that's exactly what the film feels like it's capturing. Outstanding stuff.

Quite unimpressive. The 'twists' are all pretty predictable, if you've seen any movies within the last ten years, and the few somewhat interesting parts (wherein someone utilizes context clues to make a decision) are few and lack much punch, since the 'secret' has already been shown before these clues are explained.<br /><br />(spoilers, sorta)<br /><br />The acting is decent enough. The story simply isn't very interesting. The whole 'still awake' premise becomes nullified by the astral projection stuff(not kidding). <br /><br />The surgery scene is initially tense, a bit discomforting, but then becomes utterly banal.<br /><br />Not horrible, but not memorable. Terrence Howard's least interesting role to date, so far as I've seen. <br /><br />Kind of boring, overall.

I have seen this movie a whole dozen times and it's awesome. But the only thing with it was that in the beginning, there was too much talk of who's going out with who. I think that it would be interesting to do a remake of it. But on the official site, they said that they will not be making a remake of it because so many people have gotten saved when viewing it. What's even happened to Patty Dunning now? She is a pretty good actress. She has done several other movies in the 70s and 80s, but we haven't heard from her since. I know for sure about Thom Rachford, who plays Jerry, works for Accounting at RD Films. But overall, I have to say that the series itself is like Left Behind gone old school.

My main comment on this movie is how Zwick was able to get credible actors to work on this movie? Impressive cast – even for the supporting characters, none of which helps this movie really. I have to admit though, Tom Hank's cameo almost made it worth it – what was that about Tom? Did you lose a bet? The best cameo of the movie was Joe Isuzu though - by far a classic! The premise is good. Basinger's character, struggling with existence as a Pink Lady, is making her way toward Vegas motel by motel pitching the glorious pyramid of cosmetic sales. This happens as Corbett's character is on his way to Vegas to deliver an Elvis suit to his soon to be ex-wife motivated by….what else….extortion. As they both make their way, they have numerous run-ins with Elvis impersonators who on their way to an Elvis impersonating convention in Vegas. Soon, the FBI gets involved and begins to track what they think is an Elvis impersonator serial killer. Unfortunately, premise doesn't mean the movie was good.<br /><br />When watching this movie, imagine you are back in the first grade – when story lines and continuity aren't really important. It is much more enjoyable to just watch Basinger look beautiful in her Pink Lady outfit rather than wondering why what she is doing doesn't really make sense. The movie tries hard, but ultimately falls way way way short. Ultimately, it is filled with ideas that could have theoretically been funny but in practice were not that funny.<br /><br />It isn't the worst, but you may find you yourself feel like leaving the building when watching this one…… Don't say I didn't warn you!

I'm 14, so you probably would think I have never heard of George Burns or Walter Matthau or anyone like that. Boy are you wrong. I had heard that George Burns was in this movie and that he won an Academy Award for it. I have been a fan of George Burns since I was ten. I saw the movie Oh, God recently and loved it. This one was also very awesome. George Burns did a great job. So did Walter Matthau(this is the first time I've ever seen him perform). And even though they had really small roles, Phyllis Diller and Steve Allen did a good job. That special they were filming would have been awesome if it was really done. Let me say this, if you are a fan of George Burns or Walter Matthau, you should see this movie right away!

We watched this in my Women's Health Issues class to point out how women are treated inferior to men in many societies, and I absolutely loved this movie. I plan on trying to get a copy of it myself to watch. The story is very touching and I would recommend it to anyone. I am a fan of different cultures and this movie was just what I needed. This is a movie for the whole family despite its rating. This is a movie I will show to my children. The professor of our class meant for the movie to primarily be a too to educate about women, but this movie was more than that. It is one of those movies that will forever stick out in my mind and will be a favorite.

I'll start by relating my first encounter with Prince's music. It was in a bar, on my 39th birthday and a girl was dancing bare breasted to "1999" playing on the speakers. I asked people, who is this singer? I was told it was Prince. It was so good that it distracted me from a beautiful, topless dancer. Later I started hearing other Prince songs and really "digging" them. When Purple Rain came out I still knew very little about this fellow Minnesotan. The movie blew me away. I instantly became Prince's No. 1 fan of the "War Baby" generation. Later I found out one of my cousins was his secretary, and she got me, and my nephew into a V.I.P. Prince concert where we sat next to his mother...how cool is that! Getting back to the topic at hand, I agree with Siskel & Ebert who called Purple Rain an instant classic. I have seen it over 17 times and absolutely love it. I thought Prince's acting was fine, Apollonia struggled a bit, but all in all the acting was fine. John Gielgud was not available to play 'The Kid' so Prince took the role. The film is visually stunning, brilliantly paced (it never gets slow), and terrifically directed. I rank it among the Best Movie Musicals of all time. The last time I watched it was after about a 7 year gap and it still delivered. I am so proud of fellow Minnesotan Prince Rogers Nelson and would love to tell him personally. He walked right in front of me during the above mentioned concert and said, "Hi", to my nephew but not me. He was chatting with his mom. I was a bit crushed but he's still No. 1 with me.

And I am a Nicole Kidman fanatic. I would pay to see and hear her read the Moscow phone book, which, for all I know, she may have been doing when she was speaking Russian in this movie. <br /><br />All four of the principals are excellent, but the movie itself is a number of good images and better scenes held together by nothing.<br /><br />While one is always ready to suspend disbelief while watching a movie, this one asks too much of the viewer. <br /><br />It could have been very funny (which it is in parts) or quite frightening (which it is in one scene) but the director didn't seem to know which way to go.

Solid comedy entertainment, with musical interludes, it generates a fast pace that carries proceedings along in zestful tempo through a maze of humorous and chiller complications. Boris Karloff, Bela Lugosi and Peter Lorre form a strong setup of sinister villainy. The script contains all the standard mystery film props-sliding panels, secret passageways, thunder and lightning and poisoned blow-darts. Karloff, Lugosi and Lorre go in for heavy leers and obvious melodramatics of the gaslit era. Kay Kyser and his band offered great entertainment for the people living in the 1940's who were trying to forget about the horror's of World War II.

There are some great philosophical questions. What is the purpose of life? What happens when we die? And WHY DO THEY MAKE MOVIES THIS BAD??? The premise is absurd. Thre acting is one dimensional. The special effects are overdone. And the movie is one unending gun battle among some of the lousiest shots Hollywood ever produced. But then, if they had been good shots, everybody would have been dead in the first five minutes and there would be no movie. Too bad it didn't happen that way. Tempted to turn it off several times, I stuck with it to see just how bad it could get. Glad I did because (SPOILER?) the last line is the crowning stupidity of the whole dopey, dismal scenario.It is not even worthy of second feature status at a third rate drive-in in off season. Apart from the general awfulness of the film, I worry deeply about its impact on young audiences. The Americans crank out crap like this and then wonder why events like Columbine happen. This is truly banal cinema on a Brobdingnagian scale!

Amy Poehler and Rachel Dratch are among the funnier women to have been on "Saturday Night Live". It's unfortunate that they, along with Tina Fey and Maya Rudolph, were on SNL during the longest stretch of unfunny writing and sketch-making (circa 2002-2006) the show has ever had. Still, these two women most especially know what's funny, and they know how to write a funny movie.<br /><br />You'll notice in the credits of this movie that Dratch and director Ryan Shiraki wrote the story for "Spring Breakdown", but who wrote the actual screenplay, consisting of dialogue and all the important fill-in-the-blank material that makes a story into a multidimensional movie? Yep, just Shiraki. Just one guy wrote the dialogue for this movie, and no women apparently wrote the script with him. The result is a pretty cliché spring break movie that doesn't so much spoof the faux holiday as much as exploit it equally as much as MTV does every year.<br /><br />If Dratch, Poehler, and even co-star Parker Posey could have contributed their handwriting to the screenplay, it would have been far less cliché. The premise is original, being about three thirty-something women who were unpopular in high school (and apparently college, too) who never had the fun spring break trip they allegedly dreamed about. I say "allegedly" because you never quite know what fun is to these characters. They entered talent shows in the past where they sing stale pro-woman anthems like "True Colors", and spend their nights together holding make-your-own-pizza parties. Even though none of them are especially unattractive, the outside world appears to treat them like they are. There's a scene where a blind student of Poehler's (played by Poehler's real life husband Will Arnett) asks her out on a date, only to touch her face and immediately change his mind. If Poehler's character is supposed to be unattractive, they obviously hired the wrong actress.<br /><br />The movie continues to show promise, even though we have our doubts about the main characters, when Posey's boss, Texas Senator 'Kay Bee' Hartmann (Jane Lynch, funny as always) hires Posey to watch over her unpopular college-age daughter (Amber Tamblyn, playing yet another woman who's attractive in real life, but not in the eyes of any characters in this movie) while she goes to a Laguna Beach-like vacation spot for Spring Break. Poehler and Dratch come along, they reluctantly get boozed up, party like they apparently should have when they were in college, and then comes the ultimate showdown with the sorority bitches lead by Sophie Monk.<br /><br />Sophie Monk is an incredibly attractive woman who has a body both women and men would kill to have for different reasons. Unfortunately, her movie career is off to a rough start with the abominably unfunny "Date Movie" (2006) and the disappointing "Click" (2006). Here, she plays a Southern belle, although her voice sounds like she stole Delta Burke's voice box. She hams it up a little too much, trying too hard to play a conniving bitch that she comes off as much like a caricature of spoiled college kids as the rest of the extras.<br /><br />"Spring Breakdown" was released straight to DVD despite the star power of Amy Poehler, but rightly so because the story is way too cliché. It may as well have been called "National Lampoon's Spring Breakdown", and the magazine probably wouldn't have sued for trademark infringement because of the free publicity. If director Shiraki had given at least one woman the creative input, especially Rachel Dratch, this movie would have been great and not nearly as run-of-the-mill as frat-house comedies we've seen before. I know Dratch will come up with another funny concept, and hopefully be allowed to fill in the rest of the screenplay herself. She's funny enough, and she deserves better than this half-baked comedy that would accept Stiffler's brother with open arms.

An unassuming, subtle and lean film, "The Man in the White Suit" is yet another breath of fresh air in filmic format from Ealing studios. While I suspect some modern viewers may initially find it obscure, I doubt many would fail to be charmed by the expert way the plot, the themes and characters are languidly relayed during the film's course.<br /><br />The genuinely great Alec Guinness gives another fine characterization in a film perhaps not as obviously virtuoso as Ealing's inspired "Kind Hearts and Coronets" from 1949. This time, he merely plays one character rather than eight, but as the unworldly inventor and scientist Sidney Stratton, he always finds the correct tone and expression. Along with Guinness' subtle, expressive performance, the rest of the cast are effective. Of the main players, Cecil Parker and Ernest Thesiger do stand out. Thesiger is compellingly absurd as the crippled but influential business grandee, while Parker is dependable as the ineffectual yet pivotal mill owner and father. Father, that is, of Joan Greenwood, the deftly delectable comic actress, who is at her insurmountable peak in this film. Resplendent and seductive of aspect and diction, she is quite sublime in this film, a fine contrast with the similarly unusual, but more maladroit Guinness. The scene where she seemingly tries to tempt him is played so adeptly by the pair that it is both deeply poignant and amusing...<br /><br />The themes are handled very effectively, with no easy morals drawn. The complexities of the relationships between science, business and the workforce are insightfully and enjoyably examined. Expertly helmed by Alexander Mackendrick, this film is technically adept in all areas; evocative photography, fitting sound effects and music and a wistful script, all quietly impress. A thoroughly satisfying film, with Guinness and Greenwood magnificent.<br /><br />Rating:- **** 1/2/*****

Coonskin might be my favorite Ralph Bakshi film. Like the best of his work, it's in-your-face and not ashamed of it for a second, but unlike some of his other work (even when he's at his finest, which was before and after Coonskin with Heavy Traffic and Wizards), it's not much uneven, despite appearances to the contrary. Bakshi's taking on stereotypes and perceptions of race, of course, but moreover he's making what appears to be a freewheeling exploitation film; blaxploitation almost, though Bakshi doesn't stop just there. If it were just a blaxploitation flick with inventive animation it could be enough for a substantial feature. But Bakshi's aims are higher: throwing up these grotesque and exaggerated images of not just black people but Italians/mafioso, homosexuals, Jews, overall New York-types in the urban quarters of Manhattan in the 70s, he isn't out to make anything realistic. The most normal looking creation in looking drawn "real" is, in fact, a naked woman painted red, white and blue.<br /><br />In mocking these stereotypes and conventions and horrible forms of racism (i.e. the "tar-rabbit, baby" joke, yes joke, plus black-face), we're looking at abstraction to a grand degree. And best of all, Bakshi doesn't take himself too seriously, unlike Spike Lee with a film like Bamboozled, in delivering his message. This is why, for the most part, Coonskin is a hilarious piece of work, where some of the images and things done and sudden twists and, of course, scenes of awkward behavior (I loved the scene where the three animated characters are being talked at by the real-life white couple in tux and dress as looking "colorful" and the like), are just too much not to laugh at. It's not just the imagery, which is in and of itself incredibly "over"-stylized, but that the screenplay is sharp and, this is key for Bakshi this time considering, it's got a fairly cohesive narrative to string along the improvisations and madness.<br /><br />Using at first live-action, then animation, and then an extremely clever matching of the two (ironically, what Bakshi later went for in commercial form with Cool World is done here to a T with less money and a rougher edge), Pappy and Randy are waiting outside a prison wall for a buddy to escape, and Pappy tells of the story of Brother Rabbit, who with Brother Bear and Preacher Fox go to Harlem and become big-time hoodlums, with Rabbit in direct opposition to a Jabba-the-Hut-esquire Godfather character. This is obviously a take off on Song of the South with its intentionally happy-go-lucky plot and animation, here taken apart and shown for how rotten and offensive it really is.<br /><br />Yet Bakshi goes for broke in combining forms; animated characters stand behind and move along with live-action backgrounds; when violence and gunshots and fights occurs it's as bloody as it can get for 1975; when a dirty cop is at a bar and is drugged and put in black-face and a dress, he trips in a manner of which not even Disney could reach with Dumbo; a boxing match with Brother Bear and an opponent as the climax is filmed in wild slow-motion; archive footage comes on from time to time of old movies, some and some from the 20s that are just tasteless.<br /><br />Like Mel Brooks or Kubrick or, more recently, South Park, Bakshi's Coonskin functions as entertainment first and then thought-provocation second. It's also audacious film-making on an independent scale; everything from the long takes to the montage and the endlessly warped designs for the characters (however all based on the theme of the piece) all serve the thought in the script, where its B-movie plot opens up much more for interpretation. To call it racist misses the point; it's like calling Dr. Strangelove pro-atomic desolation or Confederate States of America pro slavery. And, for me, it's one of the best satires ever made.

In Arlington Heights, IL we never had a cafeteria in any of the elementary schools (1961) so I rode my bike home from school for lunch and always watched this game. True, I was 11, but I thought it was the greatest thing on! I'd draw hidden pictures on my blackboard and see if my family or friends could find it. I also remember winning wonderful cars (Pontiac or Oldsmobile) if the contestant got the final hidden picture game. I even had the home version!<br /><br />I wonder why this game lasted so briefly. I enjoyed the music and the hidden pictures - the only one I could ever get was the lemon hidden as part of a bridge over a garden stream.<br /><br />Really good memories are connected with Camouflage.

This film was so amateurish I could hardly believe what I was seeing. It is shot on VIDEO! NOT film! I have not seen the likes of this since the early 70's, when late night networks showed movie of the week 'horror flicks' shot in......video. It looks like a bad soap opera, and that is paying it a compliment. Some of the actors give it their best shot. Michael Des Barres does okay with what he is given to do, which is to act like a sex addict out of control. I can't say that it is pleasant to watch.<br /><br />Nastassja Kinski as the therapist sits in a chair for practically the entire film, with very little variation in camera angles. I can't fault her for someone else's poor blocking, but she is totally unbelievable in her role. Her little girl voice works against her here. And I consider myself a Nastassja Kinski fan. She is certainly ageless and exotic, but she's outside her range with this.<br /><br />Alexandra Paul is pathetically overwrought. Every line she delivers is with three exclamation points. Someone must have directed her to scream at all costs. Why would Michael Des Barres want to have sex with such a raging shrew?<br /><br />Finally, Rosanna Arquette as the sweet, maligned wife comes off okay, and probably the most believable of the bunch. But that is not saying much.<br /><br />This has to be the worst film I have seen in years.

Man about the house is a true situation comedy in every sense of the word. The comedy concerns a character called Robin Tripp (played by the great Richard O' Sullivan) who finds himself after a wild party, ending up at the home of two ladies called Jo and Chrissy. Ironically the party was held to say goodbye to their old flatmate. The obvious ends up happening as he moves in.<br /><br />Man about the house was a pre-cursor to Cooke and Mortimer's spin off show George and Mildred which featured the 2 characters who were landlords to Jo, Chrissy and Robin. These two characters would actually turn out to be the linchpins of man about the house with Mildred (the late and much missed Yootha Joyce) in particular getting some of the best lines of the series. A semi-regular character was Larry (Doug Fisher) a useless person who was always on the scrounge and only ever came round when he wanted to borrow something (and never to return it).<br /><br />The American's did a version called three's company but it doesn't stand a chance when compared to this far funnier original. Thames took a risk in producing a comedy about a man sharing a flat with 2 women at a very conservative time but they should worry as the ratings at the time suggest that around 20 million people just wanted to watch a good old fashioned bit of comedy with inspired casting and a sharp script. What a pity modern comedy can't reach that high standard.<br /><br />This programme is available on network DVD

This su*k! Why do they have to make movies that they must know su*k from the beginning? I mean, look at Alien from 1977. If the movie you´r about to make is not better than anything made billions of years before, why make it? I had problems with the plot and who the main character was. That's not good either.

this film was totally not what i expected. <br /><br />if this film was called something else no one would even notice the difference between the two. <br /><br />its really strange because i cannot see the point . the prequel and sequel lets just say don't make sense, the don't even match . maybe i am naive but ain't a vol 1 & vol 2 meant to match up. <br /><br />carlito was in jail in the 1st one and dies in the original, and in the prequel he lives and don't go jail. <br /><br />the plot was OK , but they should have changed round some actors and some of the story line and the name of the film and it would have been a good film .<br /><br />i really expected it to end like the other one started. <br /><br />if some one has a opinion on this post it please.

I did not know for some time in my youth all that could in general be known about this film however the ways of making a film was not what in fact drew my attention, what made this motion picture one the most liked films even to this very day that I have ever seen was of the Heroism,bravery and the Honor to have served in Her Majestys Service.This film is not always what it seems and that is perhaps as it should be,however I cant say enough for the courage exhibited by Sgt.Cutter in defense of The Uniform that he too would of sacrificed his life to save from peril of the sort that they and the troop were threatened with the emergence of this thugee group.<br /><br />To be certain Sgt. Cutter is the kind of individual you might suggest something about and then you watch this unequivocal belief not only in each other but in her Majesty the Queen of England.I think for all of his lust for money and the such that that character was great.A reckless brave courageous soldier who did not know fear.I think Grant was excellent in this role,truly a very capable rendering made compelling by the uniform that he wore.I never felt Ballantine was a shoe-in ,in fact there was so much confidence in there assumptions that you might be well not to look to close because it is still only a picture.What do I mean?This picture is still only a motion picture and like the times in which these events take place as well as when the picture was actually made provide a look at how things were done then and what or why there are so many different opinions as to this motion picture will distract your attention.Both Ballantine and MaChesney are equal in there dedication with both men from time to time providing a unflinching daring as to there jobs as men in the service of Her Majesty.These three seem to bring things off rather well and I believe it is a useful,even enjoyable interlude when Ballantine has a date with destiny or so it would seem only to have fate as you would have it intervene.Is it Believable?I don't know.I think it is very fitting when the company having escaped the clutches of death in Tantrapur and they are dragging there tails as they are approaching the main gates to the Regiments Post when Ballantine allows the other two to know that he is leaving the service,and getting married and going into the tea business.MaChesney says he could sign up for another 9 years.It will make a man out of him.I like that sentiment.<br /><br />I don't think there is any doubt as to just what it means to have brave dependable courageous soldiers representing your very best interests.Where does this end,in fact it may never end.Those interests are so well placed as to what is important in this world that I enjoy this picture today as much as perhaps I enjoyed the picture when I was ten years old.I had never known about the truthfulness of this film up to recently when I went into history and found the information about Kali.There is quite a good deal to learn however once all is said and done about the historical significance of the Goddess of Kali,this motion picture takes on a quality that I refer to as intelligence.This is a very honest attempt to convey a belief in what is being attempted.I think this is an excellent film.George Stevens directed.<br /><br />There is a few items to be aware of I don't think all the information will jive with history however when the Journalist is addressed as Mr.Kipling things can get very emotional because all the rest are characters but this is Rudyard Kipling?George Stevens went over the top to convey a time and a time before when these events actually occurred.The information is honest,compelling and it will not only draw you in but you will need to understand about why we so love Gunga Din.There is in the distance the Black Watch is out in front and they are approaching a most certain peril and possible defeat unless the troop can be warned.Sgt.Cutter is seriously wounded and Ballantine as well as MaChesney are restrained.Din having a deep wound at the base of his back as the result of a bayonet thrust deeply into his body from behind is up to the demand of having to warn the Colonel of impending peril.With a effort worthy of our most sincerest desires in this life time Din slowly climbs and manages to scale the steeple which rests as the top of the tuggee temple.The sound of Gunga Dins horn allows the approaching army to be forewarned.A very large scale battle ensues and the enemy is nullified.It is so Dramatic and tense filled position that as Gunga Din lay Dead on a pile of rocks which his bullet riddled body now shows,Sgt.Cutter says good work soldier.I don't know of any more dramatic moment nor one where we learn what sacrifice means then when the troop is forewarned of the impending peril.<br /><br />The end is far from being anti-climatic,it is the telling of who Gunga Din is and what he means now to the honored men in uniform for whom he willing sacrificed.Ballantine knows his heart and asks the Colonel to take care of his enlistment papers and this makes MaChesney quite pleased with the Colonel being honest places the enlistment papers in his pocket to be dealt with at perhaps at a more appropriate time.The Colonel says at the place where now all are gathered that we have all done enough soldiering for one long day and further comments on how pleased there efforts were in defense.MaChesney says he would rather here that from the colonel than get a bloomin medal.This is a very sober point and then he comes to Din.Now here is a man who has no actually status so I am going to appoint him a corporal and his name shall be written on the rolls of our honored dead.The poem is read as though it was just penned by Kipling himself who stands by the gravesite with the colonel and the rest of the men.Gunga Din Bravo!

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.

The film notes describe the main role family, as Turkish immigrants which living in Denmark. However, it is so clear to understand that the fact is, the behavior and the culture point the family is absolute Kurdish. Similar social pressures and even cultural murders keep going on Turkey today on Kurdish ethnicity societies. What a worry...<br /><br />It is widely accepted issue in Turkey today, the Kurdish immigrants living in European Countries today, which have moved from Turkey at 70's are culturally connected to the feudal moral laws system, by growing daughters and women under pressure, are giving harm to the Turkish International Image. Also, as same as widely accepted another issue is the Turkish or Kurdish immigrants on these countries are the reason negative aim about the Community Europe Nominee.

I would just like it to be known, that I do not often rate movies below a 5. I was originally very excited to see this movie. Its numerous trailer bumps on TV for several months made me REAALLY want to see this movie. So, the other night when I saw that it was available on FearNet on Demand, I got some popcorn and sat down to watch the film.<br /><br />The storyline seemed intriguing enough - some dude is butchering unsuspecting people on the subway. There's a photographer obsessed with the missing people. Where are they going? What's happening to them? One day, the photographer sees a connection between some photos he has taken, and becomes obsessed with the butcher, following him around, yada yada. The film had a way of sucking you in, even though the plot was highly predictable. "Oh no, it's dark, look out behind you" I say, quite bored with the cheap thrills.<br /><br />The plot, even though predictable, was intriguing...that is, until the end. "This was good until the end.... Then it just got silly", says Jack_skellington_freke on the message boards. And I fully agree. And here come the spoilers...<br /><br />See, I was hoping it was some mad killer, some psychotic person obsessed with cannibalism. No. It was some secret society keeping creatures alive for centuries. Woo. How original. How unrealistic. How dull.<br /><br />3/10. Come on Lionsgate. You've had amazing films, but this one sunk.

If you loved Long Way Round you will enjoy this nearly as much. It is educational, funny, interesting and tense. Charley shares the screen with two interesting teammates, two tired mechanics, two excellent cameramen and too much Russ. Ewan makes a few appearances but Charley really pulls it off alone. He is funny, engaging and still a puddle of stress and doubt. Great stuff!<br /><br />The series wraps up in 7 episodes. Like LWR, the preparation is nearly as interesting as the race. Though they cover the ins and outs of the race well, there could be a bit more explanation of the trucks and cars, which are merely mentioned and rarely even seen racing. It is a motorcycle movie though and anyone on two wheels will love this. <br /><br />The series features stunning photography as well as a few interviews of peoples mouths. Yikes. There is another extremely catchy theme song like LWR but this one is not nearly as good as the Stereophonics.<br /><br />If you live in the US god knows when it will be released so buy it on Amazon.uk and watch it on your computer as I did. Oh, and be prepared to buy another motorbike.

Booted out of heaven, a gang of horny naked female angels (with big plastic fangs) have taken up residence in a spooky forest where they feed upon any hapless souls who should wander by. It's not long before a group of friends on a road trip are falling victim to the bloodthirsty babes… An independent low budget horror made in the UK, Forest of the Damned takes an interesting premise and flushes it down the pan with some of the worst acting, effects and direction I have seen in a long time.<br /><br />Director Johannes Roberts shows some occasional flair behind the camera – the scenes in the delapidated house are fairly tense and there are some deftly handled 'shock' moments - but for the most part the film is technically amateurish. Throw in some truly awful performances from horror icons Tom Savini and Shaun Hutson, and you have one real bad movie on your hands.<br /><br />Some fun may be derived from the film's sheer shoddiness, and there is loads of female nudity for the guys to savour, but most will find this a chore to sit through.

Excellent comedy starred by Dudley Moore supported by Liza Minnelli and good-speaking John Gielgud. Moore is Arthur, a man belonging to a multimillionaire family, who was near to get 750 million dollars provided that he marries to a lady (Susan) from another multimillionaire family. In principle, Arthur accepted the conditions, but he finally refused when he met nice and poor Linda Marolla (Liza Minneli). Arthur was just a parasite because he did not work, he only enjoyed himself drinking hard and having fun with prostitutes. After several serious thoughts in his life and for the first time, Arthur decided not to marry Susan only few minutes before their wedding. The end was happy for Linda and Arthur although the latter knew that his life will change in the coming future. This comedy is a good lesson for life for anyone. Rich people are not usually happy with their ways of life.

There is no doubt that during the decade of the 30s, the names of Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi became a sure guarantee of excellent performances in high quality horror films. After being Universal's "first monster" in the seminal classic, "Dracula", Bela Lugosi became the quintessential horror villain thanks to his elegant style and his foreign accent (sadly, this last factor would also led him to be type-casted during the 40s). In the same way, Boris Karloff's performance in James Whale's "Frankenstein" transformed him into the man to look for when one wanted a good monster. Of course, it was only natural for these icons to end up sharing the screen, and the movie that united them was 1934's "The Black Cat". This formula would be repeated in several films through the decade, and director Lambert Hillyer's mix of horror and science fiction, "The Invisible Ray", is another of those minor classics they did in those years.<br /><br />In "The Invisible Ray", Dr. Janos Rukh (Boris Karloff) is a brilliant scientist who has invented a device able to show scenes of our planet's past captured in rays of light coming from the galaxy of Andromeda. While showing his invention to his colleagues, Dr. Felix Benet (Bela Lugosi) and Sir Francis Stevens (Walter Kingsford), they discover that thousands of years ago, a meteor hit in what is now Nigeria. After this marvelous discovery, Dr. Rukh decides to join his colleagues in an expedition to Africa, looking for the landing place of the mysterious meteor. This expedition won't be any beneficial for Rukh, as during the expedition his wife Diane (Frances Drake) will fall in love with Ronald Drake (Frank Lawton), an expert hunter brought by the Stevens to aid them in their expedition. However, Rukh will lose more than his wife in that trip, as he'll be forever changed after being exposed to the invisible ray of the meteor.<br /><br />Written by John Colton (who previously did the script for "Werewolf of London"), "The Invisible Ray" had its roots on an original sci-fi story by Howard Higgin and Douglas Hodges. Given that this was a movie with Karloff and Lugosi, Colton puts a lot of emphasis on the horror side of his story, playing in a very effective way with the mad scientist archetype and adding a good dose of melodrama to spice things up. One element that makes "The Invisible Ray" to stand out among other horror films of that era, is the way that Colton plays with morality through the story. That is, there aren't exactly heroes and villains in the classic style, but people who make decisions and later face the consequences of those choices. In many ways, "The Invisible Ray" is a modern tragedy about obsessions, guilt and revenge.<br /><br />A seasoned director of low-budget B-movies, filmmaker Lambert Hillyer got the chance to make 3 films for Universal Pictures when the legendary studio was facing serious financial troubles. Thanks to his experience working with limited resources, Hillyer's films were always very good looking despite the budgetary constrains, and "The Invisible Ray" was not an exception. While nowhere near the stylish Gothic atmosphere of previous Universal horror films, Hillyer's movie effectively captures the essence of Colton's script, as he gives this movie a dark and morbid mood more in tone with pulp novels than with straightforward sci-fi. Finally, a word must be said about Hillyer's use of special effects: for an extremely low-budget film, they look a lot better than the ones in several A-movies of the era.<br /><br />As usual in a movie with Lugosi and Karloff, the performances by this legends are of an extraordinary quality. As the film's protagonist, Boris Karloff is simply perfect in his portrayal of a man so blinded by the devotion to his work that fails to see the evil he unleashes. As his colleague, Dr. Benet, Bela Luogis is simply a joy to watch, stealing every scene he is in and showing what an underrated actor he was. As Rukh's wife, Frances Drake is extremely effective, truly helping her character to become more than a damsel in distress. Still, two of the movie highlights are the performances of Kemble Cooper as Mother Rukh, and Beulah Bondi as Lady Arabella, as the two actresses make the most of their limited screen time, making unforgettable their supporting roles. Frank Lawton is also good in his role, but nothing surprising when compared to the rest of the cast.<br /><br />If one judges this movie under today's standards, it's very easy to dismiss it as another cheap science fiction film with bad special effects and carelessly jumbled pseudoscience. However, that would be a mistake, as despite its low-budget, it is remarkably well done for its time. On the top of that, considering that the movie was made when the nuclear era was about to begin and radioactivity was still a relatively new concept, it's ideas about the dangers of radioactivity are frighteningly accurate. One final thing worthy to point out is the interesting way the script handles the relationships between characters, specially the friendship and rivalry that exists between the obsessive Dr. Rukh and the cold Dr. Benet, as this allows great scenes between the two iconic actors.<br /><br />While nowhere near the Gothic expressionism of the "Frankenstein" movies, nor the elegant suspense of "The Black Cat", Lambert Hillyer's "The Invisible Ray" is definitely a minor classic amongst Universal Pictures' catalog of horror films. With one of the most interesting screenplays of 30s horror, this mixture of suspense, horror and science fiction is one severely underrated gem that even now delivers a good dose of entertainment courtesy of two of the most amazing actors the horror genre ever had: Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi. 8/10

"Broken Bow" takes us back to where it all began. Set 150 years in our future and 100 years before Kirk, Spock and McCoy. This installment of the "Star Trek" franchise, is in my opinion the first series since "TOS" to recapture the feelings of wonder, danger and excitement of "Going Where No Man Has Gone Before". Scott Bakula is perfectly cast as Jonathan Archer, the first Captain of the first "Star Ship Enterprise". He and the entire cast truly show a true reverence for the Star Trek legacy. John Billingsley is Brilliant as the alien Dr. Phlox, and Jolene Blalock is totally luscious as the tempting but logical Vulcan science officer T'Pol. Broken Bow is in my opinion the best premier episode of any of the Treks, and I believe Gene Roddenberry would surely be proud.

This movie has a very Broadway feel - the backdrop, the acting, the 'noise'- and yet that's all it has. Some 'sense' of a Broadway without the bang. <br /><br />The movie is slow-paced, the picture disjointed, the singing 'pops up' on you so that you suddenly are reminded it's a musical. <br /><br />Disappointing: Sinatra <br /><br />Intolerable: Sinatra's fiancé---surely, the pitch and the accent of her voice was unnecessary. <br /><br />Tolerable: Mr "i remember the numbers on my dice" <br /><br />Delight: Brando's understated singing (very biased!)<br /><br />Surprise: how much Jean Simmons looks like Vivien Leigh in her Havana scenes. It's the bone structure! How i would've killed to have seen Miss Leigh in a role challenging Brando again.

ok. for starters, taxi driver is amazing. this, this is not taxi driver or amazing. what it is is bad. but i thought it was bad funny, which means that it did have some redeeming qualities. like the dialogue...wow. there was more or less no plot, the characters were all stupid, and the movie was preachy. there were some places were i thought the movie would dive into taxi driver type violence, which would have hit the message at the end of the movie on the head much harder. i can't even believe that there are like 20 other people who have seen this movie. yeah, it's worth watching if you are real bored and you want to reaffirm the fact that anyone can make a movie, or at least can try to.

In THE BARBARIAN AND THE GEISHA, John Wayne plays Townsend Harris, a real envoy from the United States who was responsible for truly opening up Japan to International relations in the late 1850s. Before him, Commodore Perry basically pushed into Japan with gunboats and forced a treaty upon the Japanese in 1853. Harris, who arrived just a bit later, worked through the details and helped ensure compliance--as many of the Japanese felt no particular inclination to honor the first treaty. All this is true and shown in the film. According to some other sources I found, the romance between Harris and a Japanese Geisha is mostly fiction and this romance is much of the focus of this film (hence, the title).<br /><br />My first reaction the first time I saw this movie was one of surprise. John Wayne as a diplomat?! When he's being diplomatic in most films, he says please and thank you as he pummels people!!!! So seeing him playing a man who is NOT a man of action and is able to play the diplomatic game seemed very odd indeed. In fact, I can't think of too many actors in 1958 who would have been more unusual for this role. By the way, I've seen photos of Harris and Wayne has practically no resemblance to him at all.<br /><br />However, despite the story taking a lot of liberties with the truth and the strange casting, the film is still very watchable. The color cinematography is nice, the film shows some nice insights into Japanese customs and culture and the acting isn't bad. All in all, a likable and watchable film despite it's odd casting.<br /><br />PS--Read through the trivia for this film. You find out a bit more about the real life characters as well as a supposed fight between Wayne and the director (John Huston) where Wayne apparently knocked him out!! Based on what I've read about Huston and the way he got along with actors, this is an incident I tend to believe. And, it's also a nice example of John Wayne "diplomacy".

Spoiler!!! This movie is based on the concept of What If? Of course Mr Destiny will be able to answer this question. The main character goes through a bad day, like many of us, and asks this question. Chaos Theory states a butterfly in China could have an effect on someone over here from a chain reaction. The focus of this movie is based on one event during a baseball game. This event sets into motion one's Destiny; Just like Ashton in "The Butterfly effect" except Mr. Destiny uses comedy over drama. The results make a fresh, somewhat original movie. If one's philosophical are in tune with "The Butterfly Effect" one will likely enjoy Mr. Destiny. I give it a 7 out of 10. Amazing for I have seen the first half of this movie 3 times, and finally watched the ending on TBS.

This film is a portrait of the half-spastic teenage boy Benjamin who has to visit a boarding school because of his lousy marks in Math. He didn't make the best experiences in life before and got serious self-esteem issues. After a rough start at his new school, he starts making friends, falls in love with a girl and does some American Pieish teenage stuff.<br /><br />Beside some comedy elements, the film is told in a very serious way, focussing on Benjamin and his problems.<br /><br />If you already don't like this story outline, save your time and watch something else. If you do, please be aware of the following:<br /><br />1) Benjamin is a total loser. Whatever he does, he does it terribly wrong and then he goes for self-pity all the time. For me he wasn't that kind of "charming loser" who you can feel sympathy for and laugh with. Instead he and his behavior really annoyed me and with my own teenage years not so far behind I could barely stand watching.<br /><br />2) The film hardly tries to be realistic and the story seems to be but from my experience the characters just aren't (except for Janosch maybe). And yes, I know this film is based on an auto-biography written by a 17-year old - but having some experiences with German schools and German youth myself, I don't believe him.<br /><br />3) Showing the sexual awakening really is an important thing for a film with this subject. But I doubt that teenage boys do an "Ejaculate on the cookie"-contest where everyone has to hit a cookie with his sperm during mass-masturbation in the woods and the loser has to eat the sperm-wet cookie afterwards. Although it kinda amused me in a contemptible way, it's nor funny neither underlining the serious attempts of this film.<br /><br />4) There's a sub-plot about Benjamin's family and his father betraying his wife - still, I don't know why it's there and where to put it. It just bored me.<br /><br />Well, I personally hated this film for having the character of Benjamin, being without a message, concept, scheme, whatever and it's failing attempts to be dramatic and serious. However, I can image that some people may find it sensible and touching. If you liked "The Other Sister" you'll probably like this one, too. I hated both.<br /><br />17-year old boys shouldn't write an autobiography and if they do, it doesn't seem to be the best idea to make a film out of it.<br /><br />2 out of 10.

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

To those who say that this movie deserves anything below the unflaunting grace that it showed, I disagree. This is an amazing documentary about a shocking day.<br /><br />IMDB asks us to rate this movie. I beg you to consider the fact that the documentary was made. The courage that it took to shoot this film is most notable. We find that the two brothers are split up when that moment happened. They continue to document the bravest of the brave without knowing about their own and eachother's safety. To judge whether it's nobler to shoot a video of that tragedy or to save the lives as those amazing, amazing firefighters did is not mine to answer. I just know that in 30 years, a class full of children will not know one without the other.<br /><br />I submit a wholehearted 10. This is why the art of filming was created! To capture the natural emotion that real life offers. You can keep your kung-fu junk. Romance is cute. Action will never reach this level. This movie, 9/11, will be timeless in that it did not glorify itself. It didn't have a sneak-peek. It didn't have all of the blatant vanities that a lion's share of the many movies on the many screens blare. It had class, composure, substance, and it had a record of the day that changed the modern face of America and even the world. It spoke of things inescapable to the eye of the camera. Please consider this movie, as it itself proclaims, a stirring tribute to all of those who fell because of the free, beautiful name of America.<br /><br />How can you give anything less to a movie that shows, not embellishes, the natural bravery of real people acting in unreal times. I love "The Godfather" but "9/11" is forever a different kind of movie as this is now a different kind of world. It is art without question or questions.<br /><br />jf

Again, it seems totally illogical, to me at least, that "Arthur" merits a mere 6.4 out of 10 possible. Steve Gordon's one-shot masterpiece herein is the totally "unlikely" if not quite "impossible" melding of wildly disparate elements. That he managed to make alcoholism laugh-friendly rather than tearjerking tragic is, in itself, wonderful. That he gave Dudley Moore his finest role, and every other cinematic element herein its optimal impact, including the score, seems to me patent and egregious. I challenge ANYone to sit through this film and not laugh out loud. But, apparently, nearly a third of its audience has so managed. Well, I, for one, found and find Gordon's effort both laughable AND lovable, and the iikes of Geraldine Fitzgerald's great-aunt and Stephen Elliott's murderous would-be father-in-law absolute gems of background characters. Even the black chauffeur managed to escape patronization, and the late, sniffish Sir John Gielgud was right about accepting his fee, but wrong about undertaking his role. "Arthur" makes no effort to "Underztand," much less rationalize, the scourge of "alcoholism" (hey, iFit ain't booze, it's other drugs of choice, including meth, and addictions are merely symptoms, not targets), it simply observes in its own quizzical manner.

I saw this film yesterday. I must admit, it weren't my cup of tea. Although it's supposed to be a horror movie of its kind. But as I was watching this, I was thinking.. 'This movie isn't making any sense at all..' Where on earth did this guy in the dark coat came from? Where were the two guys were going when they left the girls behind? Where on earth did a shark came out from?<br /><br />All these elements in this film somehow didn't add up. I felt as if these filmmakers wasted so much time and money on a film that was so bound to be so crap.<br /><br />I've seen many good horror movies in my time, but this is one of the most worst horror flicks I've seen. At the end of the movie, I said to myself that I wouldn't watch it again.. So much pappy show in this film, I've decided to give it the thumbs down! Count me out on this one! 0 out of 10!

I just want to make one thing clear- I love Michael Vartan! But this film really lets him down. His acting is still superb, he's still as charming as ever, and he still looks great. But the film itself is a load of rubbish! Natasha Henstridge, I'm sorry to say it, comes over bit manly... you're constantly waiting for her to run off with her best friend, who's own sub-storyline is a little weird. Myself and my family (who sat down and watched the film with me) were also put off by the soundtrack to the film; at times the music just didn't fit with what was going on in the scenes. However, even this was not the worst aspect of what I found to be a very disappointing film. I could forgive the leading lady's butch-ness, I could forgive the freakish characters that were thrown in to the mix, and I could forgive the poor choice of musical accompaniment, but whose choice was it to cut out the whole middle section of the film and skip straight to the end??? The ending was obviously planned from the beginning but how it gets there is left untold. If you're a Michael Vartan fan skip this film: buy yourself a poster instead.

I liked this movie. When the guy who was in on a bank heist of $40 million in gold dies, his cell mate is used as "Bait" to lead them to the high-tech crazy killer partner (by having a monitoring device implanted in his jaw without his knowledge). It's an action, spy type film with enough comical scenes to keep it light. It reminded me of Enemy Of The State. Well acted and good enough plot.

"When a small Bavarian village is beset with a string of mysterious deaths, the local (magistrate) demands answers into (sic) the attacks. While the police detective refuses to believe the nonsense about vampires returning to the village, the local doctor treating the victims begins to suspect the truth about the crimes," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />An inappropriately titled, dramatically unsatisfying, vampire mystery.<br /><br />Curiously, the film's second tier easily out-perform the film's lackluster stars: stoic Lionel Atwill (as Otto von Niemann), skeptical Melvyn Douglas (as Karl Brettschneider), and pretty Fay Wray (as Ruth Bertin). The much more enjoyable supporting cast includes bat-crazy Dwight Frye (as Herman), hypochondriac Maude Eburne (as Aunt Gussie Schnappmann), and suspicious George E. Stone (as Kringen). Mr. Frye, Ms. Eburne, and Mr. Stone outperform admirably. Is there another movie ending with a mad rush to the bathroom? <br /><br />Magnesium sulfate… Epsom salts… it's a laxative! <br /><br />**** The Vampire Bat (1933) Frank Strayer ~ Dwight Frye, Melvyn Douglas, Maude Eburne

Jack Black is an annoying character.This is an annoying indie movie for 14 year olds.Do I have to write eight more lines?Ana de la Reguera is dang fine to look at,as a Mexican nun who puts up with the rather forward and rude advances of Jack Black.This movie is a PG 13 version of an indie film.I really like a movie that has the courage to explore Mexican culture.This movie explores Mexican culture-deeply. I just choke on its cultural rudeness:Jack Black is just so rude. A white person like Jack Black is not my most valuable emissary into Mexican culture, as it were.Mexican Wrestling culture is not the most diaphanous venue a white guy, such as myself could seek.I suspect Mexico is more culturally opaque than Jack Black has presented here.<br /><br />I think IMDb changed my review.Has anyone else had his review changed as well?Just a question.

Even though there are no new episodes, and it is rarely showed. I used to love the magic of Sabrina and the teenage witch. I never got to see the last episodes, but I do want to know what happened to Miles, or Josh? And why did the aunts have to disappear out of the show for good?I'm sure the ending went to be perfect. But there are a lot of questions unanswered. And I want to see the last episode of S.T.T.W! Because I heard she decides between Erin and Harvey on her wedding day! I really hope that she picks Harvey! And may I say Nate Richart is HOTT!! Too bad hes too old for me though. Melissa Joan Hart has her own sense of cuteness that she adds to the show, but there are many little "stupid" things for the show such as how famous bands come out of nowhere and play songs and all the cast is listening, its kind of stupid. Plus the cat starts to really get lame, as the show continued, the jokes began just to get stupid, and the things that the audio controlled "audience" would laugh at, I would think it was so lame. Don't get me wrong, at some parts it was funny, but I think the show just kind of lost its "magic" so to speak as the show went on. I give kudos to all the cast though for trying, although that Soleil Moon Frye girl had no taste, and she was a horrid actress. I wonder what Melissa or any of the cast is doing now for that matter, now that the show has ended.

to be honest, i didn't watch all of the original 'howling', but those scenes i saw made it obvious that the first howling was a great movie. so great, that seven horrible sequels had to be made. they started off with "Howling II: Your Sister Is A Werewolf". i got this movie on VHS from my uncle sometime ago when he was giving away a bunch of old movies he bought back when Atari was brand new. i just watched it last night, and it wasn't really BAD, it was just weird. i mean, the whole thing with Sybil Danning going three-way with two of her werewolf minions was just out of place and quite disturbing (but kinda hot), Christopher lee about to stab a dead karen as if she's a vampire, etc. actually, this movie was actually like some sort of mish-mash of Dracula and The Lost Boys...except with werewolves, because everything Christopher Lee (whom played Dracula himself) was saying about werewolves pretty much ripped off from every other vampire movie (stake in the heart, garlic, the creature of the night must die AT NIGHT, and the ruler of werewolves lives in TRANSYLVANIA). not much for the acting, but the worst of it came from Annie McEnroe. i swear, at some point in the film i found myself rooting for the werewolves to rip her throat out, because that damn throat always had to say SOMETHING. Anyway, the plot is pretty silly and clichéd, so there's no real point in telling you, you could just read about it on Wikipedia. By the way, the thing that really makes me nauseous about this movie is the fact that it's the ONLY film out of all the seven sequels thats related in any way to the original (not counting Howling IV (1988), which was a remake of the original, or in other words, a sequel based on the same novel). so don't see this movie. there's no real horror, hardly any werewolves, and just horrible special fx. 3/10

Poorly written conspiracy drama/mystery about the possibility that AIDS was introduced to the public by the government. Wlaschiha plays a gay researcher looking for answers--that within this foggy plot would be hard for anyone to find. Despite the cinematography itself being commendable, the camera hungers for characters of true depth instead of the shallow, amateur acting it unfortunately has to convey. Grade: D+

Wonderful actors. <br /><br />Lousy script and not too great direction either. My main problem was I simply didn't CARE about any of these people. Not the killer not the victims. The settings were pretty drab. Dennis Quaid's character was so poorly written in, I didn't even care when the end came. He got his kid back. Big deal! I wanted my money back.

Must have to agree with the other reviewer. This has got to be the WORST movie, let alone western I have ever seen. Terrible acting, dialogue that was unimaginative and pathetic (let alone completely inappropriate for supposedly being in the 1800s), and oh, did I mention a battery pack prominently displayed on the back of one of the characters? I was waiting for the boom mike to fall in the middle of a scene. And the ending? The least I can say is that it was consistent with the rest of the movie...completely awful. And yes, it did contain every cliché in the book from the slow walk down the empty dusty road to the laughable "let's remember when" shots when a main character dies. Luckily I saw this on free TV. Don't waste your time.

In her autobiography,Laureen Bacall reveals that Bogie told her that she should not make such dud movies as this one or something like that.At the time,Douglas Sirk was labeled "weepies for women",actually,he was restored to favor,at least in Europa,after he stopped directing.And when he filmed "written on the wind" ,Sirk had only three movies to make:"tarnished Angels","A time to love and a time to die",his masterpiece,IMHO,and finally" Imitation of life"(1960).Then there was silence. Actually Bacall and Hudson characters do not interest Sirk.They are too straight,too virtuous.Dorothy Malone -who was some kind of substitute for his former German star Zarah Leander-and her brother Robert Stack provide the main interest of the plot.A plot constructed continuously ,most of the movie being a long flashback.The instability of the brother and the sister ,from a family of rich Texan oil owners,is brought to the fore by garish clothes,and rutilant cars that go at top speed in a derricks landscape. Malone's metamorphosis at the end of the movie is stunning :suit and chignon,toying with a small derrick:she's ready for life,the rebel is tamed. Now alone,because she's lost Hudson (but anyway,he was not in love with her).This end is a bit reactionary,but melodrama is par excellence reactionary;three years later,in "imitation of life",Sarah-Jane (Susan Kohner) will be blamed because she does not know her place.

Ten out of the 11 short films in this movie are masterpieces (I found only the Egyptian one disappointing). Stragely, all but the Mexican director chose to portray the problems of individuals or groups in connection with 9-11: the Afghan refugees, deaf people, Palestinians, the widows of Srebrenica, AIDS and poverty and corruption in Africa, Pinochets coup and ensuing bloodbath, suicide bombings in Israel, paranoia-hit and state-persecuted Muslim Americans in the USA, old people living alone, and the aftermath of WWII in the hearts of Asian soldiers. This might say something sad about the limits of empathy, in both ways: the directors might feel that Americans ignore the pains of the rest of the world and only care about their own tragedies, while they effectively do the same with their short films.<br /><br />Surprising myself, I found Sean Penn's piece one of the very best in the collection, and ***SPOILER AHEAD*** I also guess his portrayal of Ernest Borgnine as a half-crazy old man vegetating in a New York flat experiencing his widow life's happiest moment when the Sun shines through his window after the WTC "collapsed out of light's way", I guess this might also be one of the most offending as the general American audience would see it.

Ever since I heard of the Ralph Bakshi version of "The Lord of the Rings" I wondered: What the hell is 'rotoscope' animation?!!! Well... I finally found out... I saw this movie about three years ago not having any idea who Ralph Bakshi is... And I liked it... a lot... Very good story line... it even has a little character development which is great for a cartoon... See it if you get bored with contemporary animation.... Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying it's just a nice cartoon... It's a pretty good movie too...

I had never heard of Leos Carax until his Merde segment in last years Tokyo, and his was easily the stand-out the film's three stories. It wasn't my favorite of the shorts, but it was the most unique, and the most iconic. "The Lovers on the Bridge" was the first of his full length features I've seen, a virtuoso romantic film that uses image and music to communicate an exuberant young love that overflows into the poetic. Though he's classified as a neo-nouvelle vogue, his films owe as much to silent cinema as the 60's experimental narratives. His movies are closer to Jean Vigo in "L'atlante", Jean Cocteau, and Guy Maddin, than Godard and Truffaut.<br /><br />In Boy Meets Girl Carax's 1984 debut he uses black and white and the heavy reliance on visual representation to display emotional states. He combines the exaggerated worlds of Maddin, but based in a reality that never seems quite stable like Cocteau, but by virtue of its expressions it becomes more accessible, emotional, and engaging like Vigo's movies.<br /><br />The story of Boy Meets Girl is simple, and similar to Carax's two following films which comprise this "Young lovers" trilogy. A boy named Alex played by Denis Lavant (who plays a character named Alex in Carax's next two movies), has just been dumped by his girlfriend who has fallen in love with his best friend. In the first scene he nearly kills his friend on a boardwalk but stops short of murder. He walks around reminded of her by sounds of his neighbors having sex, and daydreams of his girlfriend and best friend getting intimate. He steals records for her and leaves them at his friend's apartment, but avoids contacting either of them directly. He wanders around and finds his way to a party, where he meets a suicidal young woman, and the film becomes part "Breathless" and part "Limelight".<br /><br />Later he is advised by an old man with sign language to "speak up for yourself...young people today It's like they forgot how to talk." The old man gives an anecdote about working in the days of silent film, and how an actor timid off stage became a confident "lion" when in front of the camera. Heres where the movie tips its hand, but the overt reference to silent film is a crucial scene, since it overlaps the style of the film (silent and expressionist), with the content (a lovelorn young man trying to work up the courage to say and do the things he really wants to). Though Alex is pensive at first and a torrent of romantic words tumbling out of him by the end, he is the shy actor who becomes a lion thanks to the films magnification of his inward feelings which aren't easy to nail down from moment to moment, aside from a desire to fall in love.<br /><br />There is a scene in the film where Alex retreats from the party into a room where the guests have stashed their children and babies, all crying in a chorus that fills that room, until he turns on a tape of a children's show making them fall silent. Unexpectedly due a glitch the TV ends up playing a secret bathroom camera which reveals the hostess sobbing to herself into her wig about someone she misses. Even as Carax is self-reflexive and self deprecating of the very kind of angst ridden coming of age tale he is trying to tell (the room full of whining infants), he's mature enough to see through the initial irony to the lovelorn in everything the film crosses. Even the rich old, bell of the ball has a brother she misses. In another scene an ex astronaut stares at the moon he once walked on in his youth while sipping a cocktail in silence.<br /><br />Though indebted to films before talkies, Carax is a master of music, knowing when to pipe in the Dead Kennedy's "Holiday in Cambodia", or an early David Bowie song, the sounds of a man playing piano, or of a girl softly humming.<br /><br />In Boy Meets Girl, when someone gets their heart broken we see blood pour from their shirt, when a couple kiss on the sidewalk they spin 360 degrees as if attached to a carousel, when Alex enters a party an feels out of place, its because the most interesting people in the world really are in attendance; like the famous author who can't speak because of a bullet lodged in his brain, or the miss universe of 1950 standing just across from the astronaut. This film is the missing link between Jean Piere Jenuet, Michel Gondry, and Wes Anderson, whose stylistic flourishes and quirky tales of whimsy, all have a parallel with different visuals, musical, and emotional cues in these Carax movies.<br /><br />Every line of dialog, every piece of music and every effect and edit in this movie resonated with me on some emotional level, some I lack words to articulate. There are many tales of a boy meeting a girl, but rather than just explore the banal details of any particular event this movie captures the ecstatic truth of adolescent passion and disappointment. The other movies you want to watch can wait. See this first. If I were to make films, I would want them to be like this, in fact I wish all films were like this, where the ephemeral becomes larger than life, and life itself becomes a dream.

Let me start out by saying I'm a big Carrey fan. Although I'll admit I haven't seen all of his movies *cough*the magestic*cough*. Bruce Almighty was enjoyable. None of the other reviews have really gone into how cheesy it gets towards the end, I dont know what the writers were thinking. Somehow I couldn't help but feel like this movie was a poor attempt at re-creating Liar Liar.<br /><br />On a positive note, The Daily Show's Steve Correl is HILARIOUS and so is the rest of the cast. See Bruce Almighty if you're a big Jim Carrey fan, or if you just want to see a light-hearted (que soft piano music) somewhat funny comedy.

Having watched this after receiving the DVD for Christmas 2005, I came here to pan it -- but after reading the other comments, I haven't the heart. Clearly this is a film that has worked very well for children of a certain age. Well, let me not be a complete Grinch; it might still work for some children -- if they are not too media-saturated and have not become visually over-sophisticated, e.g. from watching all of LOTR and Harry Potter. But if you are an adult, stay miles away; you will not enjoy it.<br /><br />The good bits: Barbara Kellerman as the Witch, especially in her early scenes with Edmund, creates just the right blend of charismatic evil and restrained madness. (At the Stone Table she goes a bit over the top.) Michael Aldridge in the minor role of the Professor and Jeffrey S. Perry as Mr. Tumnus also have the kind of polished, skillful acting we'd expect from the very best BBC dramas. And the Aslan costume works very well, amazingly well considering. They got the eyes just right.<br /><br />The bad bits: almost everything else, but two areas in particular. One, the casting. England is crammed with good actors and contains tens of thousands of attractive British school kids. How could they possibly have ended up with these four stiffs? They move like wooden soldiers and speak about as well. Peter has no gravitas or charisma (and is visibly shorter than his supposedly younger siblings); Edmund is just whiny; and Lucy... Sophie Wilcox as Lucy is so dramatically, visibly, drastically wrong for this part that I can't imagine how she got the job.<br /><br />Two, the animal costumes. Again, it appears that they worked for some kids. If the kids are still at a level where Big Bird and Elmo are exciting, believable characters, they might be entranced by this film. But to a viewer with the sophistication of, say, a 12-year-old who's seen Prisoner Of Azkaban? When Mister Beaver comes out from behind that tree, there will be hoots of cruel, derisive laughter. The costumes just do not work -- I could not, and I think any adult or modern teen could not, suspend disbelief when looking at Mister Beaver. The drawn animation later (gryphons, etc.) works better, is easier to take.<br /><br />So: ten stars for the very young and tender of soul; everyone else read, or re-read the book and watch the far better film that unrolls in your imagination.

Tony Scott directs a thriller sports flick that should attract even the non-sports fan. And some say baseball is a dead sport...boring...too damn slow. Well perk up! On the outside he appears to be a disgruntled salesman(Robert De Niro) while on the inside he is a psychotic San Francisco Giants fan. Along comes a new slugger(Wesley Snipes)and designated savior from the doldrums. Our salesman harbors a murderous obsession when the hard hitting all star falls into the worst slump in his career and the Giants are feared to crumble along with him. De Niro is terror personified. Snipes seems very natural as the ballplayer. Other notables in the cast are: the still attractive Ellen Barkin, John Leguizamo, Benicio Del Toro and Patti D'Arbanville. You are a free agent...so enjoy. Violence and very strong language is to be expected and you get your moneys worth.

Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare, the sixth installment of the Nightmare on Elm Street series and once again another bad sequel. I think this is tied up with the last sequel of the Dream Child. I was lucky enough to get the Nightmare on Elm Street series box DVD set for my birthday, so I got to see all the sequels. May I say that I'm just getting more and more disappointed though with these sequels, at least the past two, it just seems like Freddy lost his edge. It's almost like the writers were trying to give Freddy a soul and they're just destroying it instead of reinventing the story. This was a sequel that wasn't needed, sorry to Robert Englund, but this was very much below what Freddy Krueger represents.<br /><br />Freddy is back, but he's got something we don't know about, a daughter. Maggie, she's not aware that he is her father, but soon she finds out what his dark secrets are and he wants her help. She has to do her best to resist his powers, but it's hard with all the good memories she has of her loving father. Ironic, isn't it? But Freddy isn't giving up without manipulating her into his ways.<br /><br />Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare is also presented in 3-D, radical, huh? Note the sarcasm. This is one of the worst sequels, it's tied up with the fifth sequel of the Nightmare on Elm Street series, I'd rather watch the second Nightmare on Elm Street to be honest. This just had bad acting, stupid editing, and just over all a bad idea for a story. I didn't like the concept of it and it just ruined the whole idea of who Freddy Krueger really is, the death master of nightmares, not Father Knows Best.<br /><br />2/10

Although Super Mario 64 isn't like the rest of the games in the series, it is still a classic and is every bit as good as the old games. Games with this much replay value are few and far between. Plus, this game has so much variety. There are 15 levels each with several different tasks you can do, and many other hidden tasks. The game isn't very challenging, but its lack of challenge doesn't take away from the game at all. Once you beat it, you'll want to erase your game and start again. And its just as much fun the second time, or third time, or two hundredth time. A must own for any Nintendo 64 owner, and is a reason in itself to own a Nintendo 64.

I saw it at Cinema MK2 Hautefeuille just one night after its first public projection in Paris. A very pretty film about three 15 years old teenagers, all of them just at about the same psychologically stages. Many of the scenes let us to come back to our adolescence age & our first feelings about sexual relations. it is possible to imagine that the director would like to reduce the first strong sensual feelings of the girls to lesbianism, but even in that case she doesn't corrupt the likelihood of the story. You can sometimes find the film a little slow but it is what creates this intimate atmosphere. I fund the young actresses of talent, special mention with Floriane and Marie, very convincing. There are many small details but this film also enabled me to discover what synchronized swimming is: impressing!

(various spoilers follow)<br /><br />Gene Kelly. Not Georges Guetary, who is sometimes criticized for being too young and un-French. Not Leslie Caron, who is sometimes criticized for her very green performance. Not even Oscar Levant, who more often than not annoys the dickens out of me.<br /><br />No, it would definitely be Gene Kelly. There's something about his screen persona that's too ambitious and focused for him to be convincing as a penniless artist in Paris, content to put off facing the critics indefinitely, frolicking with little kids and old ladies and painting in the streets. That's what made him so effective in SINGIN' IN THE RAIN and other movies where he played ambitious, focused characters. Jerry Mulligan is in some ways a cousin to Tommy Albright in BRIGADOON, another Lerner story with Kelly miscast as an American at loose ends who falls in love with a picturesque European place and an innocent female who embodies its virtues.<br /><br />Except that Jerry isn't as likeable as even poor dazed Tommy. That's another galling thing about this film. Jerry is sometimes a cad to Milo, and even worse to Lise. When he first sees the latter at a club, he pulls a dirty trick to get her to dance with him. When she sits down again he pulls an even dirtier trick to get her phone number. When he calls her the next day she hangs up on him, which he takes as a cue to drop in at her workplace. And throughout all this it's obvious she wants NOTHING to do with him. When she starts laughing at his jokes in the perfume shop, it's about as believable as Milo's interest in his paintings. Sure he's good-looking and playful, but why should that sway her when she's got Henri, who seems like a gentleman to boot?<br /><br />Admittedly it comes off so distasteful partly because of the actress. If a role like Lise was played by, say, Judy Garland, she would shower Jerry with indignant insults and glares. If she was played by Cyd Charisse, one would admire his guts. But when she's played by first-timer Leslie Caron she looks and acts like a shy, vulnerable teenager, and as a result Jerry just seems like a creep. And why DID they choose these other actors (though personally I'd rather they'd solved things by changing the lead) when the whole story hinges on the romance of these two young poor sweethearts disentangling themselves from their loveless commitments to older rich people? Not only is Gene Kelly a few years above Guetary and Foch, he's old enough to be Caron's father.<br /><br />In short I think it all would have been improved by casting some young comedic-relief type dancer as Jerry, the kind that usually turned up in musical supporting roles...e.g. Ray MacDonald in GOOD NEWS or Bobby Van in SMALL TOWN GIRL. Maybe not them necessarily but someone LIKE them. Someone who could have chased Lise and made it seem harmlessly playful; someone who would have appeared genuinely happy living in that Chaplinesque hole-in-the-wall; someone whose humor and naivete would have contrasted better with Oscar Levant's sarcastic grumpiness. It probably also would have made the ballet seem less ponderous. And it might have provided a voice that could sing Gershwin better.<br /><br />All this may give the impression that I don't like Gene Kelly. I do like him. He was terrific in most of his films, just not this one (well, and a few others). I don't despise AAIP itself, either; it has good points, like the art direction. And Leslie Caron, who despite her inexperience is rather charming, and really does look like she just stepped out of a painting. Georges Guetary does a fine job and his "Stairway to Paradise" is my favorite number in the movie. Nina Foch is beautiful and touching and should have ended up with SOMEBODY. But not Jerry Mulligan. I wouldn't wish that on her.

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

It was Jon Pertwee who said " It`s very difficult to be funny but very easy to be silly " . Well if that`s the case PASTY FACES is " Very easy " . David Baker ( As Director /Screenwriter ) and his cast seem to be under the impression that comedy involves stealing scenes and style from superior Britcoms like LOCK STOCK.. and TRAINSPOTTING , using a completely underdeveloped script and jumping up and down speaking in a very fast voice very loudly . Alan McCaffrey especially suffers from this type of OTT performance but not enough to ruin the film because there`s not enough of a film to ruin .<br /><br />PASTY FACES is terrible on all fronts especially scriptwise . I couldn`t understand why it ended the way it did , it just seemed to stop in a very abrupt and silly manner . Oh and other glaring errors are that you need a visa to visit the USA and a green card in order to work there - This film would have you believe you can get off a plane and start a new life in America without any authorisation - that you still get paid to donate blood in America - People who I know in America , and who donate blood tell me payment for donations stopped several years ago - and that you can buy any type of weapon from a gun shop . As far as I know gun laws in America differ from state to state but no gun shops sell anti tank guns over the counter . So we`ve got a very erroneous view of America from a very unreal and oh so unfunny film . Maybe this is revenge for BRAVEHEART a very Hollywood view of the Scots ? Perhaps , but this doesn`t stop PASTY FACES from being a crap comedy

There's no getting around it-- this movie is terrible. I've seen the old Christopher Lee/Fu Manchu movies, I'm familiar with the characters and it's serial origins, but it's still just godawful. However, Peter Sellers' genius still shines through with his portrayal of Nayland Smith, with echoes of sadness, tragedy, and strength simmering through a stoic facade; it's a performance I place on par with Peter Cushing's portrayal of Van Helsing but done in a tenth of the cumulative screen time of all Cushing's "Dracula" movies. If the movie was done in a more serio-comic vein like BUBBA HO-TEP by way of the 1960's AVENGERS TV show, this could've been something special. If you're a Fu Manchu or Peter Sellers completest, this is something you need to see, but it's a pass for anyone else.

"Hollywood Hotel" has relationships to many films like "Ella Cinders" and "Merton of the Movies" about someone winning a contest including a contract to make films in Hollywood, only to find the road to stardom either paved with pitfalls or non-existent. In fact, as I was watching it tonight, on Turner Classic Movies, I was considering whether or not the authors of the later musical classic "Singing In The Rain" may have taken some of their ideas from "Hollywood Hotel", most notably a temperamental leading lady star in a movie studio and a conclusion concerning one person singing a film score while another person got the credit by mouthing along on screen.<br /><br />"Hollywood Hotel" is a fascinating example of movie making in the 1930s. Among the supporting players is Louella Parsons, playing herself (and, despite some negative comments I've seen, she has a very ingratiating personality on screen and a natural command of her lines). She is not the only real person in the script. Make-up specialist Perc Westmore briefly appears as himself to try to make one character resemble another.<br /><br />This film also was one of the first in the career of young Mr. Ronald Reagan, playing a radio interviewer at a movie premiere. Reagan actually does quite nicely in his brief scenes - particularly when he realizes that nobody Dick Powell is about to take over the microphone when it should be used with more important people.<br /><br />Dick Powell has won a Hollywood contract in a contest, and is leaving his job as a saxophonist in Benny Goodman's band. The beginning of this film, by the way, is quite impressive, as the band drives in a parade of trucks to give a proper goodbye to Powell. They end up singing "Hooray For Hollywood". The interesting thing about this wonderful number is that a lyric has been left out on purpose. Throughout the Johnny Mercer lyrics are references to such Hollywood as Max Factor the make-up king, Rin tin tin, and even a hint of Tarzan. But the original song lyric referred to looking like Tyrone Power. Obviously Jack Warner and his brothers were not going to advertise the leading man of 20th Century Fox, and the name Donald Duck was substituted. In any event the number showed the singers and instrumentalists of Goodman's orchestra at their best. So did a later five minute section of the film, where the band is rehearsing.<br /><br />Powell leaves the band and his girl friend (Frances Langford) and goes to Hollywood, only to find he is a contract player (most likely for musicals involving saxophonists). He is met by Allen Joslyn, the publicist of the studio (the owner is Grant Mitchell). Joslyn is not a bad fellow, but he is busy and he tends to slough off people unless it is necessary to speak to them. He parks Powell at a room at the Hollywood Hotel, which is also where the studio's temperamental star (Lola Lane) lives with her father (Hugh Herbert), her sister (Mabel Todd), and her sensible if cynical assistant (Glenda Farrell). Lane is like Jean Hagen in "Singing In The Rain", except her speaking voice is good. Her version of "Dan Lockwood" is one "Alexander Dupre" (Alan Mowbray, scene stealing with ease several times). The only difference is that Mowbray is not a nice guy like Gene Kelly was, and Lane (when not wrapped up in her ego) is fully aware of it. Having a fit on being by-passed for an out-of-the ordinary role she wanted, she refuses to attend the premiere of her latest film. Joslyn finds a double for her (Lola's real life sister Rosemary Lane), and Rosemary is made up to play the star at the premiere and the follow-up party. But she attends with Powell (Joslyn wanting someone who doesn't know the real Lola). This leads to Powell knocking down Mowbray when the latter makes a pest of himself. But otherwise the evening is a success, and when the two are together they start finding each other attractive.<br /><br />The complications deal with Lola coming back and slapping Powell in the face, after Mowbray complains he was attacked by Powell ("and his gang of hoodlums"). Powell's contract is bought out. Working with photographer turned agent Ted Healey (actually not too bad in this film - he even tries to do a Jolson imitation at one point), the two try to find work, ending up as employees at a hamburger stand run by bad tempered Edgar Kennedy (the number of broken dishes and singing customers in the restaurant give Edgar plenty of time to do his slow burns with gusto). Eventually Powell gets a "break" by being hired to be Dupre's singing voice in a rip-off of "Gone With The Wind". This leads to the final section of the film, when Rosemary Lane, Herbert, and Healey help give Powell his chance to show it's his voice, not Mowbrays.<br /><br />It's quite a cute and appealing film even now. The worst aspects are due to it's time. Several jokes concerning African-Americans are no longer tolerable (while trying to photograph Powell as he arrives in Hollywood, Healey accidentally photographs a porter, and mentions to Joslyn to watch out, Powell photographs too darkly - get the point?). Also a bit with Curt Bois as a fashion designer for Lola Lane, who is (shall we say) too high strung is not very tolerable either. Herbert's "hoo-hoo"ing is a bit much (too much of the time) but it was really popular in 1937. And an incident where Healey nearly gets into a brawl at the premiere (this was one of his last films) reminds people of the tragic, still mysterious end of the comedian in December 1937. But most of the film is quite good, and won't disappoint the viewer in 2008.

Lorenzo Lamas stars as Jack `Solider` Kelly an ex-vietnam vet and a renegade cop who goes on a search and destroy mission to save his sister from backwoods rednecks. Atrocious movie is so cheaply made and so bad that Ron Palillo is third billed, and yet has 3 minutes of screen time, and even those aren't any good. Overall a terrible movie, but the scenes with Lorenzo Lamas and Josie Bell hanging from a tree bagged and gagged are worth a few (unintentional) laughs. Followed by an improved sequel.

The script is nice.Though the casting is absolutely non-watchable.No style. the costumes do not look like some from the High Highbury society. Comparing Gwyneth Paltrow with Kate Beckinsale I can only say that Ms. Beckinsale speaks British English better than Ms. Paltrow, though in Ms. Paltrow's acting lies the very nature of Emma Woodhouse. Mr. Northam undoubtedly is the best Mr. Knightley of all versions, he is romantic and not at all sharp-looking and unfeeling like Mr. Knightley in the TV-version. P.S.The spectator cannot see at all Mr. Elton-Ms. Smith relationship's development as it was in the motion version, so one cannot understand where was all Emma's trying of make a Elton-Smith match (besides of the portrait).