Datasets:

yxchar

/

imdb-tlm

like 0

Dani(Reese Witherspoon) has always been very close with her older sister Maureen(Emily Warfield) until they both start falling in love with their neighbor Court(Jason London). But it is not after a terrible tragedy strikes that the two sisters realize that nothing can keep them apart and that their love for each other will never fade away.This was truly a heartbreaking story about first love. Probably the most painful story about young love that I have ever seen. All the acting is amazing and Reese Witherspoon gives a great performance in her first movie. I would give The Man in the Moon 8.5/10

I rented the dubbed-English version of Lensman, hoping that since it came from well-known novels it would have some substance. While there were hints of substance in the movie, it mostly didn't rise above the level of kiddie cartoon. Maybe the movie was a bad adaptation of the book, or it lost a lot in the dubbed version. Or maybe even the source novels were lightweight. But for whatever reason, there wasn't much there.I noticed lots of details that were derivative, sloppy, poorly dramatized, or otherwise deficient. Some examples: The opening scenes looked borrowed from the 2001 "star gate" scene and the Star Wars image of hyperspace. The robot on the harvester looked like an anthropomorphized "R2-D2".It starts out trying to borrow its comic relief style of Star Wars, but mercifully (since the humor doesn't work) gives up on comedy and plays it serious. In that sense, it's superior to the Star Wars franchise, which started with a clever sense of humor, and eventually deteriorated to Jar-Jar's annoying silliness.The agricultural details were apparently drawn by someone who had never seen a farm. The harvester was driving through the unharvested middle of a field, dumping silage onto unharvested crops, rather than working from one side to the other and dumping the silage onto already-harvested rows or into a truck. Corn (maize) was pouring out the grain chute, but the farm lands were drawn like a wheat field.When it was time for Kim's father had to face his fate, there wasn't any dramatic weight to the scene. That could have been partly the fault of the English-language voice actor, but the drawings didn't show much weight either. Kim's reactions in that scene were similarly unconvincing.Similarly, when a character named Henderson was killed, Chris showed very little reaction, even though they were apparently supposed to have been close. (Henderson's death is no spoiler; his name isn't revealed until his death scene.) She seems to promptly forget him. Someone's expression of sympathy shows more feeling than she does. I think the voice actor deserves most of the blame in that case; there's at least a hint of feeling in the drawings of Chris.On several occasions, villains fail to accomplish their orders. A villain leader often punishes those failures with miserable deaths. I can't say whether that's lifted from Star Wars, or if that comes from an earlier source -- possibly the Lensman books.There's a scene where a space ship crash-lands. As it plunges toward the ground, parts are break off the ship. But so many pieces are fall off that there should be nothing left of it by the time it lands.While in most cases Chris seems like a competent, tough space hero, there's a scene where she shrieks like an incompetent damsel in distress. Someone tough enough to get over Henderson's death so quickly should at least be able to shout, "help, it's got me and I can't reach my gun!" instead of just shrieking.The character with the most personality (almost too much at times) is D.J. Bill. He sounded like Wolfman Jack, the D.J. in American Graffiti. I wonder if he's as well-voiced in the original language.Two planets in the movie exploded. The explosions were unimpressive, and appeared to owe a lot of inspiration to Star Wars. To its credit, however, the cause of the explosion was completely unlike the Death Star's primary weapon. The dialog had a good, interesting explanation for the cause. Many other explosions in the movie did look good, just not the planetary explosions.Some of the sound effects are very cheesy, as if borrowed from a late 1970s video game. Some of the images look like primitive video games, and some influence from Tron is visible too. On the other hand, the sound effects are often pretty decent, although that emphasizes the cheesy-sounding parts. The art is good too, particularly when it stays away from the often cheesy-looking computer graphics.Finally, there's the story. If a movie tells a good story, it can get away with a lot of production shortcomings. But the plot here was pretty lightweight. A naïve boy tries to help someone on a crippled space ship, and acquires a great power he doesn't understand. He and his band of very virtuous companions struggle against a powerful, unredeemably evil enemy. He makes friends, learns about his special power, and grows into a young man. If he is persistent and virtuous enough, he might even defeat the evil enemy. Details along the way can make such a story rise above the simple outline, but there's very little more than that in this movie.In the end, it's just a kiddie cartoon. But then, since it looks like the primary intended audience is older children, maybe it doesn't need to be anything more than that.

Proof why Hollywood conventions are in place. Stale dialogue, underdeveloped and flat characters and a disjointed storyline are only part of the problems with this gangster classic wannabe. An attempt to be daring and different but this appears to be a slap-together attempt at recreating the magic of Arthur Penn 's Bonnie and Clyde (1967) and George Roy Hill 's Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)- truly innovative filmmakers and films - but falling well below the bar. Problems with storylines being self-explanatory result in the need for a voiceover to explain problem sections. The editing appears again to be an attempt to duplicate the previous classics but is occasionally disjointed and cause more problems for me technically. Unnecessary shots are thrown in to justify the filming of them but would have better served the viewer by sitting on the cutting room floor. Stills, black & white montages and period music are thrown in from time to time in attempts to either be different or to cover up for scenes that can't transition well or to replace scenes that just didn't work at all and again are reminiscent of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969).Overly dramatic pauses between sentences, random shots of surrounding scenery that wasn't needed for storytelling plus over-the-top acting of bit players and supporting actors was reminiscent of the backyard camcorder directors of the late 1980's - I was left wondering who was in charge of this film during production and during post-production. The playing of music in most two shots and close-ups and then suddenly stopping in wide shots overly emphasized a weak musical score. No sound editing was drastically apparent as the bulk of the film was gunshots, doors, footsteps and dialogue (a style used in the late 60's through the mid-70's by new directors) but lacking background noise causing it to seem artificial - particularly the tire squeaks on dirt roads. In my honest opinion the biggest problem of all is there are no 'likeable' characters for the audience to route for nor were we lead to see as the protagonists of the story. Neither the gangsters nor the lawmen were characters I wanted to see win and neither were focused on as the 'hero'- a necessity for any story to work for me. We know from Penn's and Hill's movies who the 'heroes' are. Even though they are criminals, we like them and want to see them get away. I could care less who was on the screen in this film. I got the impression that John Milius was trying to give off a non-historically accurate reenactment documentary of the events surrounding John Dillenger's life from June 1933 to July 1934 (his death).To be fair, there are some moments of good solid storytelling, which are moments that shine forth brightly from the dark and dismal canister in which this film sits. John Milius gets better thankfully in future films where he doesn't seem to try to 'copy' other filmmakers. Dillinger (1973) isn't a total waste as many stars and famous faces who were at the cusp of breaking out are involved with this directorial 'big budget' debut, but wait for it on a classic movie channel rather than spending money to rent or buy.

I don't know why some guys from US, Georgia or even from Bulgaria have the courage to express feelings about something they don't understand at all. For those who did not watch this movie - watch it. Don't expect too much or don't put some frameworks just because this is Kosturica. Watch the movie without prejudice, try to understand the whole humor inside - people of Serbia DID actually getting married while Bil Clinton bomb their villages, gypsies in all Balkans are ALWAYS try to f*ck you up in any way they can, LOVE is always unexpected, pure and colorful, and Balkans are extremely creative. For those who claims this is a bad movie I can see only that the American's sh*t (like Meet Dave, Get Smart etc) are much much worse than a pure, frank Balkan humoristic love story movie as Promise me. The comment should be useful and on second place should represent the personal view of the writer. I think the movie is great and people watch it must give their respects to the director and story told inside. It is simple, but true. It is brutal, but gentle and makes you laugh to dead.

It's hard to believe that this is a sequel to Henry Fool. Hard to believe that the same director and actors were involved in both movies. While Henry Fool is refreshing, witty, comical, Fay Grim is slow, boring, and doesn't go anywhere. Where has the wit gone? I am baffled.It is 10 years since I saw Henry Fool and many of its dialogs and scenes are still vivid in my memory. Fay Grim is painful to watch. This is no fault of the actors, who are good (Parker Posey) or great (Jeff Goldblum) -- the blame lies entirely with the plot, the dialog, and even some of the filming (low budget is no excuse). A huge disappointment. Sorry I couldn't pay attention to the plot, I was so bored, so disappointed... if you enjoyed this one you might not enjoy Henry Fool so much... the two movies have absolutely nothing to do with each other... there is no continuity in the characters' personalities... it's all a fraud to entice fans of Henry Fool to watch the sequel.I'm switching this off now -- Henry in some sort of jail with a Taliban?!?!

Oh the hilarity! Oh the joy! Another film that is so bad it's good! Or, so I thought. In actual fact, this one misses the "so bad its good" phase and goes, sadly, straight to the "could have been so bad its good, but they screwed it up and made it plain bad".For a start its way too long. Cut half an hour and it might have been more endurable. Then put in such ludicrous plots as "the man who is sabotaging the mission to save the Earth, because he has all the food stockpiled and he'll be rich if the mission fails!". Duh!. Or the "talking bomb" plot device last seen in Dark Star. Guess what....just like in Dark Star, the bomb has a malfunction.....hmmmm. Add in a dash of "we can't act our way out of a kindergarten play" and you have Solar Crisis in a nutshell.Light relief is to be had in the form of Jack Palance (or Jack Pants, as we called him in this flick), whose sole purpose in the film is to drive a kid around the desert and telephone the kid's dad to come pick him up....eventually. Between driving and phoning, Jack dispenses pointless drivel and leers and cackles a lot, but contributes little to the story, such as it is. In short, he's the best bit of the movie.My award for "The Most Ironic Line Delivered Straight-Faced" goes to Charlton Heston, who, when meeting his eldest son for the first time in ages, comments that his son looks a little "out of shape" whilst he himself is standing there with his gut bulging over his waistband and in dire need of a Captain Kirk Corset.Also amusing is the bad guy's top henchman, who has a bright white hairstyle that kept making me think of Andy Warhol, for some reason.Apart from these hilarities, there's little to recommend this movie. The ending is a sequence copied from (but mercifully shorter than) the end sequence from 2001.Tips for enjoying this movie more, if you are foolish enough to watch it, like I did:1. Any time the bomb speaks, imagine it's called Tarquin (Trust me, it works!)2. Whenever Chuck Heston is on screen and about to speak, pre-empt him by reciting a line from Planet of the Apes such as "Get your filthy paws off me!" or similar.3. Whenever the female lead is looking stressed (this is most of the time) keep hoping against hope that she's having an aneurism and will die soon.4. During the interminable "the ship's broke again" scenes, keep hoping the tech/engineer guys will spout a Scotty-ism like "You cannae change the laws of physics!" or some such crap.Other than that, do what it takes to get you through this one. I dozed off half way through and woke to realise I hadn't missed anything, nor had the plot (laughable though it is) advanced any. So don't worry about tuning out for a few, you won't miss anything.

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

You may want to know up front that I am not a Mormon, unlike a good number of those who have already reviewed this film. I mention this so you'll understand that the way I look at the film may differ greatly from those in the faith. For some, being critical of the film might be seen as being critical of the faith--and that is NOT my intention. So, my review is that of an outsider trying to look inside and learn more about who this man and his people were. Well, after seeing the film, I doubt if I have learned much at all. Since I have been a history teacher, I have a good basic understanding about Young as well as Joseph Smith as well as the teachings of the church. But anyone wanting to see this film to really learn anything will probably be disappointed because the film seems so gosh-darn nice--too nice and too unrealistic in its portrayal. Plus, you learn practically nothing about the church's beliefs other than they are nice people, work hard and some have many wives (and this latter part is only barely hinted at in the film). Instead, the people are almost cartoon-like in their simplistic portrayals. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and their followers are angelic, the non-Mormons were all devils and Brian Donlevy (playing EXACTLY the same sort of role Edward G. Robinson later played in THE TEN COMMANDMENTS) is the trouble-maker who claims to be a Mormon but just comes along so the film can have a bad guy. It's all so very simple....too simple. Almost like an indoctrination film or infomercial.Brigham Young especially was a very complex man--with many good points (an excellent organizer and visionary) as well as bad (don't even get me started on his views about Blacks within the church or intermarriage). To portray him in such vague terms is just plain silly. It's also a lot like how Gandhi was portrayed in the film with Ben Kingsley--only the facts that led to his being almost super-human were emphasized. Heck, now that I think about that, this is the trouble with most religious films--they often come off as one-dimensional, trite and bland. Let's have a full and more complete film of these men--one that will stick to facts and not emotional appeals.Now if you can ignore the fact that you won't learn very much about the faith or its second leader, the film is enjoyable enough. It's obvious someone at 20th Century-Fox really cared about the film, as they had a wonderful cast of both premier actors (Tyrone Power), up and coming actors (Linda Darnell, Jane Darwell and Vincent Price) and wonderful character actors (Dean Jagger, John Carradine and Brian Donlevy). The film also had wonderful location shooting and lots of gloss. It just didn't have a lot to tell us other than they were all "swell". Plus, there were plenty of factual errors and a few just plain dumb scenes. A few of the mistakes include Young taking over the helm immediately after the death of Joseph Smith (it was three years later), no mention of the various Mormon denominations and splinter groups, talk of "gold in California"--even though it was 1847 and gold wouldn't be discovered until 1948, as well as no specific mention of polygamy or Smith's many wives. Just plain dumb scenes include Carradine pulling out a gun and waving it about in the courtroom scene--and no one seemed to care--even though it was a very hostile audience! Don't you think at least the judge would tell him to put it away and stop threatening people with it?!One final comment. Do not, I repeat, do not watch this film when it's shown on American Movie Classics (a one great station that has sunk a lot in recent years). While I am critical of the film because of its simplistic message, I was horrified with the complete disrespect the station had for the church and its traditions. What I mean is this. The film was punctuated with ads for penis enlargement formulas as well as tons of pop-ups (some advertising a show that features the "sexiest cast"). Talk about disrespectful and gross and I would be just as offended if they did this for any other religious film. By doing this, they not only insult the faith but marginalize their market--after all, who is into hearing about these things AND the life of Brigham Young?! Is this a movie, in this form, that you can show to your kids or recommend to others?!

All good movies "inspire" some direct to video copycat flick. I was afraid that "Gladiator" wasn't really that good a film, because I hadn't seen any movie that had anything remotely resembling anything Roman on the new releases shelf for months. Then I spotted Full Moon's latest offering, Demonicus. I'm a fan of Full Moon's Puppetmaster series, and Blood Dolls, but had never seen one of their non-killer puppet films. Anyway...Demonicus chronicles what happens to a group of campers in the mountains of the Alps. One of the campers, James, finds a cave with old gladiator artifacts, and feels impelled to remove a helmet from a corpse and try it on. He becomes possessed, and, as the demonic gladiator Tyrannus, is impelled to kill his friends to revive the corpse, who is the real Tyrannus.Granted, like many Full Moon films, this has little or no budget. At times, the editing and direction was so amateurish I'd swear I was watching the Blair Witch Project. The attempts at chopping off of limbs and heads reminds me of a Monty Python skit. The weapons, although apparently real, look really plastic-y. It literally looks like this was filmed by a group of friends with a digital camcorder on a weekend. Granted, there's nothing wrong with such film-making, just don't rent this expecting a technical masterpiece. It looks like there were attempts at research for the script too, because, even though Tyrannus really doesn't act much like a gladiator until the end, at least he speaks Latin.All trashing aside, I actually enjoyed this film. Not as much as a killer puppet film, perhaps, but Full Moon still delivers! The only thing that disappointed me was there was no Full Moon Videozone at the end!

Retitled from its original Japanese name of LAPUTA (for being an offensive phrase, something which director Hayao Miyazaki was oblivious to at the time), CASTLE IN THE SKY is the master animator's third film, and it's one of his most beloved of all time. Initially a box office disappointment in its 1986 release, it has since been embraced by critics and audiences around the world. Inspired by Jonathan Swift's "Gulliver's Travels", CASTLE IN THE SKY is a steampunk-themed action adventure tale about two young orphans -- young miner Pazu, and mysterious girl Sheeta (who wears a magic crystal around her neck) -- who team up to find the long-lost island of Laputa, which is rumored to have great riches and gems. They are aided by a band of bumbling yet sympathetic air pirates led by the feisty Dola (who at first chase them, yet turn out to be true allies) and pursued by the government headed by its villainous topmost-secret agent, Muska, who wants the power of Laputa for his own benefit.For anyone looking for an exciting way to spend two hours, this film is an excellent choice, featuring just the right amount of humor, exploration, wonder, and mystery to keep one interested. The artwork, although not as spectacular as in some of Miyazaki's later movies, is fantastic and gorgeous enough to watch with imaginative characters and locations, incredibly exciting action scenes, and breathtaking flight sequences that will make one feel giddy. And while the characters that populate this tale are less complex than Miyazaki's other works, each has a memorable, endearing personality that stays with the viewer long after the film is over. Dola, in particular, makes for a terrific comic character, shouting orders to her dimwitted sons one moment and being protective of Sheeta the next. Muska is one of the few Miyazaki creations to ever come across as an irredeemable villain, but like Dola, he commands every scene he's in with a sinister charisma that is both alluring and chilly.Anime fans have often compared this movie to Gainax's sci-fi adventure series NADIA: THE SECRET OF BLUE WATER. After all, both works share similar story and character elements... not to mention that they were both created by Miyazaki himself. Where both differ is in their execution. NADIA, although charming for the most part, suffered from taking a wrong turn at its midway point, devolving into cartoonish nonsense which all but distracted from the main plot, even though it did have a strong ending. CASTLE IN THE SKY, on the other hand, remains consistently entertaining and focused for its two hour running time, and is all the better for it. While the film's epic tone is sometimes broken up by some "cartoonish" moments, like a brawl between Pazu's boss and one of Dola's sons, it's never to the point that it detracts from the film.About eleven years ago, Disney released an English version featuring a cast of big-names such as James van der Beek, Anna Paquin, Cloris Leachman, Mark Hamill, Mandy Patinkin as well as some cameo appearances by veterans such as Tress MacNeille and Jim Cummings. It also features an ambitious reworking of Joe Hisaishi's gorgeous musical score for a performance by the Seattle Music Orchestra (interestingly, the man behind this rescore is none other than the composer himself). As much as purists have cried blasphemy over this version for its occasional extra dialogue and the aforementioned rescore, Miyazaki had no such problems; in fact, he is said to have applauded the reworking, and for good reason, because the newly rerecorded music is truly the star of the new dub. While there are some instances where filling in some critially silent scenes from the original Japanese is a bit jarring (notably the journey through a dragon-infested storm cloud), the overall reworking is fantastic and in many ways improves on the original, particularly in scenes such as when a robot attacks a fortress and the climactic moments toward the end. Here, Hisaishi displays his musical versatility and genius for matching music to visuals. As far as the performances in the dub go, the leads are probably at the short end of the stick; James Van Der Beek's Pazu sounds significantly more mature than his character, while Anna Paquin's Sheeta speaks with an odd accent that fluctuates at times (a problem which actually works in favor of the character). That said, both do good jobs overall and provide a fairly believable chemistry throughout. It's the lively supporting cast, however, that really make this dub so much fun, particularly Cloris Leachman's Dola and Mark Hamill's Muska. Both are perfectly cast and steal every scene they're in; as with the rescore, these two really warrant a listen to the Disney dub. The script adaptation borders on the loose side at times--there's quite a bit of extra lines and/or commentary (some of which are pricelessly funny and others somewhat overdone)--but aside from at least one debatable alteration (Sheeta's speech in the climactic showdown "the world cannot live without love" as opposed to the original "you can't survive apart from Mother Earth"), the overall characters, story, and spirit remain fairly faithful to the original. On the whole, there is little point comparing the Disney version to the original language track; each puts their own stamp on this legendary masterpiece, and I like them both. (They're also better than Streamline/JAL's more literal but frightfully robotic, lifeless, abysmally acted and poorly written older dub from the late 1980's; don't believe anybody who says this version is "superior" to Disneys--trust me, the opposite is true.) Either way, though, you can't go wrong with CASTLE IN THE SKY. It's one of Miyazaki's all-time greatest, and I highly recommend it.

Chris Rock, apparently desperate for a cozy star-vehicle which would cross his appeal over to white and mainstream black audiences, updates the hit 1978 comedy "Heaven Can Wait" with an urban agenda. He plays a struggling comedian involved in a car accident who has his soul removed too soon from his body--consequently, his angels must find another body to place him in, and can only come up with that of a white businessman. Rewriting a movie as bland and sentimental as "Heaven Can Wait" only shows that Rock's eye was on the box-office (this was strictly a corporate move organized by the most mercenary of Hollywood players). Why not strive for something loftier or more memorable than a silly reincarnation comedy that culminates with an Evening at the Apollo? Terrific supporting cast (including the usually-reliable Regina King, the wonderful Mark Addy, Wanda Sykes, Eugene Levy, and terrific Frankie Faison) do what they can, but Rock seems awkward and unsure of himself throughout. *1/2 from ****

This movie was featured on a very early episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000, but when I see this film, I don't think about that wonderful TV series. I believe this was a surprisingly good early 40's horror flick, with very surprisingly good sound and picture for a 67 year old public domain horror movie. I actually enjoyed watching Bela Lugosi and his bizarre staff, including his wife who requires fluid from the glands of young would-be brides, an old hag, and her two bizarre sons, one a giant idiot, the other a comical dwarf(Angelo Rossitto from 1932's Freaks). I also enjoyed the plucky young female reporter, who is kind of a stereotype, but still fun to watch. My only problem with this otherwise decent film is it's plot, even ridiculous and unbelievable for a movie. I don't want to spoil any of this film, so go out and rent it, or, better yet, buy it for a couple of bucks.

A recent viewing of THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT has given me the urge to watch many of the classic MGM musicals from the forties and fifties. ANCHORS AWEIGH is certainly a lesser film than ON THE TOWN. The songs aren't as good, nor is the chemistry between the characters. But the film beautifully interweaves classical favorites, such as Tchaikovsky. And the scene at the Hollywood Bowl, with Sinatra and Kelly emerging from the woods above it at the top, and then running down the steps, while dozens of pianists play on the piano, is the best scene in the film, even though the scene in which Kelly dances with Jerry Mouse is more famous. Classical music enthusiasts will no doubt identify the music the pianists are playing. Sinatra then croons, "I Fall in Love Too Easily," before having his epiphany about whom he loves. The color is beautiful, Hollywood looks pretty with its mountains and pollution-free air (Can you imagine Hollywood in the twenties, let alone the mid-1940s?!), and the piano music is absolutely glorious. MGM certainly had a flair for creating lyrical moments like these.

Sometimes a film comes along that is unique. The Nostril Picker is one such film, The Nostril Picker is like no other film I have ever seen, unfortunately for The Nostril Picker & myself it's unique for different reasons than what the filmmakers had originally intended. Read on & all shall hopefully become clear... The Nostril Picker, as it's commonly know although it was apparently filmed under the title The Changer, starts with some extremely dull shots of an American town somewhere, streets & factory's that sort of thing, as the opening credits play. When The Nostril Picker begins proper we, the viewer that is, are introduced to a real loser named Joe Bukowski (Carl Zschering) who is in his 40's, he lives on his own in a crappy little apartment where he watches T.V., eats beef flavoured dog food & listens to old vinyl records as he dances with a blow up rubber sex doll. Joe likes teenage girls, he has various porn magazines but enjoys the real thing even more. However, being an ugly git Joe can't tempt any young ladies to go out with him, or do anything else with him for that matter. One fateful day an old homeless Vietnam vet (Horace Grimm) sees the agony & pain that Joe has to go through (actually he sees Joe being spoken to by the cops for hassling a teenage girl) & decides to help him out. He tells Joe about an incantation that he learned from the 'gooks' in Vietnam that will transform Joe's appearance into whatever he likes. A process he calls morphosynthesis, but at the same time he warns Joe that 'it makes you crazy if you do it too much'. That night Joe decides to give it a try, in a public place on a podium for some reason. Joe says a few words, does an extremely silly dance & starts yodelling. Joe finishes off by whistling London Bridge is Falling Down, listen yeah, I ain't making this up either. At first Joe is visibly disappointed when nothing significant happens. To console himself Joe tries to buy a porn mag but is shocked when the clerk (Kevin Devoy) refuses to sell it to an underage girl. Joe, the bright spark that he is, realises what has happened & talks his/her way out of it by claiming his/her dad had sent him/her to buy it. Joe, who now calls his alter-ego Josephine (Ann Flood), senses the possibilities & heads straight for the local high school. Joe befriends four teenage girls, Jennifer Armstrong (Laura Cummings), Crisi Stroud (Gail Didia), Tracy Harper (Heidi M. Gregg) & Brenda Kearn (Aimee Molinaro) while under his disguise, oh & Joe manages to become a pupil at the school simply by asking the sports teacher Miss Van Dyke (Vicki Hollis). At first Joe seems harmless enough, he just likes to hang around the girls toilets & stuff like that. But things soon change as Joe brutally murders Brenda. Jennifer's dad, Vince Armstrong (Edward Tanner) is a detective so along with his partner Ed Simpson (Clyde Surrell) & Walt Spencer (Bruce Alden) the pathologist is determined to catch the sicko responsible for killing his daughter's friends, but will they succeed before Joe strikes again? The IMDb listing for The Nostril Picker is wrong, I watched it mere hours ago & it clearly states that it's directed by Mark Nowicki who was also a co-producer & definitely not Patrick J. Matthews who was credited as a co-producer & the cinematographer, not that it makes much difference & I'd have though that Nowicki would have been more than happy for Matthews to take the 'credit' for making this piece of crap. No one involved in the making of The Nostril Picker should be allowed to go anywhere near a camera again, ever. The Nostril Picker is easily one of the worst films I've ever seen, & that's saying something. It's absolutely terrible in every possible way imaginable. The script by Steven Hodge is atrocious, there's no narrative structure, excitement, tension, drama, character development & the things that do happen are so mind numbingly dumb it's untrue. The plot devices & chain of events in The Nostril Picker are totally incomprehensible. The scene where Joe finds out the prostitute (Steven Andrews) he hired is in fact a man & Joe starts to chase him around his apartment with two squirting dildo's is simply jaw dropping stuff. The subsequent scene when the transvestite reports the incident to the police is hilariously written & had me psychically laughing at the dialogue. I hated the ending as well, not only was it predictable but it leaves the door open for a sequel, I psychically shudder at the mere thought! On a technical level The Nostril Picker is awful, point & hope photography, bland & inappropriate music, forgettable locations, poorly edited (Brenda is killed in the kitchen yet her blood splashes on the T.V. screen that was clearly in the opposite room), some of the worst acting I've sat through & very unimpressive special effects which consist of a few cut off rubber fingers, a slit throat & a quick scene where Joe eats some flesh. It comes as no surprise that the cast & crew who worked on The Nostril Picker have virtually no IMDb credits for anything before or after. Even at 76 odd minutes The Nostril Picker is far to long & really boring to sit through. I could go on & on all day long about how bad The Nostril Picker is, I really could. One thing I can't quite work out is was all this intentional by the filmmakers? The Nostril Picker is indeed a unique film, unique in it's awfulness & incompetence. In the the case of The Nostril Picker I hope it remains unique too, having said that it's still not the worst film I've ever seen but it comes close that's for sure. Definitely one to avoid.

As so many others have written, this is a wonderful documentary. Here is a list of the 'chapters' for anyone interested: 1: A New Germany: 1933-1939 2: Distant War, September 1939-May 1940 3: France Falls, May-June 1940 4: Alone, May 1940-May 1941 5: Barbarossa, June-December 1941 6: Banzai, Japan, 1931-1942 7: On Our Way, USA, 1939-1942 8: Desert North Africa, 1940-1943 9: Stalingrad, June 1942-February 1943 10: Wolfpack 11: Red Star The Soviet Union, 1941-1943 12: Whirlwind Bombing Germany, September 1939 13: Tough Old Gut 14: Its A Lovely Day, Tomorrow: Burma, 15: Home Fires: Britain 1940-1941 16: Inside The Reich: Germany, 1940-1944 17: Morning: June - August 1944 18: Occupation Holland, 1940-1944 19: Pincers: August 1944- March 1945 20: Genocide: 1941-1945 21: Nemesis, Germany: February-May 1945 22: Japan: 1941-1945 23: Pacific: February 1942-July 1945 24: The Bomb: February-September 1945 25: Reckoning

This film reminded me of The Sopranos, and not in a good way. David Chase's seminal mob opera only ever put its foot wrong twice, the most jarring and inexplicable instance of which took place in its fourth season, when Junior Soprano went on trial for his life. Rather than pursue this riveting (and pivotal) plot line, the writers instead chose to completely ignore it, focusing instead on Bobby Baccalieri's constant whimpering over his recently deceased wife's frozen pasta dish. When something of genuine interest happens in Notorious - for example that first, mysterious assassination attempt on Tupac Shakur that ignited the whole East Coast/West Coast feud in the first place, and ended up leading to the deaths of both Tupac and Christopher Wallace - the film treats it as just another bit of plot to plod through. Why exactly was Tupac so convinced that he was sold out by his own people? Did he alone nurture his subsequent affiliation with Suge Knight? And was Lil' Kim's transformation from prim office drone into sex-obsessed, vampish diva really as banal as it appears here?None of these questions are even fleetingly addressed by the film's screenwriters, who are far more interested in depicting Wallace's turbulent love life to zero compelling dramatic avail. These sequences (including a brain-frazzlingly clichéd groupie indescretion in a hotel room) are so toothless and bruisingly manipulative that the only real comparison to be made is with a network TV movie.The storytelling, in both structure and content, is simplistic and trite. But more fundamentally, as a biopic; as something designed to celebrate its subject and educate the uninitiated on the intricacies of their life and work; the film is almost entirely worthless. The reliance on meat-and-potatoes genre plotting, coupled with the lifeless musical performances (an area in which a film like this should soar, surely) result in a film that appears to have been designed only to satisfy the whims and demands of those involved, leaving Wallace's questionable status as a giant in his field as the preserve of the easily persuaded and previously converted only. And the final twenty minutes, in which Wallace's posthumous cultural identity is broadly painted as being akin to that of a latter day saint, quite frankly made me feel like throwing up. On that score, much as with any other, Notorious is crass, calculating and compromised.

I just watched this movie, by mistake. What a little gem. This film made in 1956 looks, and feels, like a late Seventies movie. And is in fact better, more restrained and correct than, say, Blue Soldier. The environmental, anthropological undertones are way ahead of its time. The understated cinematography is superb and terribly realistic. Much more than Dances with Wolves, The Last Hunt manages to convey the look and feel of the buffalo "killing fields" of the late 1800s. Probably because those in the movie were real killing fields. The movie was shot during legal forestry directed buffalo culls, so the animals you see are really being shot, the bones are real. In conclusion, a very under-rated western masterpiece, superbly acted, directed and shot.

Oh God,what an idiotic movie!Incredibly cheap with fake special effects(the creature is played by one guy in lame costume)and stupid plot.All dialogues are unbelievably bad and these actors(HA!HA!HA!)...they're simply ludicrous.For example I have never seen so annoying characters like in this junk(these dumb kids or pregnant woman with his husband and many more).All in all,this is a great entertainment if you're drunk.Avoid it like the plague.Am I drunk?I don't think so...

If you ever hear these three words uttered to you..."Joe Don Baker", be afraid...Final Justice is the low budget action movie based on a sheriff in a Texas town named Geronimo (pronounced as Heronimo). He's an ugly, slimy, rude character who is on the hunt for a criminal in Malta who killed his partner in Texas. His partner actually slumps down twice in the movie. Very bad editing. Joe Don Baker (Geronimo) ends up in jail like 4 or 5 times in this movie, making the plot go nowhere fast. Plus, he shoots everybody like he's in the wild west. I guess nobody told him it was the 20th century. A woman cop is assigned to show him around Malta (who looks like Elaine from Seinfeld) and she is the only one who can put up with the redneck. She must be insane!The strippers in the bar are the most entertaining characters in this movie. Their dancing is shown throughout the film and I began to bond with the sleazy women. Well, at least it was better than watching Geronimo try to dumb his way out of something. The ending is flawed and somewhat predictable, and I was happy it was finally over. You'll never forget that last line of Joe Don Baker from the movie.It's so hard to imagine how he was in THREE Bond movies...very weird! Anyway, if you're up for a laugh, then see this one on MST3K sometime. Also, I've heard his other bad movie (among many), "Mitchell" MST3K version is being released on DVD by Rhino. I can't wait to see that!

This Italian film from the '70's is NOT even in the class with Dog Soldiers, The Howling, or even that awful American Werewolf in Paris, BUT...it is fun to watch. I'm talking about watching the lead actress, a stunning blonde, run amok in her birthday suit. We're talking about graphic, complete nudity...it's obvious that she is a real blonde...humma humma humma!! The story is a hoot, the SFX are childish, and the acting (for the most part) stinks. The only redeeming value of this movie is all (and there is a LOT) the nudity & sex scenes. Tame by HBO standards, but still fun to see when you find yourself without a date on Saturday night. OK...HERE'S THE SPOILER...There is NO werewolf (except in the opening scene of the heroine(??)'s ancestor. The girl just imagines that she's a werewolf...in other words, a clinical Lycanthrope.

This is short and to the point. The story writing used for Star Trek: Hidden Frontier is surprisingly good. Acting is all over the map, but the main characters over the years seem to have worked at improving their skills. It is hard to believe that this series has been going on for almost 7 years and will be coming to end mid-May 2007.I will not rehash what has already been said about the sets and graphics. Considering this is all-volunteer, for no profit, it is pretty amazing.If this was being ranked as a professional production, I would have to give it a 5 for a good story but terrible sets. However, as a fan-based production I have to give it an excellent rating as with the exception with a few other efforts, this is in a league of its own. For sheer volume, I don't think this has been matched. Congratulations to the cast and crew for an effort that many admire.

As a movie critic for several Dutch websites, I have to see lot's of movies, and not all very good ones. Some movies are so bad, you won't be surprised that they are released straight on video. With taboo, Iám surprised that it is released on video at all. This is really low budget bad quality bad written rubbish. A group of youngsters plays a game of taboo. They write down their most sickening wish or act, and later on people are murdered for their taboo's. The question is, should we believe what we see?The movie has a potential interesting plot-twist, and I won't give it away here. But what could have been interesting stays stupid, bad acted and without any reason.Some of the actors have played in bigger titles before, so why on earth did they sign up for this? If you see this anywhere, try to dodge it. There is no logic, no human sense of quality in this movie.

Deaf secretary Carla (Emmanuelle Devos) is bullied by her mean spirited male colleagues.When they suggest she needs an assistant it seems like the final insult, but, when the first applicant is ex-con Paul (Vincent Cassel) she seizes the chance to change her life.Carla covers his mistakes and he, anxious to go straight, reluctantly helps her to take revenge on her colleagues.When Paul asks Carla to return the favor, she finds herself drawn into the criminal underworld, ruled by ruthless lone shark Marchand (Olivier Gourmet).Recognizing her ability to lip-read as a weapon no one will have bargained for, the two set out to see justice done.French filmmaker Jacques Audiard's third feature "Read My Lips" is a genre-defying piece, switching from dark social comedy to visceral full-throttle thriller.

I had never heard of this one before it turned up on Cable TV. It's very typical of late 50s sci-fi: sober, depressing and not a little paranoid! Despite the equally typical inclusion of a romantic couple, the film is pretty much put across in a documentary style - which is perhaps a cheap way of leaving a lot of the exposition to narration and an excuse to insert as much stock footage as is humanly possibly for what is unmistakably an extremely low-budget venture! While not uninteresting in itself (the-apocalypse-via-renegade-missile angle later utilized, with far greater aplomb, for both DR. STRANGELOVE [1964] and FAIL-SAFE [1964]) and mercifully short, the film's single-minded approach to its subject matter results in a good deal of unintentional laughter - particularly in the scenes involving an imminent childbirth and a gang of clueless juvenile delinquents!

OK, I have been a huge fan of the Black for a long time and was DISGUSTED after seeing this film. Let's name the problems...First this film has much of the same crew that the first two had. It has also been called the PREQUEL to the original Black Stallion. Why is it that they can't get Shetan's dam's name correct or her color?? In The Black Stallion Returns, we learn the Sagr was the Black's CHESTNUT mother and in this film she is a gray mare name Jenny?!?!?!?!? WTF? And it's set in Africa in 1946 and 1947...I could be wrong but the first one was set in the 1940's as well when the ship wrecks. Time line doesn't sound quite right to me. Also, as a goof, there is a friesian in the beginning of the movie that is supposed to be Shetan's father...upon further notice it appears to be a gelding. Ben Ishaak is the only character that remained to even make this film appear to be related to the previous two in any way. Might be a cute family film to some but it's my biggest movie disappointment of the year.

While the story is sweet, and the dancing and singing in the main part of the film are a joy, the uniqueness of the film (and what makes it a masterpiece) is the dream sequence. It features the combination of the highest form of truly American music (Gershwin), the engaging beauty of French impressionistic art, Kelly's enthralling choreography (including his rapturous "pas de deux d'amour", really a separate genre), with the most magnificent palette of color ever devised for the set. Matching the surging music and the visual explosion with those dances was a true work of a creative genius and a great artist.

It occurs to me that some of the films that have been banned during the course of cinema history were actually very important and very good films. I'd like to argue that instead of banning challenging, controversial movies the censors should consider banning films that are so bad that they pose a threat to your IQ and your sanity. If they were to do so one of the first films to be quickly hidden away would undoubtedly be "Stroker Ace". This film is awful with a capital 'A'. It is the worst film Burt Reynolds ever starred in.... quite a feat for for a man with "Cannonball Run II", "Cop And A Half" and "Rent-A-Cop" on his CV!The wafer-thin story introduces us to successful stock car racer Stroker Ace (Reynolds), a man who loves fast cars and fast women. He gets stuck in a demeaning contract with crooked promoter Clyde Torkle (Ned Beatty). The contract requires him to do some humiliating promotional work for a new chain of fast food restaurants, such as dressing up as a giant chicken. Thrown into the mix are Lugs (Jim Nabors), Ace's dim-witted pal, and Pembrook Feeney (Loni Anderson), a bimbo with a brain fractionally smaller than a pea who is wooed by Ace.Hal Needham, the director of this low-grade garbage, was formerly a stuntman and he made numerous films that relied on his expertise in staging spectacular stunts and car chases/races. Some of these films were OK, like "Hooper" and "Stunts Unlimited", but with "Stroker Ace" he reaches a career nadir. The characters are so stupid that you actually feel pity for the actors playing them. Anderson especially is saddled with such a dumb role that it makes you grind your teeth with despair. The humour is weak and infantile throughout, and the stunts and race sequences are unremarkable. Even the out-takes during the closing credits (which can be found in all the Reynolds-Needham collaborations) are generally unfunny, which gives the impression that maybe the film wasn't much fun to make. "Stroker Ace" is a stinker of considerable magnitude.

SPOILERS (ALTHOUGH NONE THAT AREN'T REVEALED IN THE FIRST TWO MINUTES OF THE MOVIE)Robin Williams is actually quite good in this as the friendly, lonely, emotionally stunted loser Sy. He makes a very human, even sympathetic psycho, and really disappears into the character--no small feat for such a recognizable performer. Too bad the rest of the movie is such a waste. The supporting performances (and performers) wouldn't look out of place in a soft-core porno (it doesn't help that every character but Sy is made of 100% cardboard). At times, the director actually seems to be trying to frustrate suspense: we know from the very first moments a) that Sy is a complete whack-job, b) that he survives, and c) that he gets nabbed by the cops at the end. So all we're left to ponder is the hows and the whys, and the answers provided aren't all that interesting.The plot is plodding and contrived, and features some nonsensical moments (for instance, the husband berates his wife for her expensive tastes, even though she seems to spend all her free time at the local discount superstore). About two thirds of the way through, Sy does something so irredeemably stupid that it makes one wonder how much he actually cares about his grand revenge scheme. And the final clichéd explanation of his psychosis, right out of `Peeping Tom,' is a terrible copout.The dialogue is of the absolute worst sort. It's not overwritten, or awkward, or unbelievable, or bad in any other way that could be considered fun, even for bad-movie lovers. Instead, every line is purely, hideously functional--it's as if the director handed a plot outline to a newspaper copywriter and said, `Hey, I need a workable script on this--in an hour.' It made me want to scream, honestly.This movie seems to be a throwback to the suburban beware-the-help thrillers of the eighties and nineties (`The Hand That Rocks the Cradle,' e.g.), and while it's certainly unpleasant, it's never really scary. Sy's fetishism occasionally makes you feel uncomfortable, but on its own that's not enough to make the film work. In the end, lack of craftsmanship from everyone involved, except Robin Williams, sinks this one. 3 out of 10.

"Loonatics Unleashed " is the worst thing that could happen to the classic characters created by Chuck Jones . The "Loony Tunes" have many spin -offs and different versions , some were good ,others not very much .But "Loonatics " it's the worst .The concept is stupid and derivative of shows as "The Power Rangers " and "Teen Titans " . There wasn't any similarity with the original characters and the stories are boring and poorly made . The new designs are ugly and the animation is pathetic . This show just doesn't work .This horrible waste of animation is a complete failure and this shouldn't have be nothing more than a bad joke . Lame ! Zero stars

***One Out of Ten Stars*** Because if it was, it gets an F. Holy Mother Mary of God was this bad. I mean, I gave it every reasonable accommodation considering it was a straight to video film, but it let me down at every turn. Like so many other B movies, the basic storyline was decent and the filmmakers seemed to have a reasonable level of resources, but the execution was ridiculous. It's a shame they attached the good name of Halloween to this fiasco.The basic premise surrounds some frat douche bags hosting their annual Halloween haunted house fund raiser, when a satanic spell book shows up out of nowhere and hurls the frat boys into a living hell. Well that's the idea anyway, but instead most of the film is devoted to displaying these frat boy's relationship escapades, abound with an outrageous lesbian subplot. Very little of the actual story is devoted to Halloween or the mysterious spell book. It actually makes me mad that the film makers thought they could get away with making such dribble. The film is essentially about frat boy relationships. This IS NOT what the movie is billed as. I'm tempted to track down the producers and at the very least threaten them with bodily harm. The acting is about as bad as it gets, it's atrocious! The script is unintentionally funny. The cinematography is just plain lazy. The whole film is amateur night. This movie actually makes the SyFy channel movie productions look like masterpieces.The last half hour of the film felt like the film makers realized they weren't producing a soap opera and had to throw in some sort of horror sequences. The evil spell book finally comes into play and turns everyone in the haunted house into the character their dressed up as. I almost feel like crying as I write this review. Wow! I mean wow! This thing was an undecipherable chopped up disaster.

...am i missing something here??? "unexpected plot developments"? "plot twisting with subversive glee"? are these viewers watching the same Arquette vehicle to which i just subjected myself (in an now-obvious sub(un)conscious bout of sadomasochism)...I just joined this site simply to make sure that no one else ever rents this stinker...this movie was an embarrassment to every single person involved...quick question: did Sir Stevie read the script before he gave the thumbs-up to Kate C.? if so, then it must be the same Spielberg who greenlighted "howard the duck"...don't give me that, "it was a hit play" crap--i'm guessing Mssr. Reddin ain't too pleased ...the DVD cover promised "surprising corners" and a "twisted story..." Story!!Story?? It's crap like this that make old Bobby McKee and his wandering band of Structuralists sound like geniuses...Sundance??Berlin??Toronto?? I have a home video of my cat farting that evokes more interest than Arquette's negatively-dimensional portrayal of anguished loss...and, talk about deux ex machina for Mr. Stanley T.; thank god, just in the nick o time he thought to have Dave call the cops! and thank shiva that the cops had just caught the true killer...what!!! up until the credits i was still waiting for it to be some kind of grift against Arquette and his "hidden millions"...no, Mrs. Spielberg, you don't escape unscathed: what the hell was that kitchen scene with the "athlete's foot in my crotch" gag??? are you worse in this or "just cause"?? i dunno...hey film lovers: why don't you make it a blockbuster night and rent this along with "jersey girl" and "white chicks" and then commit sepukka (or is it seppuka)...and take E. Dunsky with you....

This is an early film "Pilot" for the hit Canadian tv show Trailer Park Boys. It was played to executives at a few networks before Showcase decided to sign them up for a tv series. Great acting and a very funny cast make this one of the best cult comedy films. The movie plot is that these two small time criminals go around "exterminating" peoples pets for money. If you have a dog next door whos barking all night these are the guys you go to! But they get into trouble when they come across a job too big for them to deal with and end up in a shootout. Watch this movie if you want to understand the beginning of the tv series. I highly recommend it!Rated R for swearing, violence, and drug use.Its not too offensive either (they dont actually show killing animals)

I have always like this great baseball movie! It has a good cast including two tremendous actors and two of My favorites Danny Glover and Christopher Lloyd! Also in this movie is Ben Johnson, Brenda Fricker, Big Tony Longo, Tony Danza, and Matthew McConaughey! Also Jay O. Sanders and Dermot Mulroney! The film has great special effects and acting from all of the film's actors! The baseball scenes are all realistic! The music by composer Randy Edelman is very good and it fits the film very well! Some of the actors who reminded Me the actual baseball personalities. Stoney Jackson's Ray Mitchell character reminded Me Royce Clayton, McConaughey's character reminded Me of Steve Finley, and Jay O. Sanders's commentator in My opinion resembled how Al Hrabosky looks today. This is a fantastic movie for non and Baseball fans and I strongly recommend this film!

Coinciding with the start of the baby boom, the years after World War II saw an unprecedented exodus of Americans moving out of their city apartments into the suburbs where they can fulfill their dreams of owning their own homes. Directed by H.C. Potter and co-written by Norman Panama and Melvin Frank ("White Christmas"), this lightweight but surprisingly observant 1948 screwball comedy captures the feeling of that period very well. Of course, it helps to have a trio of expert farceurs – Cary Grant, Myrna Loy and an especially acerbic Melvyn Douglas – head the proceedings with their natural likability at odds with the escalating frustrations of home ownership. Even though the film is sixty years old now, there is a timeless quality to the Blandings' dream and the barriers they face in achieving it. Obviously, Hollywood thinks so since it's been remade at least twice - first as a very physical Tom Hanks comedy, 1986's "The Money Pit", and again last year with Ice Cube's "Are We Done Yet?". One look at HGTV's programming schedule will show you how the situations explored here still resonate today.The plot begins with ad man Jim Blandings, his wife Muriel and their two daughters cramped into a two bedroom-one bath Manhattan apartment. Rather than pursue Muriel's idea to renovate the apartment for $7,000, Jim sees a photo of a Connecticut house in a magazine and realizes this is where they need to move. With the help of an opportunistic real estate agent and against the advice of their attorney and family friend Bill Cole, the Blandings decide to buy a ramshackle house badly in need of repair. However, the foundation sags so badly that the house needs to be torn down in favor of a new one. This sparks the Blandings to push the architect to design a house so excessive that the second floor is twice as big as the first. Costs rise with each new complication, tempers flare, and even a romantic triangle is imagined among, Jim, Muriel and Bill. Priorities finally sort themselves out but not before some funny slapstick scenes and clever dialogue that tweaks the not-so-blissful ignorance of the new homeowners.With his double takes and flawless line delivery, Grant is infallible in this type of farce, and Jim Blandings epitomizes his more domesticated mid-career characters. In a role originally meant for Irene Dunne, Myrna Loy shows why she was Hollywood's perfect wife. She doesn't get many of the funnier lines, but she combines her special blend of flightiness and sauciness to make Muriel an appealing character on her own. Watch her deftly maneuver the overly agreeable house painter with her absurdly idiosyncratic color palette. As avuncular, pipe-smoking Bill ("Cole… Bill Cole"), Melvyn Douglas shows his natural, easy-going élan as Grant's foil. Smaller roles are filled expertly with particularly memorable turns by Harry Shannon as the laconic well-digger Mr. Tesander, Lurene Tuttle as Jim's officious assistant Mary, and Louise Beavers as the Blandings' lovable maid Gussie. The 2004 DVD provides some intriguing vintage material including two radio versions of the movie - the first a 1949 version that did end up pairing Grant and Dunne and then a second 1950 version coupling Grant with his then-wife, actress Betsy Drake. A most appropriate 1949 cartoon, "The House of Tomorrow", is also included giving us a comical tour of a futuristic dream house. The original theatrical trailers for ten of Grant's film classics complete the extras.

Another made for TV piece of junk! This is an insult of a war movie (I use the word movie in it's loosest possible form!) I thought Telly Savalas's career had hit rock bottom when he did the voice over on that visit Birmingham video that's shown on Tarrant on TV on a semi regular basis, but then I'd forgot he was involved in this! I'd tried to push it into my subconscious memory, but cable TV brought the memory kicking and screaming out of me!! I like the bit (laughs sarcastically!) in the film which claims to be a scene from Liverpool in the forties, but it's blatantly a shot of Zagreb Cathedral in the late eighties. Also the steam train the Commando's are training on shows the JZ (Jugoslavia Zeleznice, or Yugoslav state railways) logo's on the side of the locomotive quite clearly, even though the makers have tried to black them out. Why not just film in the UK, if that's where most of the film is set? Cheap rubbish, and a waste of celluloid!

Everyone we meet influences our thinking, modifies our ways, a little bit of that person rubs off onto us. "The Eighth Day" takes up this theme (Compare "Rainmaker"). In this film Harry (Daniel Auteuil) a businessman expert in sales psychology meets up with Georges (Pascal Duquenne), a Down's Syndrome child on the run. Winning performances from both these actors give this film its main strength. The opening sequence is excellent where Georges relates his theory on the creation of the world and in the closing scene we discover what God created on the eighth day. There are some moments in the story that are very frustrating for Harry. For example, Georges who is completely uninhibited demands a pair of expensive shoes and hasn't enough money. It's the kind of scene where you laugh through your tears. I liked the scene where the Down's Syndrome group on a trip to the Art Gallery escape on a bus and gate-crash the Paradis fun park. The most humorous of all the embarrassments is the scene where Harry and Georges pass a horse-float on the highway and, looking back, Georges gives the driver a rude salute. But there are some gentle scenes as well, especially the impressive use of close-ups of hands - hands feeling the sun,wind and rain, hands reaching up, hands reaching out and clasping in love and friendship. This is true cinema which touches the heart. There are very moving scenes where Georges proposes to Nathalie, where Georges cradles Harry's head in his arms, where Georges keeps calling for his dear Mom, where Georges teaches Harry to laugh..I felt there was a profound message in the film that life is beautiful- the very presence of grass (Did you know it cries when you cut it?), the trees overhead, the song of birds, the little insects - all nature's miraculous creatures. They are all there to be enjoyed if we but lie back (like Harry and Georges) look around us and listen......A beautiful film.

All of the X-Men movies were great. And I mean all of them, including the long hated X-Men 3. They had solid characters (Magneto and Xavier were the best ones, in my opinion), and a good story arch.I was all excited when I heard this movie was on production, and my expectations grew bigger and bigger until I saw the movie. I was so disappointed.Hugh Jackman is not a bad actor (his best movie is The Fountain, although you won't hear about this movie when they talk about the actor), and his acting is not what screws the movie up.The whole film is plagued with lots of meaningless characters that add nothing to the plot (like Blob or Gambit), which were tossed there to make fans believe that the film makers had read the original comics.I am a fan of XMen, I have read many, many of their stories and this movie respected none of them. None. Not even the continuity. It doesn't respect Weapon X project, or the relationship between Wolverine and Sabretooth, or Emma Frost, the motivations for wolverine are plain stupid and seen in millions of movies: Revenge for the death of a loved one.Oh. What I was expecting the whole darn movie was a Berseker moment for Wolverine similar to the one he has in X2 in the school when Stryker men come in and he alone decimates the enemy forces, but hey, this is Fox, this a family flick and you will not see explicit violence from the most violent and gruesome Marvel hero.Besides, I had a feeling of constant dejá vù with this movie because Wolverine's Origins are already explained in X2, we already know how he got his adamantium skeleton so it kind of does not make sense to make a movie of something we already know.I personally believe that wolverine is one of those few characters that does not need a solid back-story because mystery is the nature of the character. Do we really want to know how the Joker got his scars?

This is undeniably the scariest game I've ever played. It's not the average shoot-everything-that-moves kind of fps (which I usually don't care much for), but the acceptable gfx, interesting weapons and magic, great surround soundeffects ("Scryeeee, scryeeee..") and above all incredible atmosphere. I love the Scrye, which enables you, at certain places in the games, to see or hear events that happened there in the past. The only game I've had to take regular breaks after a few minutes of playing just because of the intensity of the atmosphere. I'm a great horror fan, escpecially of Clive Barker's stories and movies, and participating in a horror story like this makes me yearn for more games that emphasizes atmosphere and a more involving story. 9/10 (-1 because I'm no fps fan, and perhaps the game was a bit short?)

Horrible. I see many user comments on how great this show is. It truly is a Wanna-Be-Friends - Made in Taiwan knockoff. The jokes are lame as...and the plot is ridiculous. The actors are obviously struggling to be funny and are probably cringing when they hit those awful punchlines (if you can call them that). The bulk of the other users who have commented are obviously from another planet (or at least another continent). There are obviously reasons that TV companies cancel shows...and none of then are when shows are doing well. Make sense? Anyway, steer clear - even if it is raining and there is absolutely nothing else on this planet to do...go stand in the rain instead - more fun.

What if Marylin Monroe, Albert Einstein, Joe Dimaggio and Senator McCarthy were to come together in a mind-bending evening of relativity?This delightful roman à clef never uses the actual names of the characters it so thinly veils and scathingly exposes not only for the individuals they must have been, but also for what they came to represent over time. If you are confused by allegory, or if you like your movies served up predigested and mushy, you won't like this film. It is a demanding opus that rewards on many levels the viewer with the intelligence to appreciate it. Dropping, for the time being, the rigorous avoidance of using the real names of the characters, we see Einstein, about to deliver a pacifist speech to a United Nations hell-bent for nukes, being visited by Marylin Monroe, after filming the notorious Seven Year Itch scene that some say led to the end of her marriage with Joe Dimaggio. They have a lovely interplay in which Einstein stumbles with suitable professorial clumsiness around the innocence of perhaps the greatest sex symbol of modern times. Enter Senator McCarthy who thinks Einstein is a Red. He is determined to extract Einstein's assurance that he will support the activities of the House Unamerican Activities Committee while delivering the ultimate weapon in the name of peace. Add Joe, a surprisingly fragile and vulnerable person perhaps not perfectly cast as Gary Busey, who hates Marylin's exhibitionism and believes Einstein has become her lover, even though Marylin only wants to show Einstein that she understands the Special Theory of Relativity. But there's more. Just like each of us, these characters have their deepest fears, which they reveal one by one in haunting flashbacks. It is these weaknesses, ultimately, that lend humanity to figures we cannot help but see almost exclusively in the abstract today. Finally, we see the shocking terror of Einstein's vision, and the statement of the movie becomes clear. It is a powerful and memorable moment.Insignificance is one of my top five movies of all time. It is utterly amazing.

It is cheese. If all you want is a video game, complete with what look like straight-from-the-computer cutaway sequences for action the film was too cheap to actually make special effects for, this is it. My friend and I actually had a great time seeing it, since the theatre was mostly empty and we could heckle a bit. This movie REALLY requires heckling.Plot? There was a plot? OK, some stupid college or later types get invited to "the rave of the year" and go to one of the San Juan Islands ("If they'd only stayed back in Seattle, they would have survived." - direct quote, or nearly.) to attend. They get there and everyone is gone, and the site is somewhat wrecked (but hey, the keg is still full!). With the help of a crusty old captain and a coast guard woman (who acted only slightly less tough - and slightly less well - than Cynthia Rothrock), they fight lots of zombies (some which spit acid), get an earful of freaky legends, and mostly get killed. That's about it.It's not quite as BAD as Demonicus, but not by much, and still better than Severed (they are sort of my own personal alpha and omega for bad movies - the former is bad but fun to heckle, and the latter is just too freaking bad to watch more than once). On the other hand, if you're expecting a video game movie as excellent as Resident Evil, run away!!! run away now!!!OK, some real big questions (without too many spoilers): Since when did Spanish ships of the 18th century venture into the Pacific Northwest????? Why is anyone in the Pacific Northwest smuggling guns, and to whom - CANADA, for crying out loud??? Why is a rave on an unnamed (oh, excuse me, it's called "isla del muerto", shya, right) San Juan Island - and outdoors, still keeping in mind this is THE PACIFIC NORTHWET. And the rave has about 30 people in attendance - "the rave of the year," my patoot.Lucky thing there's lots of hatchets around. Lots of them. Everyone has them. Must be a hatchet sales outlet nearby.Finally, while the movie started out playing with a little "parody" (with nudges at I Know What You Did and Jaws), it didn't carry it through near enough.OK, really finally - when the introductory comments (in a voice-over, no less) casually mention that one of the characters "gave up her boyfriend to focus on her fencing" you can be darn sure there'll be some fencing by the end of the movie. Not GOOD fencing, but a couple of people hacking at each other with swords, anyway.

'Where the Sidewalk Ends (1950)' opens, appropriately, with Dana Andrews' and Gene Tierneys' names inscribed on the sidewalk, as dirty water streams down between the bars of a sewer grate. The sidewalk represents respectability, integrity and morality – only crooks and delinquents walk in the gutter. But even the most honourable of men have a tendency to misstep on occasion, and, when the sidewalk abruptly comes to an end, sometimes it proves impossible to avoid getting one's shoes wet. Mark Dixon (Dana Andrews) was born in the gutter, his father a professional criminal, and has spent his entire life clawing his way back onto the sidewalk, perpetually balanced on the edge of the kerb. As a police detective, Dixon wants nothing more than to display the decency and integrity that his father lacked, but he possesses a mean-streak that he can't escape. When his quick temper leaves a murder suspect dead, Dixon finds himself becoming the very father whom he despised, a cheap criminal who'll cheat and lie to cover up his offence.'Where the Sidewalk Ends' was the only film to reunite Dana Andrews, Gene Tierney and director Otto Preminger after the superb 'Laura (1944),' though the two films, as far as noir goes, couldn't be further apart. Whereas the earlier picture had the strong intimacy of a country-house murder tale, this film is more conventional as a gritty urban police drama. Given her ravishingly memorable performance as Laura Hunt, it's unfortunate that here Tierney is grossly underused, occupying the typical niche of the pretty, helpless romantic interest {much as she did that same year in Jules Dassin's 'The Night and the City (1950)'}. Andrews, on the other hand, has rarely been better, exhibiting a toughness and unhinged anger that I hadn't expected of him. Gary Merrill is suitably smug as the crime boss Scalise, but he doesn't seem mean enough for the role, and I think that an actor like Richard Conte (who played Mr. Brown in 'The Big Combo (1955)') would have better suited the character; I hadn't realised this, but Conte appeared just one year earlier in Preminger's 'Whirlpool (1949).'The tension, as Dixon attempts to cover up his accidental crime, is absolutely riveting – certainly among the most suspenseful sequences of its era – though I feel that the situation still wasn't exploited to its full potential. The taxi driver is the only person who could have decisively identified Dixon as the perpetrator, but Preminger hurriedly skims over the moment when he passes Dixon on the stairs. Had the witness been brought in as Dixon was re-enacting his own movements outside the apartment entrance, we could have had some genuine fireworks. And why, for that matter, couldn't the taxi driver's testimony have immediately absolved Jiggs Taylor (Tom Tully) from suspicion of murder? Niggling inconsistencies such as these tarnish an otherwise excellent screenplay from Ben Hecht, who infuses his gritty criminal underworld with hard-hitting cops and wise-cracking felons. Andrews' seething and implosive law-enforcer, tormented by rage and remorse, has rarely been done better, at least the equal of Robert Ryan in Nicholas Ray's 'On Dangerous Ground (1952).'

A very gritty, gutsy portrayal of a part of world war 2 history, that most of us in the U.S. had/have no idea ever occurred. I would love to have this on video. It only was shown on t.v. one time as far as I know, back in 89or 90. I have asked around for this movie, and most video stores don't even know about it. Great actresses all around, Wish that I could see it again. Top notch series.

Well here I go with another B industry movie. It's sad enough to see some badly made films but I don't care if a B industry or C industry produces the film. Show some effort in your work. The characters are really bad. The acting isn't in question in this one (surprise), but plot is. How can a tight-knit squad witness two of their fellow soldiers butchered, and then go on as if nothing happened. What sickened me was how the writer even threw in the remaining members a scene where they joke about how nice the doctor's ass was. Give me a break.

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.

Sophmoric this film is. But, it is funny as all get out. It shows the "boys locker room mentality" being played by the "other side". It is good to see such tides turned and how silly they are. But that's probably not news to most women, 'cause (just ask one), "they've heard 'em all before".Watch it with a small group or party of mixed gender and 97.3% of the room will laugh for 2 hours straight. And the other 2.7%...can you ever really please them?

Beating the bad guys... Again is the tag line for this movie, it exposes so much truth about it.Home Alone one and two, film classics. Home Alone three and four, a good film if you're three! Like Sharkboy and Lavagirl, as hard as it tries to be funny, it's not. Culkin is replaced by Alex D'Linz or something else. He's a very bland actor with bland performances, but it's not entirely his fault, the writing called for bland vocabulary and bland expressions. The pranks are just copied from the first two with different crooks, and you'd have to be blind to think those chicken pox are real. A good choice if you are a preschool teacher in which is showing this film on a rainy day. And to make things worst, a totally different cast, go see if you don't believe me, but you'll regret it.

Like watching a neighbor's summer camp home movies, "Indian Summer" is a sleep inducing bore. Eight alumni campers are barely introduced, when unbelievably boring flashbacks begin for characters we know nothing about. Fine actors, Alan Arkin, and Bill Paxton are totally wasted in this film. One camper's observation that "everything seems so much smaller than I remember it" is repeated at least ten times, enough to make you squirm. The anticipated pranks are neither funny or original, unless you think that short sheeting is a real "howler". This movie was a great disappointment considering the ample talent involved. "Indian Summer" did not make me homesick, just sick. - MERK

I don't know...Maybe it's just because it's an impressive tribute to some Muslim religious action(hajj)but I just felt the movie is so underrated. I just can't believe that the movie has just been voted by only 223 people so far given that the movie was produced in 2004 and it has won many awards since then.About the movie...it's one of those well-acted sweet movies.Reda,a French teenager due to sit for Baccalauréat, is asked by his devout elderly father to take him to Mecca.Strange as it may seem(if one doesn't know much about Islam)the father wants his son to drive them from their home in France to Saudia Arabia on a once-in-a-lifetime religious pilgrimage.The generation gap between the father and the son is based on simple enough terms('you may know how to read and write, but you know nothing about life,' the unnamed father to his son)but some sort of bromidic generation gap literature is avoided.Bot of them are affectionate in their frustrations.The father never speaks in French though Reda understands Arabic but can only seem to answer in French. Though they encounter many people on the road: "There's the scary old woman they pick up in the Bosnian border on the way to Belgrade, and the talkative Mustafa(Jacky Nercessian), who helps them out at the border of Turkey,the reticent and shy women wearing burqas on the way to Damascus" the focus is always on the mismatched father and son.There is not much of a conversation in the movie which makes it enjoyable to your eyes. You see magnificent views in every city they go.The director shows you even the Blue Mosque and the Hagia Sophia even though the movie is not relatively long.Generally I don't like movies which don't have enough dialogs and which take their power from camera subtleties but this one was really great.Despite some unanswered details(like Reda's unseen French girlfriend)the movie appeals to senses.Great work of art and remember this movie is Ismaël Ferroukhi's debut.

I've been willing to put up with a lot from late-spring/summer action fluff movies, but in general that's been due to the fact that most of them have reasonable payoff (i.e. cool special effects, interesting plot twists, comic value, Steve Buscemi, etc.). This movie, however, had none of this. All that we got was the cheap thrill of several minutes of Eva Longoria's cleavage (an issue of Maxim is cheaper than a movie ticket). There is an embarrassing lack of plot, suspense, back story, character development, continuity, etc. I would get into specifics, but quite frankly I've already-maybe willingly-forgotten most of the movie.The entire time I was in the theater, I was kicking myself for not just spending the afternoon watching a 24 season on DVD. Save your money on this one, folks. Unless you really, really, really like Eva Longoria's cleavage.

I don't know where to begin. This movie feels a lot like one of those cheap Saturday morning kids shows that they used to make back in the late eighties early nineties. Sort of like Captain Power or the Power Rangers. It's full of bad digital overlays and really cheesy sounding "secret agencies" and villains.The acting is so bad that it's not even funny. The direction is terrible and there is little to now continuity. It seems as if someone just threw a bunch of scenes together and forgot that there was supposed to be a plot.Perhaps one of the most ridiculous scenes in the movie comes early on, when several villains plant an explosive device in an agents car. For some reason, even though the device is clearly stated as being "remote detonated" the bad guys decide to chase her down on their motorcycles as she drives away. This chase carries on. all the while with the bad guys doing ludicrous and completely pointless bike stunts. Standing up on the bikes, doing wheelies and so on. At one point, a crash happens and one of the attackers is thrown from his bike, we see the bike (clearly cgi) thrown over the agents car but the rider has vanished. Then, a few seconds later the rider and bike return...apparently unscathed by the crash. At this point even though the car has an explosive device planted in it, the attackers choose to shoot the agent while driving past, then blow up her car. Which was also clearly done with cgi. Sound confusing? It is, and so is the rest of the movie.I might point out that when I say cgi, we aren't talking about Lord Of The Rings type cgi here. We're talking the cheap cheesy Power Rangers type cgi, actually I think it would have been done better on Power Rangers.Why Savini and Todd did this movie I will never know, I can only assume they did for money, as a favor to someone or because they were blackmailed into it...probably the last one.

This is a haunting, powerful Italian adaptation of James M. Cain's novel The Postman Always Rings Twice directed by the great Luchino Visconti. What is so interesting about the film is that in every way it transcends it's source material to become something bolder and more original (interestingly Camus also credits Cain's novel as the key inspiration for his landmark novel The Stranger). The film has a greater power and intensity than the novel because Visconti is able to create the filmic equivalent of Cain's narrative structure but offer a more complex exploration of gender. Cain's very American novel is also uncritically fascinated with the construction of whiteness (the lead character Cora is obsessively afraid she will be identified as a Mexican and embarrassed that she married a Greek immigrant), which is not relevant to the Italian rural context that Visconti is working in. This allows the class antagonisms to take center stage and dance among the embers of the passionate, doomed love affair of the two main characters. This film is a complex, suspenseful, rewarding experience.

This is one strange hacked together film, you get the feeling that the bond company had to come in on this one, I'm not surprised there's no credits on it, who would want to be associated with this film. The Acting of all involved is terribly stilted and the plot jumps around all over, it all makes very little sense. As I said before it looks like the bond company had to come in because it seems like there was alot of footage that wasn't shot that needed to be, and all the music was very ill-fitting library music (cheap I guess). Very, very odd. I might actually buy a DVD of it though, if it could let me in on what the hell was going on, and what happened to this movie.

This movie was strange... I watched it while ingesting a quarter of psilcybe cubensis (mushrooms). It was really weird. Im pretty sure you are supposed to watch it high, but mushrooms weren't enough. I couldn't stop laughing.. maybe lsd would work. The movie is a bunch of things morphing into other things, and dancing. Its really cheesy for todays standards but when it was released im sure it was well... one of a kind. I could see how some people would think this movie was good, but I didn't think it was very interesting, and I was on mushrooms at the time. If your having a party or something and everybodys pretty lit, pop it on you'll get a few laughs.

this was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I'm still not sure if it was serious, or just a satire. One of those movies that uses every stupid who dunnit cliché they can think of. Arrrrgh.Don Johnson was pretty good in it actually. But otherwise it sucked. It was over 10 years ago that I saw it, but it still hurts and won't stop lingering in my brain. The last line in the movie really sums up how stupid it is. I won't ruin it for you, should you want to tempt fate by viewing this movie. But I garantee you a *nghya* moment at the end, with a few in between. If you have nothing better to do, and you like to point and laugh, then maybe it might be worth your while. Additionally, if you're forced to go on a date with someone you really don't like, suggest watching this movie together, and they'll probably leave you alone after they see it. That's a fair price to pay, I guess.

"One of Hung's better early efforts. The humor is dead-on in parts as Hung tries to imitate Lee's moves and facial expressions, and also in a bit where Hung pokes fun at Jackie Chan's Drunken Master. The action is also pretty good, especially when Hung takes on a trio on martial arts experts at the end. It's not the greatest film, but pretty good for '70's kung fu, especially if you're a fan of Hung and/or Lee. Be warned, though: most video versions of the movie have pretty shoddy quality. There is also a character in blackface which some people might find offensive.Sammo Hung is a rural swine-herder who moves to Hong Kong to fight off some bad guys. Sammo turns on his dead-on Bruce Lee impersonation when fighting! This film is often billed as a parody of Bruce Lee's "Enter The Dragon", but it's not exactly that... Sammo is a rural swine herder--obsessed with Bruce Lee--who moves to Hong Kong to help his relatives run a small open-air restaurant. Once situated at the new job, he is forced to defend the eatery from local gangsters looking for protection money. When Sammo switches into fighting mode, he switches on his Bruce Lee impersonation, which must be seen to be believed! This film is pretty sloppy, in many of the fight scenes Sammo battles against people who are obviously actors rather than martial artists, and there's one character who's supposed to be black who is played by an Asian man in heavy (and preposterous) makeup. But what this film lacks in budget and accuracy, it more than makes up for in atmosphere and energy. Highly recommended for a good mood."

This movie will kick your ass! Powerful acting in a story that pushes all of us to live out our dreams. Jake Gyllenhaal will go places from here, and the supporting cast was superb. Why would would anyone want to stay in Coalville and develop black lung anyway?

This was an exteremely good historical drama. John Turturro is excellent as the tortured genius Luzhin and brilliantly portrays the character's manic affectations such as his strange dancing. Emily Watson is fine in her support role as the sensitive lover Natalia.The relatonship between chess and near madness is well explored by Gorris and familiar Nabokov preoccupations such as 'eternal innocence' (i.e. 'Lolita') are evident in this film. I think I will now go on to read the novel. It was a touching and tragic ending and it was hard to keep a dry eye. Brilliant movie!

This film has to be the worst I have ever seen. The title of the film deceives the audience into thinking there maybe hope. The story line of the film is laughable at best, with the acting so poor you just have to cringe. The title 'Zombie Nation' implies a hoard of zombies when in fact there are six in total. This cannot be categorised as a horror film due to the introduction of cheesy 80's music when the zombies 'attack'. The zombies actually talk and act like human beings in the film with the only difference being the make up which looks like something out a La Roux video. If you ever get the chance to buy this film then do so, then burn the copy.

I saw this film at the Toronto Film Festival, where it received a standing ovation! This film tells a story that to my knowledge has never been told before--namely about the Rosenstrasse (a street in Berlin)uprising of German gentile women who were married to Jews at the end of the Second World War. As such, it is a unique story, and what's more, is the only film about the Holocaust that I have ever seen that shows that there were GOOD Germans (the helping family in "Anne Frank" for instance was Dutch) who did NOT support the Nazis, and, in fact, had the fortitude to stand up against their own country's immorality and brutality during the Nazi regime, at the risk of their very lives. The acting is great across the board, the framing story in New York interesting and intricate, the direction from Von Trotta masterful in every scene, and the production values, including the gorgeous cinematography, outstanding. Of course the family in New York could be speaking German. Many immigrants in this country choose to speak in their native tongue with their family--a common occurrence. So that criticism is unwarranted. To say more would spoil the experience. The film is long, but I did not look at my watch once. I am hoping this film gets some distribution is North America, for not only is this film a masterpiece, but it can actually help heal any animosity people have towards the Germans because of their support of Hitler. If this film is playing in your area, I URGE YOU TO SEE IT! You will be glad you did!

Sudden Impact was overall better than The Enforcer in my opinion. It was building up to be a great movie, but then I saw the villain(s) and was disappointed.Sudden Impact was different than the previous installments. The plot went a different direction in this movie, as Dirty Harry doesn't take as much of a police approach this time around. We also don't see the villain(s) until later, which means less screen time for them, which is better for us all.Clint Eastwood once again steals the show as Dirty Harry, enough said. Pat Hingle was enjoyable as Chief Jannings, Harry's new assigned boss. Bradford Dillman seemed to change his name to Captain Briggs here, either way, he wasn't any different. Michael Currie is decent as Lt. Donnelly, Harry's annoying superior. I personally enjoyed Kevyn Major Howard as Hawkins, the young punk who has a vendetta against Harry. Albert Popwell was excellent as Horace, Harry's buddy. Audrie J. Neenan was good as Ray Parkins, a famous lesbian around town. Jack Thibeau was well cast as Kruger, a pervert. Now for the really bad part. Sandra Locke, Eastwood's long-time lover was horribly miscast as Jennifer Spencer, Harry's love interest. And Paul Drake was just horrible as Mick.The movie would have been so much better if not for better writing and acting on some parts.8/10.

First, the CGI in this movie was horrible. I watched it during a marathon of bad movies on the SciFi channel. At the end when the owner of the park gets killed, it's probably one of the worst examples of CGI I have even seen. Even Night of the Living Dead had better animation.That said, the movie had almost no plot. Why were they on that island in particular? Well, it wasn't stated in the movie. And, why would the people keep coming into the cat's area? Makes no sense.One thing that stood out in this movie was moderately good acting. In what could be called a "B made for TV movie" movie, the acting was very good. Parry Shen stood out in particular.If you have absolutely nothing to do on a Saturday, watch this movie. It may be good for some memorable quotes.

There are plenty of comments already posted saying exactly how I felt about this film so Ill keep it short."The Grinch" I thought was marvellous - Jim Carrey is a truly talented, physical comedian as well as being a versatile clever actor (in my opinion). Mike Myers on the other hand gets his laughs by being annoying. I used to like him very much in his "Waynes World" and "So I Married an Axe Murderer" days - but Ive never been fond of Austin Powers and "the Cat In The Hat" has just finished me off. This film was horrible - the gags were horrible! inappropriate for children not only in adult content but in the fact that some of them were so dated they havent amused anyone for 50 years! The plot was messy, messy, messy! Its a shame really because the children were very likeable as was "Mom". They probably could have picked a better villain than Alec Baldwin - but he could have pulled it off if it weren't for Myers ugly, revolting over-acted portrayal of the Cat.I mean - did Myers even glance at a script? Was one written? The other actors seemed to have one - but the Cat just seemed to be winging it!On the other hand I would like to mention that the sets and props were marvellous!!! But unfortunately they cant save this film.Poor Dr Seuss - the man was a genius! Dont ruin his reputation by adapting his work in a such a lazy, messy way!!!1/10

Man, some of you people have got to chill. This movie was artistic genius. Instead of searching for reasoning or messages to justify it in your reality, why can't you understand that it is a work of fiction? A story. Entertainment, for God's sake (no pun intended). It seems to me that too many of the people on here are trying to be movie critics--and they're not doing to well. I'm so impressed by the movie and Bill Paxton's job at directing, that I'm going to contact him personally to tell him. Ya know, if you weren't trying to analyze the heck out of the possibility of the story line, you might just enjoy the film. Me and all of my friends did!

MINOR SPOILERS!Well i just sat up late and watched this film, mainly because i enjoyed and rated some of Singleton's earlier work like "Boyz n the hood". However, i have to say this was a major disappointment and is everything i hate about contrived, clichéd, so-called "message" movies. The acting is mainly poor,(pop stars and models do NOT necessarily make good actors...take note), the situations hard to swallow, (rape victim becomes overnight lesbian?...please!), but worst of all it reinforces every screwed up stereotype you can think of. By the second half of the film it has become cartoon like in its characterisation, making you lose any shred of empathy you may have had for its one-dimensional players.Not once is any valid point made about the inherent causes of racism and cultural, sexual and political ignorance. As a result it merely ends up sensationalising the results of these problems. It's message is contradictory, resulting in a sense of confusion and a general lack of plot cohesion. As for the films conclusion i found it predictable, embarrassing, exploitative and mildly offensive. For a film called "Higher Learning" i have to say all i learned is to avoid seeing this ever again.If you want a true comment on some of the themes that this film completely fails to elaborate upon then go hire "American History X"....unless you were just watching it for Tyra Banks then go hire a life.

It's not very often a movie can literally make the entire audience laugh, and five minutes later fill their eyes with tears. Many movies try to do this, but few can deliver the emotional impact that this film did. Adam Sandler practically drags you in with his heated and often violent outbursts, but also makes you laugh when the shadow of his past isn't pulling him down. I'm not going to ruin anything, but there is one scene in particular that should have your eyes watering and lip quivering. Even the most macho of men would have to be heartless bastards to not feel something while watching this movie. Don Cheadle gives another great performance, but is out-shined by Sandler. Liv Tyler and Jada Pinkett Smith give solid performances, but nothing in the line of the two leading roles. Sandler's humor is still present, which actually saved this film from being border-line depressing. There are several laughs to be had, but don't think you will stay there long, because it gets serious again without much warning.I could go on and on about how well this movie hit on just about every emotion the human body contains, but I will cut this one short. I feel there is no need to tell you anything more. Do yourself a favor and take the time to see this movie. Even if you have to wait until it comes out on DVD, it's 100% worth the time. A deeply moving film sure to put tears in your eyes and a smile on your face...unless of course...you are a heartless soul.

Saw this movie in an early preview, and I cannot stress enough how bad I thought this film was. From the very beginning, the audience was groaning over Pacino's awful southern accent. Poor Al looked really, really haggard, and I can't decide whether this was purposely part of his role as a drug addicted publicist, or perhaps he just didn't get any sleep before coming to the set. Much worse than Pacino's close ups, however, is the wretched excuse for a plot. Early in the film we are given indications that Pacino's character is gay, and I suspect that is what the screenwriter had originally intended. Later, however, we are supposed to suspend our incredulity and believe that both Tea Leoni and Kim Basinger (both of whom are sleepwalking through lame roles) lust after this elderly, half dead looking, effeminate man with the ridiculous accent. The worst part overall was the main plot thread, which had to do with some corporate espionage that is never fully explained and we never, ever care about in the slightest. Because this was a preview I will reserve my final judgment, because of the possibility of re-shoots and editing, but you can bet I will not pay a cent to see this in theaters.

It's beyond my comprehension that so much rubbish from Norway has been remastered for DVD release, and still gems like this don't get a shot at recapturing their past glory. I give this a 7, not because it is very good, but because it is one of the few SciFi films made for Norwegian television. This film is nothing less than a film-historic gem that in so many ways foreshadows the first Alien film. And, my word, Blindpassasjer was first! Did Ridley Scott or anyone in the crew see the mini-series? However unlikely, the fact remains that the scenes are extremely similar. Okay, the budget is _much_ lower in the Norwegian film, but given that, it's a really well-done piece of work from the desolate age of Norwegian movie-making, which incidentally lasted until the 90s.

Watching this again after a gap of many years and remembering the flop it was upon its original release, I am surprised at how well it has held up. One of the reasons for its failure was that one generation just thought it was over indulgent crap and a younger one was disappointed that it did not show the full hippy glory. Seen now it is clear that Antonioni was already aware of and fascinated by the heady mix of fervent enthusiasm for change and a lack of any clear vision for the future. The lead pair are excellent and it is shameful that they took so much flak for the film's perceived failure. They are ideal and convey perfectly the various contradictions and demonstrate a pure delight in lovemaking. I blame others for the over emphasis on the student revolt sequences at the start but have to say that from there on in this is one of the directors most beautiful looking pictures and he certainly got the very best out of the man made and natural landscapes. Oh, and I haven't even mentioned the highly explosive ending.

Boy oh boy oh golly gee,The most interesting thing in the movie was the hilarity of the bluescreen effects used to create Mom's "invisibility." They looked like they were shot on cheap video, and it looks totally unreal, and not even in a good way where its so funny that you end up loving the movie...I did NOT end up loving this movie. The attempted "steadicam" shots were really pathetic as well. I mean, hey, if they had a low budget flick, that's fine. You can still make a great movie with a low budget. But, a BAD movie and a low budget AND effects. That makes for a bad combination. In this case, such a doomed combo created the craptastic film, "Invisible Mom." If you have kids, and your kids have no taste, perhaps they will stay awake through all of this one.

In addition to his "Tarzan" series, the prolific Edgar Rice Burroughs did write many other books, although, aside from the popular "At the Earth's Core", few of these have been filmed. One exception is the novel entitled "The Lad and the Lion", brought to the screen as "The Lion Man" (1936), an over-talkative, static, old-hat, slow-moving and rather dull movie, despite being filmed on real desert locations. Actually "movie" is the wrong word. The narrative doesn't move but proceeds at a snail's pace in an abrupt series of jerks. For instance, at least five characters are given elaborate opening scenes and then just disappear. Even more frustrating for the keen movie fan, are the characters who make an impression of sorts (like the lass who plies Hall with drugged wine) but are enacted by players who are not credited! The credited thespians generally come off worse than the unknowns. One exception is Australian actress Finis Barton who gives a good account of the kidnapped harem girl who rescues young Master Fairy. Admittedly, most of the cast are saddled with atrocious King James dialogue which has to be heard to be believed! But the way to play this rubbish is tongue-in-cheek, a stratagem which does not seem to have occurred to a single one of the film's roster of no-talent players. Maybe director J.P. McCarthy scotched that idea. Anyway, it's sad to see the lovely Kathleen Burke forced to trade lines with the likes of Richard Carlyle (her dad) and Jon Hall (her suitor). Admittedly, Mr Hall delivers his lines with marginally more conviction than Mr Carlyle, but that is no recommendation.

This movie reminds me of "Irréversible (2002)", another art-work movie with is a violent and radical approach of human nature. I did not like the movie but I cannot say that it is a bad movie, it is just special. I reminds me also of "Camping Cosmos (1996)" where a bunch of low-class figures are residents of a camp at the sea in Belgium. The same description of people living together, side by side against their wills and with all the confrontation of characters that do not match together. I also thought about the books by the French writer Emile Zola who was a writer of the style that is naturalism. I did not like the movie and I also do not like the people who are in it. They all seem so vulgar, without any basic good taste. One could ask the question why do they live, they all seem to be on this planet a a member of a big farce, forced to live against their will. Or you could say: the hell is on this world.

Like A Streetcar Named Desire (also directed by Gadg both on stage and screen) Panic In The Streets depicts a New Orleans in which its major claim to fame - the birthplace of Jazz - doesn't even rate a mention. It was Richard Widmark's seventh film and arguably went a long way to establishing him as the fine actor he really was rather than merely a psychotic killer. Gadg himself appears in an uncredited small role as a morgue attendant but the film is rich in talent beginning with Jack Palance (still being billed as Walter Jack Palance)as the local Mr 'Big' followed side-kick Zero Mostel, Barbara Bel Geddes, Emile Meyer, Tommy Rettig plus the rock-solid ever reliable Paul Douglas as the cop who comes round to doc Widmark's point of view. It's a very rewarding movie more so for being little seen. Catch it if you can.

No hidden agenda. Pure scifi. All fun.I saw the original on TV and was scared pretty bad. I was a kid :)The original one can be appreciated more when compared to the new one which I saw and have forgotten. The original one, starring the great movie star Steve McQueen (BULLET), is by far the better and only version anyone should see.The movie production is dated, but the fx used to make the Blob stands up the test of time. I was convinced that that thing was moving on its own accord. 10/10-Zafoid

Robert Urich was a fine actor, and he makes this TV movie believable. I remember watching this film when I was 15, and when seeing it a second time my opinion stays the same. People lose who they were when enter this exclusive club, in a computer rich Californian town. Urich try's to figure out what is wrong with his family, and I love the Halloween space suit idea, brilliant. This film is about the battle of one's sprit. TV quality, that exceeds, the big budget, Gangs of New York. I wonder if Robert Urich was the compassionate man he portrayed in many of his movie? I hope so! 6 or 7 out of 10.

Have you ever seen a movie made up entirely of long wide shots? No? Me, neither. Well, I've finally seen one in "Spring in my Hometown," and I must confess, now I KNOW why people don't do this. The technique is "arty," to be sure, but it's definitely NOT ripe for public consumption. The technique is heavily flawed simply because the viewer has no emotional attachment to the characters, and perhaps that might be the director's whole intentions. I don't know, I can't read minds, and I certainly don't know enough about the director to make a judgement.But one thing about this movie that IS painfully obvious is its ridiculous anti-American sentiments. As an American, I'm well aware of my country's participation in the Korean War, and I'm very well aware that we weren't always angels, but I'll be damn if I'll take this guy's version of how things happened. According to this blind fool, Americans were not only at the root of the war, we were the CAUSE of the war, and we almost singlehandedly destroyed the country. Whatever, Mister Director. And I suppose you'd still be making this film in COMMUNIST KOREA if we hadn't interfered, right? Talk about forgetting your history. This is almost akin to making the Nazis the "good guys" while turning the Allied forces into the "bad guys." This movie is so historically naive and so factually inaccurate that it's almost embarrassing to watch. For a man who comes from a country that owes its very EXISTENCE to American interference, he sure comes off as high and mighty and judgemental.

While the 'special effects' and technical attributes of this movie may in fact be laughable to some, I have never been able to erase the images this movie etched on my young and impressionable mind when I first saw it at around 8 years of age. The story of this girl's survival and of the trials she endured have stayed with me all these years, and I have thought back on more than one occasion about how the girl made it out of situations far beyond anything I have seen.The fact that this is a true story, and the fact that I was only a child when I first saw this may be the reason behind my high rating of this movie. Each time this movie aired on television in the 70s and 80s I would be riveted to the television, drinking in each scene with an interest I cannot explain. I suppose watching this for the first time as an adult (and with a jaded view of the world) it may not be as enjoyable to some. I actually went out of my way to obtain a copy so I could show this movie to my son.This, like many other movies, is not for everyone. If you are impressed by remarkable human survival stories, are partial to Peru/Macchu Picchu and/or the Amazon, then I believe you might enjoy this movie as much as I have been enjoying it for the past 30 years.

In what seemed like the longest 1hour 35 I've had to endure in a long time, Al Pacino delivers an accurate performace to be sure. Not his usual typecasting, which was nice. But his character was just truely pathetic. Someone to pitty as he stumbles around forgetting appointments as we realise that the Hollywood social life has drained him of his life energy. But in this movie we needed someone to like. And for some reason, every character in the picture said "I don't know why I like you, Eli" to Al Pacino's chracter and I couldn't even come close to liking him.All the other actors played their usual styles. Tea Leoni, Richard Schiff, and Bill Nunn did nothing to change their established personas developed on TV or in earlier films. And Kim Basinger wasn't even in the film long enough to deliver a performance of any kind.The movie's story had no momentum. Most scenes never driving the story forward, but rather just collecting factoids about characters which later came into play in an anti-climactic ending. It had potential except for their unwillingness to build upon the story.Whats the point of the film? Daniel Algrant and Jon Robin Baitz would have you believe "Once Hollywood has you, you can't get out." Yeah right! And that's why so many people get fired in Hollywood.

BASEketball is awesome! It's hilarious and so damned funny that you will wet your pants laughing. I have seen it so many times I have stopped counting. But everytime it gets funnier.Trust me on this one...BASEketball is a surefire hit and I loved it and will continue to love it. I hope one day there will be a special edition DVD brought out!!!Ten Thumbs Up!!!

If another Hitler ever arises, it will be thanks in part to nonsense like this film, which propagates the absurd notion that he was a visibly deranged lunatic from the start. Far from following such a person and electing him to the highest office in the land, sane people would cross the street to avoid him, and he would have died in a ditch, nameless and unknown.Anyone who reads the accounts of Hitler's close companions - the autobiography of his secretary Traudl Junge for instance - will be struck by the fact that people found him a kindly, intelligent, generous man. He was also a brilliant orator, and the fact that his speeches seem overblown and ranting to modern ears ignores the times in which they were made, when strutting pomposity was common in political speeches. Ditto the overstated anti-Semitism, which was neither a central plank of the early Nazis - who were primarily anti-communist - nor uncommon or unusual for the times. The film makes it look as though Hitler's sole ambition from the start was the Holocaust.If you want to identify the next person who will cause the death of tens of millions, you can ignore fleck-lipped ravers life the one portrayed here. Look instead for a charming, charismatic man whose compelling speeches inspire the entire nation, and whose political work visibly and materially benefits the country. I'm afraid his personality will be much more like Barack Obama's than Fred Phelps'.I hoped for much here, and got nothing but caricature. The fools who made this thing perpetrated a crime against reality. This is the historical equivalent of 'Reefer Madness'.

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

This electrifying musical has more than a whiff of egotism from it's star, the musical genius that is Prince. The film is 90 or so minutes of posing but in truth it is easy to see why it is such a cult classic.Much like other films that centre around the struggling young musician trying to be big, this has a hint of drama in it to add a dimension to the musical numbers. While this film isn't as good as 8 mile as a recent example, this is entertaining none the less and the soundtrack is much better. On the dramatic side of things the story centres around the Kid (Prince) a young artist and regular spot at a club. The owner of the club is frustrated with the Kid's arrogance and little does the Kid know that he could soon be fired and replaced by a rival. One the side the Kid's parents are having trouble, with his dad abusing her violently. During the course of the film the Kid learns a few lessons in life, and learns to appreciate his friends more. It's all stuff we have seen in coming of age dramas of course, but this is combined as a musical, a very stylised musical.The cast are good. Prince is actually quite good on the drama side, when he's not striking a pose. He seems human and relatable. Clarence Williams is very good as the abusive father as well. Appollonia Kotero makes a good debut as Princes sexy love interest.The main strength of the movie however is the superb soundtrack. The musical numbers are well staged and electrifying. Prince is no doubt a musical maestro, albeit very eccentric. When he is inspired he is great but on the flip side he will often do songs that are solely for his own taste, and occasionally his experimentation can miss-fire, but that is the same for many musical geniuses. The soundtrack for this film is excellent though, with only Sexshooter being a weak point. The show-stopping performance of Purple Rain is the standout though. It is one of my all time favourite songs. ***

I don't give much credence to AIDS conspiracy theories but its sociologically interesting to see the phenomenon dramatized. In the early years of the AIDS epidemic, the suffering and paranoia of the scared and dying often generated such dark fantasies. This was especially true in the politically radical and sexually extreme demi-monde of San Francisco. The city, renowned for its beauty, has rarely appeared uglier than in this film. A sense of darkness and decomposition pervades every scene.While the acting and plot can't be said to be well-done the films unique cultural context and oppressively dark mood at least partly saves the film from being a complete loss. Actually, I found the most interesting performance to be Irit Levi as a crusty and cynical Jewish, lesbian (?) police detective. She's interesting, though not necessarily convincing.Highlights: the film's use of the garishly tragic Turandot is an effective motif and there is a sublime silent cameo by iconic performance artist, Ron Athey.

Average viewers looking for any sense of internal coherence in a film should probably give this one a pass. It generates the same feeling as staring at a curious array of individual images that seem to have some relationship one to another, but never coalesce into a totality.While this isolative approach to creating a kind of cinematic montage may appeal to a few students or critics steeped in the inside language of contemporary filmmaking, it is flatly irritating and condescending to us commoners who just fell off the haywagon. An overt avoidance of accessibility may be the intentional hallmark of auteurs like Kar-wai Wong and Tarantino, but to me it comes across as Andy Warhol warmed over. The only redeeming characteristic I find is in the production values, and them there just ain't going to cut it all by themselfs.This is one of those productions in which you watch and listen and wait anxiously and in vain for some clever development of an idea or thought to sustain all the remarkable and beautiful individual scenes. Sorry. The calligraphic credits unexpectedly begin to roll just as your interest begins to stir. I get the same big yawn and let-down reading what I guess are very knowledgeable and thorough comments about this film that never lead to anything truly comprehensible. Ideas and images without some external context are not my idea of fun.Call me a philistine roaming the streets of Hong Kong looking for a bowl of chop suey.

I'd always wanted David Duchovney to go into the movie business, and finally he did, and he made me proud. This movie lived up to what I had hoped for. Duchovney played his character very well, managing to remain consistent with something new, instead of playing the Agent Molder we are used to. Therefore, I give him extra credit for his role, also because I could not see anyone else playing that particular character. David was great, but nothing compared to the psychotic Timothy Hutton. A brilliant performance that you don't get tired of throughout the movie, because he never fails to surprise you. He has weaknesses, and strengths, making the story all the more believable. I also very much enjoyed the narration, it added to the story a good deal, and had some very memorable quotes that i still use to all the time. This movie also had a wounderfull score. I recomend this for anyone who likes drama, and doesn't mind blood.

For those of you who think anime is just about giant reptiles raping schoolgirls, think again. There is a totally different side to the Japanese animation. Yakitate! Japan is one of those shows. It is a sweet-natured tale of a young boy with the gift to make delicious bread. His universe is all about creating a Japanese bread that can match with the famous European breads. The show is as wacky as they come and I'm sure that non-Japanese viewers will miss a lot of the jokes. But it is still very nice to watch because of the complete innocent vibe of the show. In the world of Yakitate! it is not uncommon for people to look like they've just had an orgasm after eating bread. The bread is hallucinating and can give the consumer a wide array of super powers, from time-traveling to swimming like a fish. That weird aspect makes it into one of the least predictable and funny shows I've watched in a while.

Like Freddy's Revenge, this sequel takes a pretty weird idea and doesn't go to great lengths to squeeze a story out of it. Basically Alice from number 4 is pregnant and her baby is haunted by Freddy which gives him an outlet to haunt her friends. This has the least deaths out of the whole series and the wise-cracks are quite poor, so neither the horror fans or comedy fans are happy. I've not alot to say about this. It's moderately interesting to see the characters of Alice and Dan returning from four, but not worth watching a movie over. Uninspriring and unenjoyable, possibly only the competant direction saves it from being the worst in the series.

This could be a strong candidate for "The Worst Flick Ever". Perhaps without the presence of John Hurt, it could be tolerated as a kid-film. However, the TRAGEDY of this entire endeavor, is that John Hurt, one of the screen's greatest actors, diminishes himself in this....I gave it two points just because Mr. Hurt SHOWED UP...I take AWAY 8 points, because he didn't run from it fast enough. As far as the rest of the cast, they are, simply, terrible. Janine Turner, as pretty as she might be, cannot act to save her soul. And the lead actor is, for all intents and purposes, AWFUL. If you can spare yourself this embarrassment, please do so. It's so bad, it almost HURTS.

I've seen plenty of Sci-Fi Channel Original movies ever since I started watching them back in 2002 (My first one was Sabretooth - which actually is one of the more entertaining Sci-Fi Channel features in my opinion). Their quality varies. Some of them are average but decent (Sabretooth, Dragon Fighter, Never Cry Werewolf, Swamp Devil), some are laughably bad, and then there are some that are truly terrible. Raptor Planet lies in the latter. Raptor Planet, a loose sequel to the 2004 Sci-Fi Channel Original Raptor Island, is a barely watchable mess of a film with truly horrid acting and lazy scriptwriting. The effects that bring the dinosaurs to life (a combination of puppetry and animatronics as well as CGI and stock footage from Raptor Planet) are some of the worst looking effects I've seen in a low budget film. The gore effects are even unconvincing. The plot involves a bunch of commandos who for some reason (I forget why) travel to a planet of alien dinosaurs. That's right folks, the dinosaurs are aliens. Dinosaurs in outer space. What's next, sharks in space?!? The rest of the plot is simple. The human cast are picked off and eaten. By now, we've come to expect this in the numerous dinosaurs movies and novels that are released, but this is the first killer dinosaur movie I've seen where I actually became bored with all the dinosaur attacks.There are a few chuckles in it though. There's one scene that stands out in which a man is being munched by a Carnotaur (brought to life by stock footage from the original film) that seconds later becomes a giant raptor. Also, a bit of trivia, this is the scene where Steven Baur is shooting at his own death scene from the first movie. While Raptor Island wasn't a good film to begin with, its a masterpiece compared to its sequel.Believe me when I say, this is quite possibly the worst movie Syfy has ever aired. It's darn near unwatchable.

That's a snippet of choice dialogue delivered by the evil, ballbusting lady assistant of a famous scientist to her prim maid just before she lures three incredibly dumb college girls to a mansion for behavior modification experiments. Meanwhile, at the local bar, people drink and dance to lame 80s rock songs. A biker punk has sex with a cycle slut on a pinball table in front of a crowd of people, then tries to rape the scientist's virginal daughter Jessica (Debra Hunter), who is in love with another biker (Dale Midkiff, from PET SEMATARY), who, in turn, is in cohorts with the assistant! Back at the house, the sorority bimbos swim, shower, change clothes and have sex with men from the bar. A small silver ball (part of the experiment) flies into victims mouths and turns them into drooling, killer zombies!If that isn't enough to entertain you, there's a hilarious theme song ("Nightmare Fantasy"), roller skating, some serious daisy dukes and a psychic hand puppet (!?) that warns "DANGER! DANGER!" just like the LOST IN SPACE robot and recommends hitchhiking as one of the best ways to pick up men!This filmed-in-Florida mess is so mind-numbingly awful that multiple viewings are recommended to soak it all in. And, hey isn't that NYPD Blue's Detective Jill Kirkendall turned CNN newscaster Andrea Thompson as one of oft-nude bimbos? Sure is! Supposedly this was started in 1982 and new footage was added later for the video release in 1985.Score: 1 out of 10 (and I mean that in a good way!)

I remember I loved this movie when it came out. I was 12 years old, had a Commodore 64 and loved to play Rambo on it. I was therefore really thrilled when I got to buy this movie really cheap. I put it in my VCR and started up: Man this movie is really bad! Sylvester Stallone says like 3 words in the entire movie (except for that awful sentimental speech at the end), and has the same expression on his face all the way. And that stupid love thing in the middle, it's just so amazingly predictable. I just ended up fast forwarding the entire thing and went to exchange the movie for something else.

This was Keaton's first feature and is in actuality three shorts, set in different periods (Stone Age, Roman Age, Modern Age) on the eternal triangle of romance. The stories parallel each other as in Griffith's INTOLERANCE, which this was intended to satirize. The strengths of the jokes and gags almost all rely on anachronisms, bringing modern day business into ancient settings.**** WARNING - SPOILERS FOLLOW TO ELABORATE BEST POINTS ******Here are the classic moments:Using a turtle as a wee-gee board (Stone Age); A wrist watch containing a sun dial (Roman Age); A chariot with a spare wheel (Roman Age); Using a helmet as a tire lock (Roman Age); Early golf with clubs and rocks(Stone Age); Dictating a will being carved into a rock (Stone Age); The changing weather forecaster (Roman Age); The chariot race in snow -Buster using skis and huskies with a spare dog in the chariot's boot(Roman Age).The above are all throw-away gags that keep us chuckling. There are however unforgettable moments as well:Buster taking out shaving equipment to match girl putting on make-up; The fantastic double take when an inebriated Buster gazes at his plate to discover a crab staring up at him (within one second he has leaped to stand on his chair from a sitting position and leaped again into the arms of the waiter - one of the funniest moments I've ever seen). And that lion - the manicure -just brilliant.There's also an off-color bit of racism when four African-American litter bearers abandon their mistress for a Roman crap game.Kino's print is a bit fuzzy and contains numerous sequences of both nitrate deterioration and film damage- most probably at ends of reels. The Metro feature is scored with piano and flute and borrows heavily from Grieg.Lots of fun and full of laughs.

What a delightful film...Accompanied by Oscar-winning Composer RACHEL PORTMAN's lush, emotional and dreamy music, this film remains a pure delight worthy of viewing more than once a year.Incredible casting...Gwyneth Paltrow was perfect for the role of Emma. Toni Collette was great as Harriett Smith.The character who stole the film was MISS BATES!!! She was mesmerizing to watch, one finds oneself on the edge of ones' seat just hanging on her every word and laughing hysterically WITH her. One of the most endearing characters I have come across in ages. From one of the opening scenes when she is thanking Mr. Woodhouse for sending "that lovely quarter-hind of pork... PORK, MOTHER!!!" she shouts into her daffy and clearly hearing impaired Mother, Mrs. Bates (played by Emma Thompson's mother, Phyllida Law) who looks forlorn and lost.The comical ways that Emma would avoid the grating Miss Bates builds itself up for one truly gut-wrenching scene at the picnic when Emma insults Miss Bates who takes her cruel dig to her heart. We then see poor Miss Bates stammering and on the verge of tears and just so crushed one can not help but feel one's heart ripped out to her on her behalf. It is a classic scene, one to be rewound and played over & over...The ending is right up there with "Sense & Sensibility" and provides one of life's greatest lessons about how one should marry one's best friend...I hope that this film delights you all as much as it has myself.I ADORED it!

What a fun filled, sexy movie! They certainly don't make them like this anymore. 4 sexy au pairs arrive in London and have all sorts of sexual misadventures. The tone is oddly innocent, as the considerable nudity evolves out of stock farcical situations, rather than any overt sexual desire on the part of the characters. It is only when the actresses accidentally lose their clothes that the male characters become rampant. Richard O' Sullivan literally gets 'Randi'(sic). The film certainly betrays the origins of the softcore feature as lying in the nudie cuties and naturism films of the old school. My special interest in 'Au Pair Girls' is that I am a huge fan of Gabrielle Drake. If any actress has ever looked better naked (she's slim but wonderfully curvy), or clothed, come to that (I've loved her since the original run of UFO - who else could carry off a purple wig!), I'll eat my hat.

Well, you might not actually SEE any women in love in this movie, but you'll certainly hear women TALKING about love, and men talking about love, and women talking about men, and men talking about women, and men talking about men, and everyone talking about death, and talking, and talking, until you yourself will want to scream and do something that requires no talking at all, like paint your bedroom or water your plants.Welcome to the world of D.H. Lawrence, where psycho-babble reigns supreme, and where no one can get down to living a productive life because everyone is too busy talking about how unproductive their lives are. Spending time with the characters in a D.H. Lawrence novel is like being locked in a closet with a group of your most self-absorbed acquaintances who you would run away from if you met them at a party. When I read "Women in Love," I so desperately wanted to strangle every single character in it, but since I couldn't, I was hoping they would at least strangle each other. Alas, only one of them dies, not by strangulation, and I won't spoil it for you by telling which one, in case you actually give a damn about this story or any of these people.To give director Ken Russell his due, he makes this filmed version about as entertaining as it's possible to make this essentially unfilmable novel. He throws out much of the psychological mumbo-jumbo that Lawrence adored, and focuses instead on all of the naughty parts, so we get lots of histrionic lovemaking in beds and fields, two buck naked men wrestling by firelight, and one embarrassing scene featuring Alan Bates (yup, buck naked again) roaming around in a meadow making love to bushes and grass (I'm not kidding). Glenda Jackson won an Oscar for her performance as Gudrun, the more dominant of the two sisters at the story's focus, and she certainly tries her hardest to do something with this material; anyone would deserve an Oscar simply for having to bear Russell's decision to give her a scene where she has to dance wildly in front of a herd of mystified-looking cattle. Oliver Reed has one expression, an intense glower. The whole thing is over-written and over-directed, and it's deliriously campy. Indeed, this vies with "Mommie Dearest" as perhaps the most unintentionally hysterical movie I've ever seen.Grade: D

I rented the film (I don't think it got a theatrical release here) out expecting the worse. The previews made the film look awful. I was in fact very surprised, it was well worth watching; it was loosely scripted, almost like an ensemble piece of film. It had some very funny moments in it and although flawed is an effective satire on the show and the people on the show without being too scathing. It is flawed, mainly by the awful soundtrack of bludgeoning 'comedy' effects but on the whole it comes across as honest and generally true to form of the show in an altmanesque or Larry Sanders way.At the moment it is the fashion to be critical of Jerry Springer, he is also an easy target. Springer could have made Citizen Kane and it would be proclaimed 'the worst film ever made'. I recommend this film for anybody interested in the show. A flawed but innovative and interesting piece of film.

THE INVADERS IS A FAST MOVING SCI-FI THRILLER STARRING BEN CROSS AND SEAN YOUNG. BEN PLAYS RENN, A TRAVELLER FROM ANOTHER GALAXY TRYING TO FIND ANNIE (PLAYED BY SEAN) WHO IS PHYSICALLY IDEAL TO HAVE HIS CHILD. THIS CHILD, IF ALLOWED TO BE BORN AND RETURNED TO HIS PLANET, MAY BE THE ONLY CHANCE FOR HIS RACE TO SURVIVE. THE ENEMY, AN ALIEN WHO HAS DESTROYED RENN'S PEOPLE, HAS ALSO FOLLOWED RENN ACROSS THE STARS TO STOP THIS BIRTH. CROSS AGAIN SHOWS GREAT RANGE FROM COMICAL BEGINNINGS AS THE ALIEN ENTERS A LOCAL BAR AND ORDERS HIS FIRST EARTHLING COCKTAIL, TO HIS RACE WITH THE ENEMY AND THE DRAMA OF WHETHER HE CAN KEEP ANNIE AND THE CHILD SHE IS CARRYING ALIVE.

It got to be a running joke around Bonanza about how fatal it was for any women to get involved with any Cartwright men. After all Ben Cartwright was three times a widower with a son by each marriage. And any woman who got involved with Adam, Hoss, and Little Joe were going to end up dying because we couldn't get rid of the formula of the widower and the three sons that started this classic TV western.Perhaps if Bonanza were being done today the writers would have had revolving women characters who came in and out of the lives of the Cartwrights. People have relationships, some go good, some not so good, it's just life. And we're less demanding of our heroes today so if a relationship with one of them goes south we don't have to kill the character off to keep the survivor's nobility intact. But that's if Bonanza were done today.But we were still expecting a lot from our western heroes and Bonanza though it took a while to take hold and a change of viewing time from NBC certainly helped, the secret of Bonanza's success was the noble patriarch Ben Cartwright and his stalwart sons. Ben Cartwright was THE ideal TV Dad in any genre you want to name. His whole life was spent in the hard work of building that immense Ponderosa spread for his three children. The kids were all different in personality, but all came together in a pinch.The Cartwrights became and still are an American institution. I daresay more people cared about this family than the Kennedys. Just the popularity that Bonanza has in syndication testifies to that. Pernell Roberts as oldest son Adam was written out of the show. Rumor has it he didn't care for the noble Cartwright characters which he felt bordered on sanctimonious. Perhaps if it were done now, he'd have liked it better in the way I describe.This was just the beginning for Michael Landon, how many people get three hit TV shows to their credit. Landon also has Highway to Heaven and Little House On the Prarie where he had creative control. Little Joe was the youngest, most hot headed, but the most romantic of the Cartwrights. When Roberts left. the show kept going with the two younger sons, but when big Dan Blocker left, the heart went out of Bonanza. Other characters had been added on by that time, David Canary, Tim Matheson, and Ben Cartwright adopted young Mitch Vogel. But big, loyal, but a little thick Hoss was easily the most lovable of the Cartwrights. His sudden demise after surgery left too big a hole in that family.So the Cartwrights of the Ponderosa have passed into history. I got a real taste of how America took the Cartwrights to heart when I visited the real Virginia City. It doesn't look anything like what you see in Bonanza. But near Lake Tahoe, just about where you see the Ponderosa on the map at the opening credits, is the Cartwright home, the set maintained and open as a tourist attraction. Like 21 Baker Street for Sherlock Holmes fans, the ranchhouse and the Cartwrights are real.And if they weren't real, they should have been.

I have nothing to comment on this movie It is so bad that I had to put my first comment on IMDb website to help some viewers save some time and do something more interesting, instead of watching this "movie" ... anything will do, even stare at the walls is better.And because I have to write minimum 10 lines of text, i tell you also is a low budget movie, bad acting, no name actors, a stupid mutt as the wolf, and so on... Also the story brings nothing new, the special effects are made in the 80's style.The movie is almost as bad as the movie "Megalodon".So have fun! ;) (not watching this movie)

Lost holds something interesting for everyone. You can say an awfully lot about this series, and an awfully lot has been said, so I won't be the one to spell it all out for you again. Just read the persons who loved it, and you'll know why you want to watch it. The nice thing about this series is that its totally new. There are not much movies -and even fewer- series based on the theme of only suspense, but Lost lives up to the theme with pride. Its all about the unexplained and if you combine that with an exotic location, nice plot twists, an excellent cast and a good format (present and past combined in single episodes) you'll have a series in which every episode is a story on its own but part of a greater telling. You want to have all the insights of the characters, you want to see the overall picture and you'll want to know where the writers are taking you. The result of that is that its a series which does not let you go. On a more sceptic note, the series went under a bit in season 2, probably due to its own success. It is well known that Lost was only written for one season originally and when the overwhelming success followed, the writers were overwhelmed too. In my opinion they made the mistake to add even more mysteries and in a higher pace in season 2, then to solve the ones (or partially at least) the ones of season 1. At the end of season 2 you ended with a big blurr of secrets, plot twists and unexplained phenomena, but there is only so much a viewer can take. The difference between season 2 and 3 however was huge. Season 3 handed out a lot of insights, to partially replace them with new questions. And that's exactly how they should write; you want to thumble from one plot twist to the next, not get a tsunami of secrets spread all over you and then pick up a few to explain to the viewers. They got that in season 3 and brings us a promising series future for season 4. Its good to see that such a different format of a series, can be so hugely popular.