Datasets:

yxchar

/

imdb-tlm

like 0

Very strange but occasionally elegant exploitation movie with no real story, but benefiting from its stunningly ravishing lead actress and a handful of nice, gruesome make-up effects. Daniella is a beautiful twenty-something girl, carrying with her the trauma of being raped at the age of 13. Nightmares and hallucinations lead her further into believing she's the reincarnation of a female ancestor who was said to be a werewolf. She kills her brother-in-law during a nightly encounter and gets submitted in a hospital. She escapes again, however, and randomly devours more men whilst on the run for police detectives, doctors and relatives. It's all pretty to look at and listen too (really great soundtrack), but the absence of plot and continuity become irritating quite fast. Luckily enough, leading lady Annik Borel rarely ever wears clothes and she fills up the boring moments by dancing naked around a fire. The film is too long, too weird and too forgettable. The biggest surprise comes at the end, when suddenly and out of the blue, director Rino Di Silvestro tries to make us believe that his movie was based on true facts. Yeah, right...

As a fan of Science-fiction movies, I have been aware of The Matrix since its release in 1999. From the little bit I would allow people to tell me about it, I assumed it was highly original and sophisticated. I am also a devotee of Alice in Wonderland. I could never quite figure out how I missed The Matrix when it was released. With the imminent release of The Matrix Reloaded, it was time to buy the DVD and watch it.The disappointment was too great. The premise of the matrix (the controlling device as opposed to the movie) was clever. The philosophical premise of parallel worlds, alternate realities is shopworn. However, I could still have bought into the film, as science-fiction, if it stayed firmly in that genre. Unfortunately, it turned into a standard, "will they or won't they escape, break through, rescue those in need of rescue, etc." To make matters worse, it turned out to be another martial arts exercise. The problem is that science-fiction and martial arts films are really two different types. To the purest, the devotee of one or the other, mixing the two doesn't work. It is like mixing science-fiction with romance. You can have one or the other, but not both in the same film, or, at least, not both to the same extent in the same movie.If there were such problems with The Matrix, The Matrix Reloaded really compounded the problems. At least thirty minutes of the film were either martial arts sequences or the protracted car-chase. (This observation ignores the question, made in every professional, negative review of the movie: If Neo could do the Superman thing, why bother to fight at all? The answer, of course, is that's what draws the young, male demographic group into the theatre.) Then there is the "redemption through love" aspect. That plot device was worn out by Richard Wagner over a hundred years ago. It was actually handled better by him in Die Gotterdammerung.So where does that leave those who saw the Matrix Reloaded. Martial arts fans probably groaned through the trite, but arcane sci-fi philosophizing. Science fictions fans were wondering why they were sitting through a kung-fun fest. Most of the males in the audience where probably bored by the silly romance aspect of the film.Just what are you supposed to be getting for your bucks when you see The Matrix franchise films: Science fiction, martial arts, or soap opera? A bit of each does not make for a whole lot more of any of them, nor for a satisfying film for the afficionados of each.

This is pretty much a low-budget, made for TV, type of movie intended to capitalize off of the success of the original. I'm a fan of b-movies, and this one might have been good had they not attached the name "Cube" to it, because as is, the director and plot of the original were better, and this movie just about ruined my taste for the entire series. The characters are annoying and clichéd, there are problems with continuity, and several outright production screw-ups. The story hardly gets a chance to develop because of superfluous dialogue and suffers from that. They more or less use the same horror gimmicks over and OVER throughout the movie, and because the first one was so good, this simply turns out as a disappointment.If this was a stand-alone b-movie, I'd probably give it about a four. The "1" rating I give it was pretty much a statement about how it utterly paled in effects and intelligence as compared to the first.

You know you're in trouble when the opening narration basically tells you who survives. It all goes downhill from there. Unnecessary, "Matrix"-influenced bullet-time camera work. Pointless cuts to video game footage. Crusty old sea captains and wacky seamen. Ravers who become skilled combatants in the blink of an eye. Even the zombies are boring.I was hoping for at least a "so bad it's good" zombie movie, but this one is "so bad those involved with its creation should be barred from ever making a movie again".

First To Die 2003I'll admit my mistake first: I didn't realize this was a made for TV movie. I was "thrown off" by the "R" certification. The plot is strong, but the movie is about 40 minutes too long. The direction and continuity were excellent. For the most part the cast was exceptional and did a good job with their characters. The down side of the movie is that it definitely falls into the "chick flick" genre. Although there are some violent scenes, none of the violence should call for an "R" rating. There is no nudity or gratuitous sex scenes. Actually, there are no sex scenes. Ona Grauer (who is absolutely beautiful), Kristina Copeland, Sonya Salomaa, and Glynis Davies were all guests on the SG-1 series, but this movie did nothing to advance their careers since they were all used as low level supporting actresses. Robert Patrick was fantastic, as he usually is and Mitch Pileggi made me think of a modern day Lee Marvin. The very talented Megan Gallagher who I came to respect as an actor during the Millennium series, was given nothing challenging to show her range of abilities. The greatest disappointment with regard to the cast was Tracy Pollan. Aside from being a below average actress and not particularly attractive, her voice is absolutely annoying. I found myself muting the TV during her dialogue. I would recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys the Lifetime TV type of programs. I would not recommend paying any money to see this movie however. Considering I found nothing that would cause censorship, this is a movie that is worthy for only watching on TV, since nothing will be cut out. As a TV movie I would rate this as a 5 out 10. As a feature film with an "R" certification and such as strong cast, I rate it as a 2 out of ten.

Ang Lee clearly likes to ease into a film, to catch action, characters and setting on the hoof, as they emerge. Covering the haphazard endgame of the American civil war via the haphazard actions of a young militia, unformed in mind or manhood, this is an ideal approach. The film turns out to be about the formation of personalities, adulthood and relationships. Lee also shows the beautiful panoramas of the mid-south as a silent character, enduring the strife like a hardy parent.James Schamus' script is probably the standard bearer for this film; close behind it are a number of well-appointed performances that carry it admirably. Jeffrey Wright's name alone could carry this film for me. He's brilliant here but in a slow burning role: instead we are treated to very good (if not revelatory) performances from a large, often recognisable ensemble.A noble, optimistic film. One to watch if you don't fancy the harder, more bittersweet Cold Mountain or The Claim, for example. 7/10

Soldier may not have academy acting or Lucas special effects but it definitely does it for me. I won't tell you what its about, I'm sure you already read the summary. This is a great doomed futureistic action/science fiction movie. Kurt Russell doesn't say much, he usually has an eerie or drone look on his face but it fits the character. There are great action and fight scenes; some of the scenes are unrealistic, but thats Hollywood make believe land that we should have to escape our normal lives. I have not seen Soldier 2 but this one it one of my favorites. I'm lucky enough to have a wife that digs on guy movies; we both love this movie and recommend it to anyone who likes tough guy/sci-fi movies.

A masterpiece of comedy, a masterpiece of horror, a masterpiece of romance, if there is anything negative to say about A Chinese Ghost Story, it might be that the special effects looked dated in comparison to modern technology. The film has a simple premise: a poor debt collector has to stay in a secluded area while trying to collect a debt. Of course, it happens to be haunted as well.What I wasn't expecting the first time I saw this film is that it's one of the most touching love stories I've ever seen; that is without losing any of the slapstick comedy that will have you in stitches. Unlike some films of Asian cinema, A Chinese Ghost Story isn't hard to swallow for those that aren't versed in Chinese culture. Indeed, it plays on timeless, cultureless themes of the paranormal and romance.Think Evil Dead 2, if they had thrown a wonderful love story into the mix. This film is for real, despite being overlooked by many. It's absolutely among the best I've ever seen. It's ability to combine the best aspects of multiple genres, and cross cultural boundaries in order to appeal to humanity everywhere, is nothing short of fantastic. Highly recommended, 10/10.

Malcolm McDowell has not had too many good movies lately and this is no different. Especially designed for people who like Yellow filters on their movies.

When I say " Doctor Who " you might conjure up an image of Tom Baker , or Jon Pertwee or maybe Peter Davison . When I say " James Bond " you`ll almost certainly conjure up an image of Sean Connery while a small handful of people may think of Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan . But when I say " Sgt Bilko " absolutely everyone will think of Phil Silvers . Unlike Doctor Who or James Bond the role belongs exclusively to one actor . And that`s the problem with this film version you`ll continually wish you were watching the old black and white show . In fact the whole idea of making a film version of BILKO without Silvers in the title role comes close to sacrilage

I've seen this film criticized with the statement, "If you can get past the moralizing..." That misses the point. Moralizing is in the conscience of the beholder, as it were. This is a decent film with a standard murder mystery, but with a distinct twist that surfaces midway through. The resolution leaves the viewer wondering, "What would I have done in this position?" And I have to believe that's exactly what the filmmaker intended. To that end, and to the end of entertaining the audience, the film succeeds. I also like the way that the violence is never on stage, but just off camera. We know what has just happened; it's just not served up in front of us, then rubbed in our faces, as it would be today with contemporary blood and gore dressing. Besides, the violence is not the point. The point is the protagonist's moral dilemma, which is cleverly, albeit disturbingly, resolved.

FORBIDDEN PLANET is the best SF film from the golden age of SF cinema and what makes it a great film is its sense of wonder . As soon as the spaceship lands the audience - via the ships human crew - travels through an intelligent and sometimes terrifying adventure . We meet the unforgetable Robbie , the mysterious Dr Morbuis , his beautiful and innocent daughter Altair and we learn about the former inhabitants of the planet - The Krell who died out overnight . Or did they ? You can nitpick and say the planet is obviously filmed in a movie studio with painted backdrops but that adds to a sense of menace of claustraphobia I feel and Bebe and Louis Barron`s electronic music adds even more atmosphere I`m shocked this film isn`t in the top 250 IMDB films .

This was a movie that I hoped I could suggest to my American friends. But after 4 attempts to watch the movie to finish, I knew I couldn't even watch the damn thing to close. You are almost convinced the actual war didn't even last that long. Other's will try to question my patriotism for criticizing a movie like this. But flat out, you can't go from watching Saving Private Ryan to LOC. Forget about the movie budget difference or the audience - those don't preclude a director from making an intelligent movie. The length of the movie is not so bad and the fact that it is repetitive - they keep attacking the same hill but give it different names. I thought the LOC was a terrible terrain - this hill looked like my backyard. The character development sequences (the soilders' flashbacks, looking back to their last moments, before being deployed) should have been throughout the movie and not just clumped into one long memory. To this day, I have yet to watch the ending. But there was a much better movie (not saying much) called Border.

First of all this was not a three hour movie - Two hours, ten minutes... last time i checked commercials aren't actually part of a movie! Perhaps, though, it should've been a two parter for a total of about 3 hours? Yeah, would have gotten more in, been able to explore some more emotion. Overall, though, it was an interesting look into the lives of Lucy and Desi. I watch I Love Lucy from time to time and love it but never have I read or seen a biography, never knew anything about their lives off the screen. Because of this movie I do now but I'm not so sure that's a good thing. Everything here no one really needed to know. This was essentially a movie that didn't need to be made. But it was made and the reason is because Lucy & Desi are still such huge stars and certain people in American society feel that the rest of society needs to know ALL about our tv and movie stars. That is definitely so not true and very, very sad.Anyway, what was shown here in Lucy was pretty good. Two complaints - the actress who played Viv Vance - not great casting at all. And the switch from Madeline Zima to Rachel York.... uhhh, like Lucy had plastic surgery and all of a sudden she's a whole new person!? That wasn't too great. But the story went on and focused on the rocky relationship between Lucy & Desi. No, the kids were not shown very much at all and that wasn't necessarily a drawback to this movie because like I said, this focused mainly just on Lucy & Desi. Had there been more time, had the story been more about Lucy's entire life, then maybe the kids woulda been there more. But they weren't so we got to see the likes of Gable & Lombard, Red Skelton and Buster Keaton very briefly instead. Wow, that was one thing about this story that I thought was really cool: his presence and influence in Lucy's life. Really neat and it's too bad that wasn't explored more. Oh well. What was explored was done well, for the most part. Honestly, I don't think I'll ever watch this again and I don't think this movie'll be that memorable. For someone who digs I Love Lucy but isn't an enormous Lucille Ball fan, this should be an interesting watch. My grade for this: B

... than this ;-) What would happen if Terry Gilliam and Douglas Adams would have worked together on one movie? This movie starts with a touch of Brazil... when, at a certain point, the story moves straight into the twilight zone... bringing up nothing new, but just nothing... and nothing is great fun! When Dave and Andrew starts to explore their new environment the movie gets really enjoyable... bouncing heads? well... yes ;-) anyway... this movie was, imho, the biggest surprise at this year's FantasyFilmFest...Just like in Cube and Cypher Natali gave this one a minimalistic, weird but very special design, which makes it hard to locate the place of the story or its time... timeless somehow...

I don't understand your objections to this movie. It is a taut, thrilling extension of the character created in "Basic Instinct". The only part of the story that is the least bit unrealistic, is the fact that Sharon Stone's character is still alive and not in jail at this late date.SPOILER ALERT: As the movie progresses, we are presented with three theories of what is going on: 1) Sharon Stone's character is killing all these people because she's crazy (Risk Addicted); 2) David Thewlis' crooked cop is killing these people in order to frame Sharon Stone's character; 3) David Morrissey's analyst is killing these people for revenge. What upsets most people about the movie seems to be that none of these theories are ever explicated as the "real" story. (Although the analyst is in a psychiatric care facility for killing the cop; the only killing that occurs on screen.)I think this is a brilliant plot device in the spirit of "2001, A Space Odyssey." WHO CARES what is real? The blonde really is crazy, the cop really is crooked and the analyst really wants revenge. What's important is the interactions between these and other characters in the story. Like real life, everyone is more complicated than anyone thinks and reality is more complicated than a movie. Get over it!

This was one of the lamest movies we watched in the last few months with a predictable plot line and pretty bad acting (mainly from the supporting characters). The interview with Hugh Laurie on the DVD was actually more rewarding than the film itself...Hugh Laurie obviously put a lot of effort into learning how to dance the Samba but the scope of his character only required that he immerse himself at the kiddie end of the pool. The movie is based on the appearance of a lovely girl and great music but these are not sufficient to make good entertainment.If you have never seen Rio, or the inside of a British bank, this film is for you. 2 out of 10.

Walt Disney's CINDERELLA takes a story everybody's familiar with and embellishes it with humor and suspense, while retaining the tale's essential charm. Disney's artists provide the film with an appealing storybook look that emanates delectable fairy tale atmosphere. It is beautifully, if conventionally, animated; the highlight being the captivating scene where the Fairy Godmother transforms a pumpkin into a majestic coach and Cinderella's rags to a gorgeous gown. Mack David, Al Hoffman, and Jerry Livingston provide lovely songs like "A Dream Is a Wish Your Heart Makes" and "Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo" that enhance both the scenario and the characters.Even though CINDERELLA's story is predictable, it provides such thrilling melodrama that one shares the concerns and anxieties of the titular heroine and her animal friends. Both the wicked stepmother and her dreadful cat Lucifer present a formidable menace that threatens the dreams and aspirations of Cinderella and the mice. It is this menace that provides the story with a strong conflict that holds the viewers' interest. The film's suspense, however, is nicely balanced by a serene sweetness, especially in the musical numbers. It is in these segments that reveal the appealing personalities of Cinderella and her friends, moving the viewers to care for them. Overall, Walt Disney's CINDERELLA is wonderful family entertainment that has held up remarkably well after half a century.

This is a bit of a puzzle for a lot of the artsy Lynch crowd. They tend to try to write this off as some kind of meaningless, crude, side project of Lynch's. Like this is Lynch passing gas between his real pieces of film art. Well it may be a fart, but its one of those intriguing farts that you catch of a whiff of and are embarrassed to admit you enjoy.Dumbland distilled down beyond this is art. What can you do with aspects of modern life but laugh at it. If you took it seriously you would go nuts. You hook into it, smell it, taste it, feel its agonies, its unreasoning stupidities, and then express it in any medium you choose. Thats called art, and art isn't dumb. But it is Dumbland.

The point of the vastly extended preparatory phase of this Star is Born story seems to be to make ultimate success all the more sublime. Summer Phoenix is very effective as an inarticulate young woman imprisoned within herself but never convincing as the stage actress of growing fame who both overcomes and profits from this detachment. Even in the lengthy scenes of Esther's acting lessons, we never see her carry out the teacher's instructions. After suffering through Esther's (largely self-inflicted) pain in excruciating detail, we are given no persuasive sense of her triumph.The obsessive presence of the heroine's pain seems to be meant as a guarantee of aesthetic transcendence. Yet the causes of this pain (poverty, quasi-autism, Judaism, sexual betrayal) never come together in a coherent whole. A 163-minute film with a simple plot should be able to knit up its loose ends. Esther Kahn is still not ready to go before an audience.

Worry not, Disney fans--this special edition DVD of the beloved Cinderella won't turn into a pumpkin at the strike of midnight. One of the most enduring animated films of all time, the Disney-fide adaptation of the gory Brothers Grimm fairy tale became a classic in its own right, thanks to some memorable tunes (including "A Dream Is a Wish Your Heart Makes," "Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo," and the title song) and some endearingly cute comic relief. The famous slipper (click for larger image) We all know the story--the wicked stepmother and stepsisters simply won't have it, this uppity Cinderella thinking she's going to a ball designed to find the handsome prince an appropriate sweetheart, but perseverance, animal buddies, and a well-timed entrance by a fairy godmother make sure things turn out all right. There are a few striking sequences of pure animation--for example, Cinderella is reflected in bubbles drifting through the air--and the design is rich and evocative throughout. It's a simple story padded here agreeably with comic business, particularly Cinderella's rodent pals (dressed up conspicuously like the dwarf sidekicks of another famous Disney heroine) and their misadventures with a wretched cat named Lucifer. There's also much harrumphing and exposition spouting by the King and the Grand Duke. It's a much simpler and more graceful work than the more frenetically paced animated films of today, which makes it simultaneously quaint and highly gratifying.

What is the point of creating sequels that have absolutely no relevance to the original film? No point. This is why the Prom Night sequels are so embarrassingly bad.The original film entailed a group of children hiding a dark secret that eventually get them all killed, bar one, in a brutal act of revenge. Can someone please explain to me what a dead prom queen-to-be rising from the grave to steel the crown has to do with the first movie then? Prom Night 2 had continuous plot holes that left the audience constantly wondering how did that happen and why should that happen? But in the end, i guess you could call it one of those movies that is so bad, you end up laughing yourself through it.

First off I'd like to point out that Sam Niel is nowhere to be seen in this film. What's a movie without Sam Niel. Did anyone see Event Horizon. D-Wars did have potential a movie about a dragon that controls lizards with rocket launchers does sound cool but sadly isn't. Nope, no Sam Niel, no good movie. I recommend taking the 5 dollars or so it takes to rent D-Wars and adding 10 to that five and buying a Sam Niel film- apparently to submit this i have to have ten lines of text so heres a list of Sam Niel movies i recommend-jurassic park -dead calm -hunt for red October -event horizon -not jurassic park threeoverall D-Wars is a pile

Since the advent of literature, people of all nationalities have been fascinated and easily touched by accounts of unhappy love. Even more fascinating have always been the tales of impossible love, love that cannot be. The Israeli filmmaker Eytan Fox' latest film „The Bubble" is about that. And then it is also not. The title of the film refers to the „bubble" that is Tel-Aviv set against the background of the political realities of Israel. The country's cosmopolitan and unofficial capital city doesn't have much in common with Nablus, a city in the Palestinian West Bank which also features in the film. It doesn't have much in common with the tense and hateful atmosphere at the Palestinian checkpoints. Actually, it doesn't seem to have much in common with anything surrounding it. The „bubble" of Tel-Aviv allows people to have a lifestyle which isn't much different from what you may expect in any Western city. Teenage girls looking for Britney Spears' records, a lifestyle magazine editor looking for a sexy cover for his next issue, trendy people sitting in trendy cafes discussing trendy things over cups of cappuccino and other similarly trendy drinks, while those at home are watching the local edition of Pop Idol. It is this „bubble" that also has the potential to lull one's mind into a false sense of reality.The film evolves around the lives of three young Israelis who share a flat and, for the most part, try to stay out of politics. Yelli, the camp owner and manager of „Orna & Ella", a hip cafe, rarely leaves the city and prefers not to think about the „crap that surrounds them". Noam, a soft and easygoing employee of a slightly avantguard record store, seems to be equally unwilling to engage in long political discussions and contemplations. Lulu, the only female of the lot, is on the contrary linked to the Israeli Left, although her political activities seem to be confined to „raves against the occupation". Yelli and Noam naturally don't object to participating in these. Lulu and her political friends make t-shirts with the rave's logo, put up posters and hand out booklets advertising it in the neighbourhood. Their main concern seems to be that there are never any actual Palestinians participating and that the police might come and spoil all the fun for them again. The closest they come to an actual confrontation is when they get into a scuffle with some not so Palestinian-friendly locals who try to prevent them from handing out the leaflets. In other words, predictable products of the „bubble".The opening scenes of the film take us to a checkpoint on a road to Nablus where we also find Noam doing his reserve duty. A group of Palestinians is being thoroughly checked before entering Israel, among them a pregnant woman who suddenly goes into labour and gives birth to a stillborn child despite the best efforts from Noam and the doctor who eventually arrives in an ambulance. The woman is comforted by a young man who later turns up on Noam's doorstep in Tel-Aviv with his ID which the latter obviously dropped during the ordeal on the border. His name is Ashraf, he's Palestinian and he's gay. And he hasn't just come to hand back the ID, he has come to see Noam. Without a permit to live in Israel and despite the initial hesitation from Noam's flatmates he stays. He soon gets a Jewish name and a job at Yelli's cafe. Having grown up in Jerusalem with Hebrew, he doesn't have an Arabic accent which makes it possible for him and his newly found friends to conceal his identity. The sky is light blue and the air is sweet. But it cannot last. For he has become part of an equation which was never meant to be.At one point, Noam and Ashraf watch a play called Bent about two prisoners in a Nazi concentration camp who have a love relationship which can never become physical or visible to the surrounding guards. They find a way of being together on another level, a metaphysical one, a level where no one else has access. This is also where our couple arrives in the end. And it couldn't have been much different for them, not in today's Israel.„The Bubble" is a political statement about the bubble that bursts when confronted with the political realities of today's Israel set against the background of a beautiful and awkward love story involving an Israeli and a Palestinian, the impossible love story in a divided world where no such things as compromise or other colours than black and white exist. „The Bubble" is also a beautiful film about people, gay and straight, inhabiting that strange city, Tel-Aviv, shown through the eyes of people who really care about them. The film's premise may have its flaws and the fatal chain of events may seem somewhat construed, but its strong message and emotional impact will not leave you untouched.

This story had a different angle that intrigued me, enough to buy a previously-viewed VHS sight-unseen. That was a mistake.In what could have been a very nice story - about badly crippled people at a hospital, and their various personalities - turned quickly into a very profane soap opera with unlikeable characters.We have "Bloss" (William Forsythe) the stereotype racist white person, who says the f-word every other sentence and is so despicable they didn't give him a first name in the movie. He's a lot of fun to be around. Then, there is "Raymond Hill" (Wesley Snipes), a fast-talking womanizer. Snipes must have liked those fast-talking "hip" arrogant roles because he played in a number of them, like in "White Men Can't Jump." Then there is sweet Helen Hunt playing "Anna" that wonderful caring, loving person who is having an adulterous affair with the leading character in the film, "Joel Garcia" (Eric Stoltz).Yup, this is heartwarming, feel-good type stuff. It just makes my heart melt watching these nice folks. But, if you are one of those who loves sleazy characters portrayed by sleazy people in this sleazy film.....you might really like this! Add in a dose of Hollywood political correctness and there you go! What more could anyone want?

My abiding love of Italian actress Lucianna Paluzzi, who helped jump-start my puberty with her performance in 1965's "Thunderball," has led me to some fairly unusual places. Case in point, this British curiosity from 1959, "Carlton-Browne of the F.O.," which features Lucianna in one of her earlier roles. She plays a princess in this one, although the picture is actually a showcase for the talents of Terry-Thomas and Peter Sellers, both of whose stars were certainly on the rise at this point. In this cute, often very funny film, we learn of the Madeira-like island nation of Gaillardia, which had been a British colony until 1916 and then universally forgotten. Forty-three years later, however, it becomes the center of worldwide attention and international espionage when valuable cobalt deposits are discovered there, and Her Majesty sends the bumbling Carlton-Browne of the Foreign Office to take charge. Terry-Thomas underplays this part nicely, as does Sellers in his role as Prime Minister Amphibulos of the tiny country. (This was Sellers' second film of 1959 concerning a tiny country matching wits with the world, the other being "The Mouse That Roared," of course.) Ian Bannen almost steals the show here as Gaillardia's suave king, and my girl Lucianna is as appealing as can be in her minor role. The film exhibits much in the way of very dry humor, although there ARE some belly laughs to be had (the reception at the Gaillardian airport, for example, and especially that May Day-style parade of Gaillardian strength). And Sellers' seedy prime minister, with his cracked English and seemingly perpetual sweat stains, is yet another memorable character in this great actor's pantheon. Despite the occasional instance or two of indecipherable, stiff-upper-lip British gibberish, I found this picture to be a winningly modest entertainment, and well presented on this crisp-looking Anchor Bay DVD.

Great drama with all the areas covered EXCEPT for screenlay which was too slow and should have shown more relevant scenes like Pitt's character interviewing the President,or Pitt getting murdered instead of just having it described to us.Scenes like those would have kept the audience awake.Cutting away some useless minutes could have made more room for more heartpounding scenes like those.The dragging of the film kept this one from all time greatness although to see Pitt here makes the film so worth watching.Also,big fans of fising,early 20th century styles and Montana will really like this as well........

Its spelled S-L-A-S-H-E-R-S. I was happy when the main character flashed her boobs. That was pretty tight. Before and after that the movie pretty much blows. The acting is like E-list and it's shown well in the movie. Not to mention it is so low budget that Preacherman and Chainsaw Charlie are played by the same person. The whole movie looks like it was shot with a camcorder instead of half way decent film. The only other reason I liked the movie was because Chainsaw Charlie and Doctor Ripper were funny. They said many stupid things that made me laugh. Other than that if you see this movie at Blockbuster do everyone a favor hide it behind Lawnmowerman 2. Anybody that thinks this movie is good should be mentally evaluated.

If you were ever sad for not being able to get a movie on DVD, it was probably 'Delirious' you were looking for. How often do you laugh when watching stand up comedy routines? I was too young to see Richard Pryor during his greatest time, and when I was old enough to see Eddie Murphy's 'Delirious' and 'Raw' (not as funny) I never knew where Eddie got a big part of his inspiration. Now that I'm older, and have seen both Pryor and many of the comedians after Murphy, I realize two things: Everybody STEALS from Eddie, while Eddie LOVINGLY BORROWED from Richard. That's the huge difference: Eddie was original, funny, provocative, thoughtful – and more. He was something never before seen. He was all we ever needed. These days Eddie Murphy is boring and old – but once upon a time he was The King, and 'Delirious' was the greatest castle ever built. Truly one of the funniest routines of all time.

Many of the lead characters in Hideo Gosha's 1969 film "Hitokiri" (manslayer; aka "Tenchu" -- heaven's punishment) were actual historical figures (in "western" name-order format): Ryoma Sakamoto, Hampeita Takechi, Shimbei Tanaka, Izo Okada, ____ Anenokoji. The name "Hitokiri," a historical term, refers to a group of four super-swordsmen who carried out numerous assassinations of key figures in the ruling Tokugawa Shogunate in the mid-1800s under the orders of Takechi, the leader of the "Loyalist" (i.e. ultra-nationalist, pro-Emperor) faction of the Tosa clan. What was this struggle about? Sad to say, you won't find out in this film. "Brilliant History Lesson" indeed!No, Gosha is much more interested in showing you the usual bloody slicing and dicing and (at absurd length) the inner torment of the not-very-bright killer Izo Okada than in revealing actual history. Sakamoto, for example, was someone of historical significance, considered to be the father of the Imperial Japanese Navy. The closest Gosha comes to providing a history lesson is the scene in which Sakamoto, whom Takechi considers a traitor to the Loyalist cause, comes to Takechi's mansion to try to sway him ideologically. He begins by talking about the international political situation, with foreign warships in Japan's ports and a Japan that is too weak militarily to defend against them. Want to know more? Sorry. Gosha cuts off this potentially fascinating lecture in mid sentence(!). So much for informing his audience about a turning point in Japanese history.The film left me in utter confusion about the aims of the two sides in this struggle. For the two and a half centuries that the Shogunate held central power in Japan, it was an institution dedicated to preventing social change, to preserving the feudal relations of society. It was fearful of outside contamination, both ideological and technological. In keeping with this spirit, it outlawed firearms, those instruments of "leveling" in Europe and the Americas, with which a peasant could have stood up to a samurai. Throughout this period, the Emperor was nothing more than a spiritual figurehead.But, in the towns, which stood in neutral zones between the feudal fiefdoms, a new class of merchants, landlords and craftsmen was developing -- the class known in Europe by its French name, the bourgeoisie. Inevitably, as this new class gained strength, it chafed against the many confines of feudal society. As in Europe, the king (Emperor) became the central figure in the bourgeoisie's struggle for power against the feudal aristocracy. But a political leadership does not always fully understand the interests of the class it serves. When the outside world arrived with a bang in 1853, in the form of U.S. Admiral Perry's "Black Ships," the ruling elite of Japan was thrown into a crisis. Their military was no match for these foreigners. Also, they had heard about the havoc the British and French imperialists were wreaking in China. What should Japan do to save itself from the fate of its weak neighbor? Surprisingly, some elements within the usually isolationist Shogunate were inclined to open trade with the foreigners in order to obtain some of their advanced technology. This is the point of view represented (just barely) in the film by Sakamoto. On the other hand, the Emperor-loyal ultra-nationalists, represented by Takechi, believed they could keep out the foreigners by force, if only they could prevent the other faction from "selling out the country." (Sound familiar?) Thus, the assassination of key Shogunate figures is in order -- and away we go.Takechi's motivations were, for me, the film's biggest puzzle. Gosha suggests that he is fighting mainly for his personal advancement rather than for the Loyalist cause. Can we take this to represent the tenor of the Loyalists as a whole? (Do you care?)Several reviewers have compared this film favorably with "Goyokin," which Gosha made in the same year. But, where "Goyokin" is a crackling, suspenseful, adventure yarn, with a hero worthy of sympathy, "Hitokiri" is plodding, nowhere near as compelling and lacks such a hero. Sakamoto could have been this film's hero but we are not allowed to know him -- nor what he stands for -- well enough for him to achieve that status.In view of his wonderful scores for five previous Kurosawa films, Masaru Sato's score here was very disappointing, sounding like something rejected from a "Bonanza" episode.Barry Freed

Ever wonder why Pacific Islanders seem to automatically assume the sense of humour of Black Americans? regardless of their ethnic origins? Well this film will not provide any answers to this often pondered question - but it will provide an excellent case study.From its onset this film acts as a sort of "Old School" for Pacific Island New Zealanders, which immediately raises the question what exactly is the point of such a task. Is it meant to perpetuate ingrained stereotypes of Pacific Island New Zealanders? or is it intended to exploit this potential market? The story is weak, jokes humorless, and the ending is expected. This film has done nothing for New Zealand cinema, as it is merely an appropriated romantic comedy that is devoid of any merit.

John Thaw, of Inspector Morse fame, plays old Tom Oakley in this movie. Tom lives in a tiny English village during 1939 and the start of the Second World War. A bit of a recluse, Tom has not yet recovered from the death of his wife and son while he was serving during the First World War. If you can imagine Inspector Morse old and retired, twice as crochety as when he was a policeman, then you've got Tom Oakley's character.Yet this heart of flint is about to melt. London children are evacuated in advance of the blitz. Young William (Willie) Beech is billeted with the protesting Tom. Willie is played to good effect by Nick Robinson.This boy is in need of care with a capital C. Behind in school, still wetting the bed, and unable to read are the smallest of his problems. He comes from a horrific background in London, with a mother who cannot cope, to put it mildly.Slowly, yet steadily, man and boy warm to each other. Tom discovers again his ability to love and care. And the boy learns to accept this love and caring. See Tom and Willie building a bomb shelter at the end of their garden. See Willie's joy at what is probably his first ever birthday party thrown by Tom.Not to give away the ending, but Willie is adopted by Tom after much struggle, and the pair begin a new life much richer for their mutual love.In this movie, Thaw and Robinson are following in a long line of movies where man meets boy and develop a mutual love. See the late Dirk Bogarde and Jon Whiteley in "Spanish Gardener". Or Clark Gable and Carlo Angeletti in "It Started in Naples". Or Robert Ulrich and Kenny Vadas in "Captains Courageous". Or Mel Gibson and Nick Stahl in "Man Without a Face".Two points of interest. This is the only appearance of Thaw that I know of where he sings. Only a verse of a hymn, New Jerusalem, but he does sing.Second, young Robinson also starred in a second movie featuring "Tom" in the title, "Tom's Midnight Garden", which is based on a classic children's novel.

I like this presentation - I have read Bleak House and I know it is so difficult to present the entire book as it should be, and even others like Little Dorrit - I have to admit they did a very good show with the staged Nicholas Nickelby. I love Diana Rigg and I could see the pain of Lady Dedlock, even through the expected arrogance of the aristocracy. I am sorry, I think she is the best Lady Dedlock... I am not sure who could have made a better Jarndyce, but I am OK with Mr. Elliott. It is not easy to present these long Dickens' books - Oliver Twist would be easier - this is a long, and if you don't care for all the legal situations can be dreary or boring. I think this presentation is entertaining enough not to be boring. I just LOVED Mr. Smallweed - it can be entertaining. There is always a child - Jo will break your heart here... I think we should be given a chance to judge for ourselves...I have to say I loved the show. Maybe if I read the book again, as I usually do, after seeing the movie, maybe I can be more critical. In the meantime - I think it is a good presentation.

Probably New Zealands worst Movie ever madeThe Jokes They are not funny. Used from other movies & just plain corny The acting Is bad even though there is a great castThe story is Uninteresting & Boring Has more cheese then pizza huts cheese lovers pizza kind of like the acting Has been do 1,000 times beforeI watched this when it came on TV but was so boring could only stand 30 minutes of it. This movie sucksDo not watch it, Watch paint dry instead

It utterly defeats me why Godard is taken so seriously - and One Plus One is a great example of his ineptitude as both a filmmaker and an 'intellectual' polemicist. It's hard to credit that Godard actually believed all that Marxist and Maoist kant. Anyone with half a brain could work out the bankruptcy of those 'isms' and how many people they had destroyed and were continuing to destroy even as Godard was making his films supporting them. As a filmmaker, ask yourself: would you have boring voice-overs reading tedious political diatribes at your audience, and then, when you couldn't think of anything else to do, layer another voice-over to the first voice-over, which had lost its listeners after the first 100 words in any case? Brilliant, Jean-Luc! As for Godard insisting on making a film with the Rolling Stones: of course he did; wouldn't you? It was the only guarantee of getting such mindless rubbish seen in the first place: the genius of the Stones eclipsing a talentless and babbling political idiot set loose with a camera. The bookshop scene wasn't worthy of even the worst fringe theatre, and was an insult to the intelligence of even the young children who were used to play in it - as could be readily seen. Copping-out by allowing friendly critics to claim that all this artless crap was a satire on mainstream film-making is no more than a safe get-out to offer those who clearly see Godard's poverty of intellect and arrogant contempt for his audience. Ironic that Godard's one-time great friend, Truffaut, with Nuit Americain, made the best film about film-making ever, and Godard made the worst with Le Mepris! Incidentally, Godard didn't choose the Stones' track of Sympathy With the Devil. It just happened to be the track they were working on when the 'film' started shooting at Barnes Olympic Studios.

Interesting way of looking at how we as humans so often behave we are sometimes blinded by our desire to achieve perfection that we some times destroy the foundation of what we are trying to achieve. It also addresses the issue how we tend to ignore those among us who are not as outspoken and by doing this may miss out on a great opportunity. The injection of comedy also makes watching the film an enjoyable experience..A must see for anyone who is interested in a reflective yet comical look at life. I am eagerly looking forward to your next product.Hope that you will continue to provide us with quality entertainment. Excellent work ......Joanne

Four Eyed Monsters follows the relationship of a shy, reclusive videographer and an equally estranged struggling artist, who, both living in the Big Apple, develop an unlikely romance with the help of an internet dating site. This in itself is not so unusual, but what is, is their method of communication. Foregoing the verbal, they take to writing notes and later communicating through video.The film is based upon the creator's (Arin Crumley & Susan Buice) own relationship, who besides writing and directing, take to acting as the lead characters as well. With elements of avant-garde, anti-plot, and docudrama, the film scatters itself to the wind with an undecided structure nestled neatly between narcissism and self-indulgence.As the movie wears on, a brief separation and deterioration of their once intriguing form of communication grow old as the couple face the hardship of reality. Focusing solely on inner conflict, or the woes of relationship, the film struggles through a stagnant narrative that is neither original, nor poignant. This could have been easily circumvented with the addition of subplot and external conflict, and a third act, to which there is none - just a montage of melodrama that leads nowhere.What is even more aggravating is the film's descent from story into reality that abruptly concludes with an open ended and unsatisfying finish. This would have been all fine and dandy, but there is no question asked and no meaning to be discovered or pondered.(On a side note, the film contains beautiful animation and a vivid and moving soundtrack, one of the more interesting aspects of the production.)But as always, watch the film and decide for yourself.

Lindsay Anderson was very much a European film maker , whereas the likes of David Lean , Ridley Scott and Alan Parker make spectacular movies involving visuel scope Anderson`s movie are more about social commentary and subtext , so much so that the message often ends up taking over the entire film whose primary function should be to entertain the audience What you think of IF comes down to what you think of British film makers . I`m very much of the view that cinema should be a universial medium ( The best Brit movie makes are those who try to emulate Hollywood in my opinion ) , if you want to send a message try pony express , and I find the movie dated , pretentious and too set in the 1960s . 1968 was the summer of love and the year of student rebellion in France . You can just imagine every single French leftist worshipping this movie especially the climax . French new wave film makers will also admire the abstract surrealism of some scenes but a mainstream international will dislike it , and many will dislike it intensely

...but the general moviegoer's mileage may vary in Mary "American Psycho" Harron's stylized look at the American sexual psyche as seen through the lens of the immortal Queen of Curves, Bettie Page.I'll not bore anyone with a recitation of the iconic status of Ms. Page, a prim and proper valedictorian from Nashville, Tennessee, who moved to New York in hopes of being an actress and ended up becoming the Bondage Queen of the Universe. Nor will I run through the sketchy bio-pic plot of "The Notorious Bettie Page," though I offer high kudos to the technical aspects of the film (a sequence of animated magazine covers springs instantly to mind), improper use of a period camera notwithstanding. Finally, I won't belabor the timely applicability of the film's themes of innocence and perversion, freedom and control, the sacred and the secular; they're there for the viewer to absorb, if they wish. The more things change, the more they stay the same, as the saying goes.What I will ramble on about for a moment is the splendid performance of Gretchen Mol as Bettie Page. Truth is, Mol's face looks almost nothing like Bettie's, nor is she particularly built like Bettie (although only a fool would deny those beautiful breasts, and no fool, I!). She doesn't even sport the thick, dark bush that concealed Ms. Page's most intimate charms, but the fact remains that Mol thoroughly embodies the spirit of Bettie Page in every way, shape, and form. It is a bravura "comeback" from an undeserved semi-obscurity. I've never met Ms. Page (and sadly, never will, most likely), but I've devoured the photos and videos, and read all the bios and interviews available, bought the trading cards and other odds and ends, and to be honest, lusted for Ms. Page ever since I first discovered her in my adolescence between the covers of dusty tease magazines at the barber shop and the five and dime. Mol perfectly captures the essence of the woman as I have come to conceive her, no pun intended, in what I consider to be an Oscar-worthy performance. Liv Tyler could never have matched Mol's shining intensity of characterization in a million years, and I, for one, am grateful she left the project. Not that I'd mind seeing her totally naked, I hasten to add, but I can't imagine that her brand of sensuality would have translated into the innocent exhuberance of Bettie Page."The Notorious Bettie Page" is not for everyone, any more than bondage and discipline are. I suspect it will do much better on disc than in the theaters; legions of devoted Page fans and the curious will see to that. I can only hope that the DVD will be chock full of enough Bettie extras to show the uninitiated just how good a job Mol has done.Beyond that, a tip of the hat to a fine supporting cast, especially Lili Taylor and Chris Bauer as Paula and Irving Klaw, whose celebrity photo business was Bettie's doorway to immortality.A final note to the young scribe who opined that Ms. Page had no effect on his generation: take a good look at Madonna's cone brassiere and get back to us. Bettie Page is, whether you know it or not, the true Godmother of fetishwear. Without her, Madonna and the rest of her kin could never have existed.

Unless you are mentally ill or the most die hard segal fan you will tire of this horrendous excuse for a film in under 5 minutes.The Plot - Even for a Seagal film, the plot is just stupid. I mean its not just bad, its barely coherent.The Acting - Unbelievably wooden. Literally seen better acting in porno's. Ironically this film tries to cash in on this audience which a 'lesbian love scene' which is utterly cringe-worthy.Special Effects - wouldn't look out of place in a 60's sword and sorcery flick.Unless you suffer from insomnia and have exhausted all other cures, don't make the same mistake as i did and buy this DVD, as you will be asking for that hour and a half of your life back.

Purple Rain is a great film if you are a 40-something music lover who partied to Prince music in the 1980s. The story is a much-used formula: Rising musical talent must overcome personal and professional hurdles to find his audience and self-respect. Prince is a bad actor, but his performance, especially of Purple Rain/I Would Die 4 U make it worth sitting through the film. He is himself and as a showman, as powerful on stage as Mick Jagger or Michael Jackson, circa Thriller. Apollonia Kotero, a former Prince protégé, is beautiful and shows some acting talent and chemistry with Prince, but her script doesn't let her far. Morris Day and other supporting actors provide comedic elements.

Occasionally one is served a new entrée from foreign films. That is their great attraction. They take from life and serve it up raw. American films, rarely dare to touch the forbidden subjects of society. Too many hang-ups and a morbid fear of financial failure. The Almighty dollar, determines their selections. Something which invites European directors. In addition, audiences world wide remain hungry for "different" films, especially those which offer a savory bite out of the wretched, suffering body of humanity. Despite the fear of directors or producers, many audiences yearn for beauty, poetry, and the pristine flavor of life. That is what the film "To the Left of the Father" offers to curious audiences. A family locked in the belief that unity of family stems from the unity of it's obedience to tradition. Yet when the patriarch of a family forgets it's members are flesh and blood humans, filled with raging, unbridled dreams and dark passions, then the two are set in motions against itself. Selton Mello plays André a son who seeks to control his inner passions with the stagnant philosophy of his father. Raul Cortez plays his Father. Simone Spoladore is Ana a young woman who seeks to quench a forbidden thirst from the family waters. Leonardo Medeiros is Pedro, the elder brother. The film offers much, but does takes an extremely inordinate amount of time to say it. ***

These two men went thru hell and beyond and have produced the movie that conveys the terror that many did not survive. This is definitely a movie about survival, but not without it's touching moments.The finest piece of work I have seen documenting the 9/11/01 tragedy of New York City.

This film struck me as a project that had a lot of the right ingredients, but somewhere along the way they didn't quite come together. I don't know who made it, but it has a slightly Disney-esque feel. While parts of it are improbable (like when a pre-teen runs for a public office) and tend to prevent the story from being taken seriously, there is a healthy dose of normalcy (whatever that is) to keep things balanced and in perspective. The acting is alright. Strangely, the relationship between Frankie and her grandmother is convincing, but the relationship between Hazel and Frankie is a bit...off. It's interesting to see how she has to work hard to keep a balance between her best friend, her grandmother, and her two passions: ballet and baseball. Being a baseball player myself, it was quite painful to watch Frankie try to hold her own on a team of boys, but it does a good job of showing the struggle she faces. I read somewhere that she isn't really ballerina, but the editing in this film did a very good job of making her dancing look not only natural but beautiful. Overall, it was a good film about honesty and ambition, but its star Mischa Barton didn't quite achieve the level of realism we saw during her performances in "Lawn Dogs", "Lost and Delirious", and her small but shocking performance opposite Haley Joel Osment in "The 6th Sense."

I loved this movie. I'm a Mexican and was in the least offended by it. In fact, I think this movie should be shown at police headquarters all over Mexico. It's a sad truth that our police system is as rotten as a 3 month old corpse. It angers me to read in the news how killers, kidnappers and other slime go free by paying a laughable fine or live like kings inside prison cells. We should have someone like Creasy, Denzel Washington's character. A bodyguard turned vengeful vigilante. Kidnapping is flourishing industry down here (at least in the big cities). I actually wish real life kidnappers could suffer the same fate as the one's Creasy did his fine job upon. That would be so marvelous (Sorry, I am THAT resentful!). MAN ON FIRE is a gripping film that you can't miss. It might be hard on some of you, if you aren't used to reading subtitles (Mexicans do that ALL the time while watching American movies) but the effort will be well worth it. Some of the editing is a bit fuzzy...kind of like TRAFFIC, remember? (another brilliant take on how corrupt Mexico is). The movie starts out a bit slow but the pace picks up frantically by the second half. I swear you'll be cheering as you watch Denzel Washington dispatch the wrong doers. His performance is nothing short of Excellent. The ending (no spoilers, OK!!!) is a bit sad, but I'm sure you'll like it anyway. MAN ON FIRE is one of the year's best movies. A "must own" for a DVD collection! 9* out of 10

I have never seen a show as good as Full House. Full House puts all of the newer shows to shame, big time! Anyone who has never seen it, which I don't see how it is possible, should see it. It is a great show for anyone of any age. Full House will make you laugh, it will make you cry, it will amaze you. True, some people feel that there are some "cheesy" aspects to the show, but, the positive aspects out weigh all of the "cheesy" aspects. Full House ran it's first episode on September 22, 1987 entitled "Our Very First Show" and ran it's last episode on May 23, 1995 entitled "Michelle Rides Again Part II".The plot of the show is very believable. Danny Tanner (Bob Saget) losses his wife, Pam, in an accident involving a drunk driver. Danny has his brother in law, Jesse Katsopolis (John Stamos), which is Pam's younger brother, and Danny also brings in his best friend Joey Gladstone (Dave Coulier) to help him raise his three daughters. Danny's daughters are named DJ (Candice Cameron-Bure), Stephanie (Jodie Sweetin), and Michelle (Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen).Joey and Jesse plan on moving in with Danny and his three girls for a few months just to help out and end up living with them for eight years; which is the number of years the show ran for.The following is a short description of some of the characters and the actor/actress who played him/her: John Stamos (Jesse): John Stamos is a great actor. He plays Jesse. Jesse is a rock star waiting to get his big break. In Full House, John Stamos does a great job portraying his character. He looked and played music like his idol, Elvis Presley.Bob Saget (Danny): Bob Saget is also a great actor. He looses his wife in car accident involving a drunk driver. He has to raise three girls without a having the girl's Mother. Bob Saget does a great job portraying a single parent who works full time and still has time to raise his three girls.Dave Coulier (Joey): One word can describe Dave Coulier, funny. He is great. Playing the character of Joey was perfect for him. He does a great job playing the stand-up comedian waiting for his big break.Candice Cameron-Bure (DJ): She is a tremendous actress. She plays the oldest sister, DJ which is short for Donna Jo. She is one of the best actresses I have ever seen. Her acting ability in Full House was very believable.Jodie Sweetin (Stephanie): Two simple words can describe Jodie Sweetin, incredibly amazing! I wish I could say every thing that I would like to say about Jodie, but, I would use up the 1,000 word maximum just on her. She got her start in a kids show called Mother Goose Stories and when she came to Full House, she blew the audience's and creator's mind. Her great looks and absolutely amazing acting ability helped to make the show the success that it was. According to Dave Coulier, Jodie was supposed to be the star of the show. It was supposed to be where she was going to get her big break. Jodie, at five years old when the show first aired, could hit every line perfectly. She showed great enthusiasm. Most young kids can't do this. As you can probably guess, Jodie Sweetin (Stephanie) is my favorite character in Full House.Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen (Michelle): Great actress. Full House is where they got their start. They received the part of Michelle because they were the only babies who did not cry while in front of a camera.There are many more cast members that should be recognized. These are the original characters from when the show first went on the air in 1987.The only negative thing that I can say is how Full House became The Michelle Show towards the end. I think it was to focused on her towards the end. Especially when I think Jodie and Candice were much better at acting.Full House is a great show for everyone. It can teach you a lot. One of the biggest things it can teach you is that everyone can live a great life even if a tragedy, such as loosing a family member, occurs. Full House continues to attract new fans. With all this said, there is only a couple things left to say; Full House will never die, and, thank you, the cast of Full House, for giving everyone a show that they can enjoy.

Slow and nice images changed one another, with sometimes annoying music (you know Bjork) in background, for the first 75% of the movie. If you did not have enough sleep, that's a good time. But, in the last 20% of the movie director decides to bring idea of re-birth, re-incarnation or else, through S&M images: "spiritual lovers" are cutting each others bodies with knives. For me it was very much disturbing and actually changed general impression of blend of abstract art and images of modern Japanese mystery. Operator and director are great, but weird. Did not enjoy it at all.

As one other IMDB reviewer has remarked, this movie starts a bit slow, but gets considerably better as it goes along. Yes, it is released by Roger Corman, and yes, it goes over some of the same thematic ground as much higher budget predecessors such as FATAL ATTRACTION and POISON IVY. However, the juxtapositioning of the wife's career as a rising blues singer against the husband's gathering loneliness and his almost Freudian need for filling the emotional and physical "void" or "hole" while she's away along with the clever use of minimal effects and settings is nicely done. Utilizing a very small number of locations and characters, and also using water in almost every scene both as a cleansing and drowning metaphorical symbol throughout, this movie, though clearly suffering from a minuscule budget, reminds me in many ways of the more fully realized and more recent scenario, namely the French film "SWIMMING POOL" which it seems to me at least may have borrowed liberally some useful ideas from "UP AGAINST AMANDA." With a smaller tool set, UP AGAINST AMANDA maintains its suspense with a rudimentary, fatalistic view of surrendering to ones occasional lustful temptations, but accomplishes this as well or better as other films in this genre. The twist of the stepfather abuse of Amanda in the past (again, very Freudian) is also very unique in this genre and interesting. I agree with other viewers about the unexpected and sympathetic reaction for Amanda's plight this aspect of the story elicits. The cast is excellent I think.

This show probably won't appeal to everyone. Sarah does what she wants; she doesn't ask for permission and she doesn't apologize. This is a sitcom with zombies, robot dinosaurs, flying cars, and a team of wallet-stealing male cheerleaders. The star of the show is not a hero, she is a spoiled, bigoted pervert. If you can't appreciate the offbeat humor it offers, the show probably isn't for you. Everyone should at least give this show a chance. It brings together the comedic styling of Sarah Silverman, Brian Posehn (The Comedians of Comedy), Jay Johnston (Mr. Show), Steve Agee (Bobcat Goldthwait's 'Stay') and the creative energies of Rob Schrab and Dan Harmon (Heat Vision & Jack, Monster House). It also showcases the best talents of the burgeoning online community, channel101.com. (If you're into this show, keep an eye out for "The Department of Acceptable Media" on vh1 this March, it'll be drawing from the same talent pool.)Watch Sarah Silverman's show. This kind of stuff is the future of entertainment.

Brainless film about a good looking but brainless couple who decide to live their dream and take people on diving tours. The pair almost instantly make the wrong choice of customers and get mixed up with some people seeking to recover the items that we see falling to the ocean floor during the opening credits sequence. Great looking direct to video movie could have been so much better if it wasn't so interested in primarily looking good. Performances are serviceable and the plot is actually not bad, or would have been had the director and producers not redirected the plot into making sure we see lots of shapely people in bathing suits (or in what I'm guessing the reason for the "unrated" moniker a few fleeting bare breasts). The film never generates any tension nor rises above the level of a forgettable TV movie. If you get roped in to seeing this you won't pluck your eyes out since the eye candy is pleasant but we really need to stop producers from making films that are excuses to have a paid vacation.

I love this film. It is well written and acted and has good cinematography. The story blends action, humor, mysticism, and tenderness with great sets and beautiful location shots. See it, buy it, show it to your friends.The acting is good and Murphy especially does a fine job portraying the reluctant/unlikely hero. I enjoyed all the characters and found them to be interesting and well developed with dynamic interactions.I cared what happened to these people and, while the outcome was pretty predictable (the good guys win, the hero gets the astonishingly attractive girl and the holy child saves lives--who doesn't see that coming?), it still made me happy when everything worked out well in the end. Thank God this film's dignity was never ruined with a crappy sequel. Grab some popcorn, cuddle up on the couch, and watch this fun, happy and entertaining film.

Nicole Eggert was listed as the star of this, despite Micheal Dorn & Stacey Keach being much bigger stars than her.Basically this is a bit of a spin on the "Alien lands on Earth" film. Eggert plays the girl who feels sorry for an Alien being chased by the military and takes in the runaway creature in her very sexy disguise. A bit of nudity and partial nudity, a pointless sex scene all feature along the way.The film stumbles through a few obvious set-pieces and running jokes about being shown photographs. I quite liked the Star Trek jokes when Micheal Dorn had been taken over and he got a really cool death scene.It was fairly obvious that Stacey Keach was going to be taken over and the film had quite a weak ending, it would have been nice to show exactly what kind of talent the Alien passed to Eggert.

In this "critically acclaimed psychological thriller based on true events, Gabriel (Robin Williams), a celebrated writer and late-night talk show host, becomes captivated by the harrowing story of a young listener and his adoptive mother (Toni Collette). When troubling questions arise about this boy's (story), however, Gabriel finds himself drawn into a widening mystery that hides a deadly secret… " according to film's official synopsis.You really should STOP reading these comments, and watch the film NOW...The "How did he lose his leg?" ending, with Ms. Collette planning her new life, should be chopped off, and sent to "deleted scenes" land. It's overkill. The true nature of her physical and mental ailments should be obvious, by the time Mr. Williams returns to New York. Possibly, her blindness could be in question - but a revelation could have be made certain in either the "highway" or "video tape" scenes. The film would benefit from a re-editing - how about a "director's cut"? Williams and Bobby Cannavale (as Jess) don't seem, initially, believable as a couple. A scene or two establishing their relationship might have helped set the stage. Otherwise, the cast is exemplary. Williams offers an exceptionally strong characterization, and not a "gay impersonation". Sandra Oh (as Anna), Joe Morton (as Ashe), and Rory Culkin (Pete Logand) are all perfect.Best of all, Collette's "Donna" belongs in the creepy hall of fame. Ms. Oh is correct in saying Collette might be, "you know, like that guy from 'Psycho'." There have been several years when organizations giving acting awards seemed to reach for women, due to a slighter dispersion of roles; certainly, they could have noticed Collette with some award consideration. She is that good. And, director Patrick Stettner definitely evokes Hitchcock - he even makes getting a sandwich from a vending machine suspenseful.Finally, writers Stettner, Armistead Maupin, and Terry Anderson deserve gratitude from flight attendants everywhere.******* The Night Listener (1/21/06) Patrick Stettner ~ Robin Williams, Toni Collette, Sandra Oh, Rory Culkin

Much like the comedy duo of its title, "The Sunshine Boys" has become a forgotten classic 30-odd years later. It's hardly mentioned alongside other great film comedies of the 1970s. This makes no sense given the singular specialness of this film, perhaps the best Neil Simon ever wrote.Walter Matthau plays Willy Clark, once half of a legendary vaudeville comedy known as Lewis and Clark, now a bitter 73-year-old solo act who can't get a job in a potato chip commercial. His nephew and agent Ben (Richard Benjamin) is sure he can get work if Willy will only agree to reunite with his estranged partner Al Lewis (George Burns) for an ABC-TV celebration of show business nostalgia.Nostalgia is what "Sunshine Boys" has going for it in spades, right from the start when a series of 1920s film clips showcasing various entertainers from long ago flickers before us to the accompaniment of Cole Porter's "Be A Clown". Then there's the film's present-day setting in Manhattan, where flared trousers and wide polyester ties abound. The periods collide in Willy's glorious mess of a Manhattan apartment, where framed photos and cartoons of long-dead celebrities stare out from the walls at lurid tabloid headlines and empty Zabar grocery bags. If you were alive in the 1970s like me, you might even feel like you were in that apartment.Willy clearly has been living there too long. He's sleeping in front of the television when the kettle in the other room boils. Willy wakes up and picks up the phone."Hello, who is this?" A pause. "Never mind, it's the tea."Old men living alone can be sad material in almost anyone else's hands, but Simon's deft wit and unerring feeling for character turns this adaptation of his 1972 stage hit into comedy gold. The amazing thing about "The Sunshine Boys" is how much it rubs your noses in Willy's almost existential condition without turning you off at all. "89 years old and just like that, he dies of nothing'" Willy says of one old songwriting friend, before deciding the man probably died from writing a song that rhymed "lady" with "baby".Burns won an Oscar for his understated performance as the gentle but steely Lewis, but it's Matthau who brings this one home, his make-up and proud but ragged bearing really selling you on the idea he was already 73 when he made this. Willy is obnoxious in the extreme, fully deserving Ben's description "crazy freakin' old man", but you root for him throughout, enjoying his small victories even when they come at the cost of others' patience. His lines kill you, too, especially when he's trying to kill Lewis, for whom the TV reunion turns out to be a bad idea."You're out of touch!" Willy tells Lewis at one point. "I'm still in demand. I'm still hot!""If this room was on fire you wouldn't be hot," Lewis replies.Director Herbert Ross shoots everything in a very casual and understated way, with low lighting and mid-range shots even in emotional moments so as to leave room for the comedy and the film's overall zen message of grace through quiet acceptance. You never get the feeling you are watching a movie, one of "The Sunshine Boys" many charms, and Ross's direction, like the acting of the three principals, goes a long way toward achieving that end.Comedy is hard, especially when the subjects are people watching life pass them by, but "The Sunshine Boys" makes it all seem a pleasure, because, for us watching, it is.

This "coming of age" film deals with the experiences of two young girls, Dani and Maureen, as they learn about life and love one fateful summer.Directed by Robert Mulligan, famous for his superb work in "To Kill a Mockingbird," the film never hits a false note. All the acting is superb. As Dani, Reese Witherspoon makes a stunning film debut. Watching this beautifully photographed and superbly directed and edited film, I felt like I was looking through a window to reality, rather than watching a movie.I have watched this movie at least 5 times, and can honestly say that it is one of the single best movies ever made about being young, being in love, and going through the feelings, challenges, and changes of young adulthood. Families with children between 10 and 15 should watch it together, and use it as a discussion piece, as it raises a number of issues about sibling rivalry, how to deal with being in love, the responsibilities of a parent, etc.

If you still remember that summer when you had your first kiss, first boy/girlfriend, or first puppy love fling...this film is for you! OK so this movie would and will never win an Oscar BUT as a Dominican I loved it...there are some things in the movie that might just go right over your head if you are not part of the culture...the kids being raised by a grandma who's both mother and father, the youngest son being babied and bathed with a Cafe Bustelo tin (sooo Dominican!), Judy being harassed by the neighborhood men, going to church and lighting a prayer candle...the film's brilliance was in those small details. Granted, it was not a pull out all the works cinematic extravaganza but it wasn't meant to be NOR was it meant to be an educational tool for those wanting to learn about Latin culture ( tip: make new friends instead). More of a bitter-sweet, faux-cumentery, this film kept it real without taking itself too seriously. As in the tradition of "Y Tu Mama Tambien" this was simply one boy's coming of age tale. I recommend it (especialmente si eres Dominicano!) =o)

Reviews for this film were lukewarm at best while expectations were sky high: a big budget, tons of popular faces, a rather funny idea and a main actress everyone loves. The end result is a disaster. Alice Tremblay's supposedly humorous journey in fantasy world fails in every way to entertain it's audience (I didn't hear a single laugh throughout the entire presentation), going through it's page-thin story line and one-dimensional characters without a single spark, not a sign of the magic it wished it had. The 90 minutes of film here are sterile with clumsy direction and some good actors doing their best to come of as professionals in a feature that certainly couldn't seem that great an idea on the set, let alone on paper. 'L'Odyssée d'Alice Tremblay' is a collage of comic sketches, linked together with a (very) thin layer of good ideas. Avoid or boredom will haunt you.

If Mr Cranky had rated this, I'd be tempted just to copy his review and paste it here. But as he hasn't, I'll have to give it a go myself.The only thing giving this movie a 1 instead of a 0 is that Malcolm McDowall's acting is excellent. However not even he can save this film from disaster. The director must have been really distracted when he worked on this one because it is just a conglomeration of scenes that were thrown together with very little continuity - reminiscent of bad '70's movies. Even worse, both the actors and director appeared to be making it up as they went along which probably showed how bad the original script was.It's not even worth discussing the story line although it revolves around a futuristic corporation called the Proxate Corporation who put together a crew of dispensable people to carry a dangerous cargo on an old container/slave ship to Nigeria. This ship's computer is a baby kept in a glass jar and wired into one of the crew via USB 12 or something. The company should have been called the Prostate Corporation as the entertainment value of this movie is on a par with an examination of the same name.I honestly can't find one scene that I could say was well made and made any real sense in the context of the movie. I only watched it to the end as I had a touch of the bird flu and this movie reminded me that there were people out there who were actually worse off than me - Malcolm McDowall in particular. I won't hold this against him as he's a great actor and every great actor is entitled to one bad movie in their career and this one is a doosie.So, unless this is the only movie your shop hires out or you're male and you're doctor isn't doing prostate examinations this week and you somehow feel this is a bad thing then give this one a really wide berth unless of course if you're really community minded, buy a copy to support Malcolm and then use it as a drink coaster.

After being a big fan of the ten minute T.V episodes of 'Stella Street', I awaited this film with excitement and anticipation. Unfortunately I was left feeling very disappointed.I was dismayed by the way that nearly all of the gags and one liners were directly lifted from the T.V Episodes, and delivered with much less enthusiasm and comic timing, as if the actors had said them once, and couldn't be bothered to say them again. I bought my copy on DVD and felt cheated that I had parted with my hard earned cash to watch the same jokes over again.*SPOILERS* The plot of the film starts with Stella Street (a normal English street in Surrey), gradually being populated by 'some of the most famous people from stage and screen of the last forty years', including Michael Caine, Al Pacino, Jack Nicholson and The Rolling Stones. All the celebrities in the street end up being conned out of their entire fortunes by a local fraudster, and are forced to live like tramps and common working class people. There are some nice moments, but on the whole, the writers manage to take an interesting idea and make it pretty boring. *END OF SPOILERS*In the T.V Episodes, all the characters are performed by John Sessions and Phil Cornwell (including females), but in the film Ronni Ancona is added to the cast. I think this was a mistake. Her impersonations weren't funny, and it felt like her characters were included in the story just to give her something to do.If you were not a fan of the episodes of Stella Street, you may find this film entertaining. But if you were a fan, I think you may walk away feeling a little bit cheated. 4/10

Am I wrong,or is the 2007 version just a rip-off of the original? I have to ask because the DVD I just bought is one of the worst films I have ever seen.....bad acting,bad editing etc....the only "exploitation " aspect here is how we were ripped off for our money buying this piece of crap. It is nothing more than a light-weight porn flick...no real gore, no scary images, just a cheaply done bit of garbage. If anyone wants to see an excellent film with no name actors,some slimy gore and a decent storyline...get Baby Blood...also done on a cheap budget but well made...and an actual story too!I Spit was a waste of money but I'll keep it just for a laugh....it is pathetic! New comment....Sept 3.....I'll keep this film forever just because it it SOOOOO bad it's almost good....in a really bad way....the worst acting ever...a real crap-movie classic!

"Scary Movie 2" is a let down to the Scary Movie Franchise. Scary Movie 1, 3 and 4 were all good but this one was kind of boring and not very funny. Luckily they picked their act up after this one and made two more great Scary Movies.This film is about a group of teens who get tricked by their Professor into going to a haunted mansion for a night. Things start to go wrong and then they realize they have to escape.This movie isn't horrible but they could have improved quite a few things. It is a bit of fun and if you liked the other movies in the Scary Movie franchise then give this a watch - but I don't think you will like it nearly as much.

Rob Roy is and underrated epic of passion and action!SOME MILD SPOILERS WITHIN. Liam Neeson gives a towering performance as Rob Roy MacGregor,one of the best in his career.Jessica Lange is letter-perfect as his wife Mary.They have the most passion and chemistry I've seen in a screen couple.John Hurt gives his best snotty aristocrat performance.Tim Roth portrays one of the great screen villains.His rape of Mary is repugnant and harrowing.He really is a magnificent bastard in this movie.The final duel between Rob and Cunningham is one of the best swordfights ever.Well scripted ans scored,and Michael Caton-Jones direction is flawless. 10 out of 10.

This is not a good movie. Too preachy in parts and the story line was sub par. The 3D was OK, but not superb. I almost fell asleep in this movie.The story is about 3 young flies that want to have adventure and follow up on it. The characters are lacking, I truly do not care about these characters and feel that there was nothing to keep an adult interested. Pixar this is not.I would have liked to see more special 3D effects. Also I wold like to see more fly jokes than the mom constantly saying "Lord of the flies" Pretty sexist in showing the women as house wives and fainting.

I saw this movie only after hearing raves about it for years. Needless to say, the actual experience proved a bit anticlimactic. But still, Alec Guiness energetically leads a wonderful cast in a jolly, if formulaic, romp through industrial post-WWII England.This is the familiar tale of the woes of inventing the perfect everyday product. Remember the car that runs on water? Remember the promise of nuclear energy? In this case, it's a fabric that doesn't wear out, wrinkle, or even get dirty! Of course, fabric manufacturers and their workers are horrified at the prospect of being put out of business, and so the plot gets a bit thick.Guiness makes the whole enterprise worthwhile, and watching him blow up a factory research lab over and over again is quite a blast! (Those Brits ... always the stiff upper lip when under fire.) The film might chug along exactly like Guiness's goofy invention, but it's a good ride all the same.

This movie's heart was in the right place, no matter where its brain was."Attack" is basically a spoof a la "Airplane!" (two years before the fact - nice going.) of what happens when vegetables, or in this case fruits, attack.Through all manner of film magic (stop motion, papier-mache tomatoes on skateboards, reverse filming, people watching off-screen tomatoes, people throwing basketball-sized tomatoes at the on-screen actors), the tomatoes do indeed attack everyone in their leafy grasp. Then, it's up to Mason Dixon (Miller) and a group of spies I wouldn't wish on any government's side to save the day. Of course there's a meddling reporter (Taylor) who pops in at the worst times, dancing and singing Army soldiers, Japanese scientists with dubbed-in voices, some guy dragging around a parachute and a samurai sword...and oh yeah, the San Diego Chicken before he made it big.The gags here aren't all that great. In fact, you could probably make up better yourself after watching these. Some of the dialogue is inutterably bad ("Please pass the ketchup" - not something to say in front of tomatoes.) and as far as "Puberty Love" goes...well, I can't blame the tomatoes for shriveling up on hearing it.What's good about it? Well, I liked the theme song and the beginning credits, and there was a scene with four people on the phone at once that was pretty well executed. ...that's about it.Three stars. Not a "Killer" comedy, but it tries.Rock on, Peace.

Brilliant book with wonderful characterizations and insights into human nature, particularly the nature of addiction, which still resonate strongly today.As for the movie... eh. Nothing special. The cameraman clearly had an unfortunate addiction to circling and circling and CIRCLING around everything, making the viewer quite nauseous. Why the director didn't put a stop to this is beyond me--but maybe he was too busy trying, and somehow failing, to draw good performances from these normally excellent but inappropriately-cast actors. All in all, a weak adaptation. Your three hours would be better spent reading (or re-reading) the book.

THE TOY BOX (1971) BOMBSure, I like looking at nude women. While I prefer hardcore porn flicks, I'll take softcore exploitation grindhouse junk like this too under the right circumstances. Well, these aren't the right circumstances. These aren't ANY circumstances. There's supposed to be a horrific subplot lurking in here somewhere, but I'll be damned if I can untangle it. This is another of those amateurish steaming piles of badly made manure that bores you to tears rather than stimulates you, despite all the simulated sex going on all over the place. Bah -- if I want to see good sex scenes, I'll watch the real stuff.

At first glance this documentary/fiction/cartoon is quite entertaining and thought provoking. Of course, when something provokes thought, it can then be scrutinized. The reality is this movie combines metaphysics with innuendo and baseless conclusions. The link that "What the Bleep..." would have you see between science and spirituality is, in fact, not rooted in science at all. The Transcendental Meditation study mentioned in the film claims that meditation by a group can reduce crime in a given area, Washington D.C. in this case. In reality the HRA (Homicides, Rapes, and Assaults) crime rate was about 30% higher in 1993 than the average crime rate between 1988–1992. There was absolutely no decrease in the homicide rate during the study. In fact, each and every claim that links metaphysics to science can and has been debunked.My conclusion from this information is that this movie is either a poor attempt to indoctrinate people or a joke. Either way, I suggest that you do not waste your time.If you are looking for a long winded movie about science that could provoke thoughts, you might consider Mindwalk (1990).

I can say without a shadow of a doubt that Going Overboard is the single worst film i have ever seen, and yes, I have seen Cujo. Adam Sandler is an abomination as Schecky Moskowitz, a wannabe comedian working on a cruise liner. That's the plot. That's it! Nothing else in the film makes sense, it's all over the place like a mad man's breakfast, and not in a wacky naked gun kind of way, but more of a frustrating, 'throw both shoes at the t.v' kind of way. even General Noriega makes an appearance, for no reason i can comprehend (it certainly wasn't for humour). Add to the mix Miss Australia, who has the worst Australian Accent i've ever heared, and you have something which i won't call the worst film ever made, because Going overboard doesn't even fit the basic definition of a film. I highly recomend seeing this film, as it will elevate the standing of every bad film you ever see. I guarantee the first thing you'll say after seeing a bad film will be "at least it wasn't as bad as Going Overboard".

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

"Sky Captain" may be considered an homage to comic books, pulp adventures and movie serials but it contains little of the magic of some of the best from those genres. One contributor says that enjoyment of the film depends on whether or not one recognizes the films influences. I don't think this is at all true. One's expectations of the films,fiction and serials that "Captain" pays tribute to were entirely different. Especially so for those who experienced those entertainments when they were children. This film is almost completely devoid of the charm and magnetic attraction of those. Of course we know the leads will get into and out of scrapes but there has to be some tension and drama. Toward the climax of "Captain" Law and Paltrow have ten minutes to prevent catastrophe and by the time they get down to five minutes they are walking not running toward their goal. They take time out for long looks and unnecessary conversation and the contemplation of a fallen foe with 30 seconds left to tragedy. Of course one expects certain conventions to be included but a good director would have kept up some sense of urgency.One doesn't expect films like this to necessarily "make sense". One does expect them to be fun, thrilling and to have some sense of interior logic. "Captain" has almost none. Remember when Law and Paltrow are being pursued by the winged creatures and they reach a huge chasm which they cross via a log bridge? Well how come they are perfectly safe from those creatures when they reach the other side? They can FLY!!! The chasm itself means nothing to them. The bridge is unnecessary for them so where is the escape? If the land across the chasm is 'forbidden' to the flying creatures the film made no effort to let us know how or why or even if.I know that Paltrow and Law (both of whom have given fine performances in the past) were playing "types" but both were pretty flat. Only Giovanni Ribisi (who showed himself capable of great nuance here) and Angelina Jolie seemed to give any "oomph" to their roles although Omid Djalili seemed like he could have handled a little more if he'd only been given the chance. He did a pretty good job anyway considering how he was basically wasted.The film had a great 'look' but there are so many ways in which CGI distracts. CGI works best when it is used for the fantastical, when it is used to create creatures who don't exist in nature or for scientific or magical spectacular. When it is used to substitute for natural locations it disappoints. There is no real sense of wonder. A CGI mountain doesn't have any of the stateliness or sense of awe and foreboding that a real mountain does. I know that the design of this film was quite deliberate and it wasn't necessarily supposed to LOOK real but shouldn't it FEEL that way? It just didn't. As for the weak and clichéd script...homage is no excuse. Even so, had the movie had some thrills and dramatic tension it might still have been enjoyable. "The Last Samurai" was as predictable as the days of the week and I am no fan of Tom Cruise but it had everything that "Captain" didn't most notably it drew the viewer into its world and made us accept its rules and way of being in a way that "Sky Captain" most definitely did not.I'd like to see a similar approach taken for films about comic book heroes of the 30's and 40's. The original (Jay Garrick) Flash or Green Lantern (Alan Scott) come to mind as being ripe for such treatment. Maybe the better, more well known and fully realized characters that those character are would make for a much better film. It would be hard to be worse.

I remember watching this movie when I was young, but could not recall the title to it then going through horror movies I find it and think to myself "that is the title?" This movie is a kind of combination disaster film/insect attack film with fewer notable stars in it. It is also somewhat boring too, as it has that television vibe to it where you can see the movie fade out for commercials and such. The plot has this sort of resort being invaded by ants. I think they were a bit disturbed by construction or something going on nearby, but do not quote me on that. The most memorable ant attack for me in the whole flick was the first one involving the kid who falls into the swimming pool after being swarmed and of course Summers attack scene too. What else stands out in this one is the very goofy ending where the survivors use cardboard tubes to breath through. In the end though like most television movies this movie is very tame and not very scary in the least unless you panic at the sight of ants.

One night I was waiting for my friends to come back to the apt and "Gymkata" happened to be on; I watched way too much of it. It is indeed hilarious, and horrifying, really. Think about it this way--if in your job you had an idea for something this bad and went on to execute it in as terrible a fashion as this, how long exactly would you last? Not as long as this movie. It's a must-see, obviously.

This movie has it all. Sight gags, subtle jokes, play on words and verses. It is about a rag tag group of boys from different ethnic and social classes that come together to defeat a common enemy. If you watch this more than once, you will find you are quoting it like Animal House (and yes I love Animal House also). I put in the top 15 funniest movies. The Major at a boys military academy is paranoid that every kid is bad and wants to cause trouble (in this movie he is right). He is sadistic, uncaring, cruel and has to be taken down. The group of boys that do not get along at first, end up teaming together to survive and get rid of the Major with a wacky plan only Mad Magazine could of wrote. A must see - you will love it!

Oh it's so cool to watch a Silent Classic once in while! Director Vidor is simply delightful and even makes a lengthy (at least for 1928) cameo as himself. The story is about having success in life and the way it changes you. Marion Davies plays a girl that leaves its friends in a little comedy studio to be part of a larger "drama" studio. She becomes a big star and the consequences are she really alienates from the real world. For a moment she even denies her (poor) past! The cameos are simply hilarious, certainly the scene where the main character (Marion Davies) sees...Marion Davies in the studios and concludes she doesn't seem that special... It's got to be one of the first movie-in-the-movies here and for real freaks it's awesome to see the cameras and material from way back then. A must-see if you ask me!!

- SMALL SPOILER HEREIN! - When I looked at the votes for "Creep" today, I was surprised about so many IMDb-users rating this movie "1". I am wondering: what do people expect of such kind of movie? Are there so many people watching a movie without knowing anything about it?"Creep" is a HORROR movie and it is a pretty good one! This automatically means: it has a absurd story full of holes, outrageous hazards and simple one-side-characters. So why complain about it? Just take some popcorn and coke, make yourself comfortable in your seat and then... ...enjoy to be scared to death! The first 60 minutes when there is almost nothing else than Kate and a lonely subway station are incredibly scaring. There is suspense and fear in every corner of the screen and you will give some jerks just because of a sudden sound of a blinking neon lamp in the back of you. (In my opinion the sound editor did the best job in this movie.)When Kate meet her pursuer the quality of the movie drops but it still doesn't become a bad movie. The second part of the movie is not scary at all, but the gore effects are well done and the story is quite well developed. (...as long as you keep in mind that it is a horror movie you are watching and not the Discovery Channel!) So, if you want to make yourself a very, very scaring hour. Just watch the first hour of "Creep" and then leave the cinema or turn of your TV. You know the rest of the story anyway, don't you? The bad guy will die and Kate will be the only survivor. But even if you watch this movie up to its end, you will not be disappointed....and if you want to push anxiety to the next level, do what I did after watching this movie: leave the cinema by dark night, go to the next subway station and take the last train home...

I'd even say some shades of Hitchcock...this is clearly better than MMM, which is seen as a guilty pleasure by some if not most Woody fans. By the way, did you know that Annie Hall was first conceived as a murder mystery? Anyhow, Woody reclaims some relevance in film comedy with this one. The plot turns are nice and tight. I will say that in the first 20 minutes or so, some of the actors are a little too hasty at delivering their lines, but stick around. Scarlett Johansson proves well-cast in the Diane Keaton-type role, and at no time is there any uncomfortable moments between her and the much older Woody. No one could imagine a more perfect actor for the role of Peter Lyman than Jackman.

There just isn't enough here. There a few funny spots, but not really enough. I was very disappointed because I love stupid movies. I was expecting this to be a hidden gem. IT WAS NOT. It was a hidden turd.The whole time I was watching it I was thinking, "Geez, I could do better than that and I'm a moron". Don't believe the few good reviews. I was suckered in by them. At no point did I laugh at loud. Maybe this was funny or cutting edge in 1987 but man, it fell flat today. This movie had promise, it just didn't deliver on it. Maybe if they rewrote it a few more times. I cant fault the actors. They weren't the best, but they just didn't have much with which to work. This movie failed because of threadbare writing. SORELY disappointed.

One of the things that makes this Ealing comedy so outrageously funny is the clever editing. Shots that would be considered absolutely essential to most modern comedies are deliberately left out. (This is what was known as British understatement.) Three instances: A comic fight is edited like this. Alec Guiness has invented a new cloth that will ruin the industry. Half a dozen businessmen invite him to their office to try to get him to sign a contract relinquishing his control of the cloth so that production can be suppressed. When he catches on to this, Guiness stands up and turns to walk to the door. Two men block his way. "Excuse me," he says quietly, taking a step forward. The two men move between Guiness and the camera. Cut. A secretary is sitting outside at her desk. There is silence until the buzzer begins signaling her frantically. She takes up her notebook and opens the door to the inner office where a full-fledged noisy Donnybrook is in progress and the room is half wrecked. Guiness dashes out the open door.The following example would be unthinkable today. During the research phase of his invention Guiness sets up an elaborate chemical apparatus but instead of converting the experimental liquid into the new cloth, the device explodes. Again and again it explodes. The laboratory is cleared of all other work. The blasts continue. Ceilings fall down. Windows are blown out. The director of research is seated at his desk in a tiny office cluttered with debris, a bandage on his head. When the door behind him opens he jumps a foot in the air. "Sit down," he tells his visitor, "there's another one due at any moment." It is excruciatingly amusing -- and there is not a single shot of any explosions. This would be unimaginable now without a fireball, and maybe a building collapsing in slow motion.Last example, consisting of a series of quick, relentless cuts, put together precisely. Guiness is being pursued and is cornered in the lobby of an office building by people who want him to sign the contract. Faced with two men about to grapple with him, Guiness backs up with a determined expression. He bumps against a pedestal with an iron bust on it. The bust topples backward and bumps against the wall. There is a shot lasting about one second of the bust hitting the wall. Another brief shot of a metal shield hung above the bust being jarred loose and falling down. Quick cut to Guiness's head rising into the frame. Cut to the two men staring into the camera while horrible brass banging and thudding sounds are heard off screen. Cut to Guiness flat on his back. Nobody today would have the cojones to NOT show Guiness being crowned by that shield.I won't go on with this. It's a comedy alright but a pretty bitter one underneath all the hilarity. In solving one set of problems, Guiness has created dozens of others. He is opposed both by management and labor, neither of which is shown to much advantage. And of course the economic implications have to do with more than cloth. "What about that car that runs on water with a pinch of something or other in it?" one of the workers asks. "Vested interests," comments another worker, as Thorstein Veblen nods in his grave. What WOULD happen if our problems with energy were solved overnight? If I owned shares of Exxon -- and I think I do -- I'd shudder at the thought. Where would the oil industry be if there were no more need for oil? For that matter, where would the police force and the FBI be if crime were to suddenly disappear? This is a thoughtful and very amusing movie, superbly directed and edited. The roster of performers is peerless. Joanne Greenwood with that husky voice. The blithering Cecil Parker. The wheezing mummified Ernest Thesiger. A first-rate job all around.

Wow, it's been years since I last saw this movie. Watching it in 2008 is certainly different than watching it in 1986. Initially I didn't' think I would make it through the movie. Hunt Stevenson (Michael Keaton) was so obnoxious, arrogant and disrespectful that I found it hard to watch him. He embodied every negative stereotype of Americans. If that wasn't bad enough, once the small American town's finest workers were shown the image only got worse. On the opposite spectrum the Japanese were presented as emotionless, robotic workaholics. The movie wasn't even all that funny, I only hung in there because of the nostalgic value of it. And I'm glad I continued the watch.Just like boxing, judges are swayed by how you finish the round. This movie went from about a three up to the seven I rated it because of the ending. The end was excellent. You always want a harmonious ending and this was just that. It was great that the town got to keep there jobs and keep the factory, but what was most special was the marriage between the Japanese customs and values and the American customs and values. It was a mediocre movie that ended on a high note.

An underrated addition to the Graham Greene cinematic canon - its perceived faults can now be seen as virtues. Director Shumlin, theatrical director, frames his action with an oppressive rigidity appropriate to the material, and the seemingly inept compositions compellingly suggest unease. Both a dark thriller and a story of moral regeneration (for the female character! In a 40s thriller!), the film has an upright hero who turns mad and murderous (and possibly paedophiliac), brilliantly brings the faraway ideologies of the Spanish Civil War into jolting dangerous reality, has one horrific murder, an astonishing insights into class and capitalism, clever theatrical metaphors, a rare approximation of Greene's God, and an ending that is only happy if you know nothing about history.

When I heard this film was directed by Ang Lee, I made sure to see it. This Taiwanese director burst into fame with "The Wedding Banquet" and "Eat Drink Man Woman" a few years ago and then moved on to "Sense and Sensibility" and "The Ice Storm". Now, he turns his attention to another American icon -- the Civil War.This story takes place in Missouri, a Union state with Southern sympathies. These never officially joined the Confederate army. Instead, they formed outlaw bands, called "bushwhackers", grew they hair long, and sometimes would confiscated Union uniforms which they wore over their regular clothing.The movie depicts their moral dilemma, the high drama of the times, and their supposedly heroic missions of killing storekeepers and farmers who aided the Union. There are no stars in this movie, unless you consider "Jewel" the singer, well cast as a young confederate widow as a star.Tobey Macquire is cast as a young German farm boy who is derided for his heritage because the Germans were supposed Union sympathizers. This young man is an excellent actor, full of fresh faced youth whose performance encompasses his wonder and subtle realizations as he's exposed to the horror of war.Jeffrey Wright is a freed slave who travels with the bushwhackers because of his loyalty to the young man who bought him his freedom. He gives a fine and understated performance.Some of the acting, however, is wooden, especially in the long conversations they have about morality. And their costumes are too new. And the "southern gentleman" theme of manners and hat-tipping and politeness to women comes across as a bit much -- especially since they make it a point to murder all the men who they pull from their women's arms, then burn down the stores and houses.While I don't think that this will go down as one of Lee Ang's "great" movies, I did find myself fascinated by it, in spite of the slow parts and its excessive length of 140 minutes. I was interested in what was happening next and felt empathy for each of the characters who all came across as real and imperfect human beings caught up in the forces of history.Not as much action as the usual war movie, but yet still recommended -- especially for Civil War buffs.

This amazing documentary gives us a glimpse into the lives of the brave women in Cameroun's judicial system-- policewomen, lawyers and judges. Despite tremendous difficulties-- lack of means, the desperate poverty of the people, multiple languages and multiple legal precedents depending on the region of the country and the religious/ethnic background of the plaintiffs and defendants-- these brave, strong women are making a difference.This is a rare thing-- a truly inspiring movie that restores a little bit of faith in humankind. Despite the atrocities we see in the movie, justice does get served thanks to these passionate, hardworking women.I only hope this film gets a wide release in the United States. The more people who see this film, the better.

A chemical spill is turning people into zombies. It's up to two doctor's to survive the epidemic. It's an Andreas Schnaas film so you know what the par for the course will be. Bad acting, horribly awful special effects, and no budget to speak of. The dubbing is ridiculous with a capital R and the saddest thing is that I feel compelled to write one word about this piece of excrement, much less the ten lines mandatory because of the guidelines placed on me by IMDb. My original review of merely one word: Crap wouldn't fly so I have to revise it and go more in to how bad it is. But I don't know if I can, so.. wait I think I may have enough words, or lines rather to make this review pass. Which is cool, I guess. So in summation: This movie sucks balls, don't watch it.My Grade: F

You can debate Prince's acting talent, or even his choice to parody his own life in this film. There is no debate about his musical talent either then or now. He seems like a shadowy has-been twenty years later, but the music remains relevant and fantastic. Having lived through the hype of this movie (graduated high school in'85) I can tell you that there was nothing bigger at the time. From Tipper Gore (Al's wife) trying to censor "Little Nikki" and every thing else under the sun via the PMRC (Parents Music Resource Center) to every "Air Band" at the time impersonating Prince, it was the absolute hottest thing out. For a few weeks at least, Prince was bigger than Madonna and Michael Jackson. We all waited for the film and were soooooo excited when it premiered. It didn't disappoint. EVERYONE was caught up. I was an MTV junkie at the time(they actually played music then....all the time)Prince played at least once or twice an hour. I must qualify this commentary by saying that, at that time, my favorites were Billy Idol, Oingo Boingo, The Fixx, Flock of Seagulls and others in the Punk/ New Wave genre' The music of Prince at the time transcended all types and styles. One of the reasons that some of it seems so cheesy and contrite now is that it was SOOOOOOOO big then. All the things that remind you of the 80's were iconic then. It was mainstream and it seems like a cliché' now. It got so popular that it became ridiculous. It's like the rappin' Granny commercial for Wendy's Hamburgers. It looks stupid now because EVERYONE was caught up in it (sadly, kind of like a bizarre purple macarena or something. Anyway, I hope this gave you all a little insight.

When I was seventeen I genuinely believed Elvis to be the king of rock and roll, and not only did I wish to see all 31 of his "character" movies, but it was my ambition to own them, too. What an exceptionally poor excuse for a seventeen-year-old I must have been. Thankfully sense prevailed and Live A Little, Love A Little is the only Elvis film I own.The spotlight has fallen on this one recently since a remixed version of top song A Little Less Conversation has been released as a single. (His first to reach the UK top ten in 22 years – his first UK No.1 in 25) Even when I was seventeen and in serious need of psychiatric help I realised that the songs for this movie weren't exactly first rate. However, A Little Less Conversation - rollnecks and 60s grooving aside - is a real standout. Finding a lesser-known song that only a relatively small few are aware of promoted into the mainstream produces a mixture of emotions. It's nice to finally see faith in a song vindicated, but it's also saddening to see the disintegration of your own private cult. (And what chauvinistic lyrics, too. Though what other Elvis song contains the word "procrastinate"?)But what really bothers me about this film is not A Little Less Conversation but the 84 minutes that surround it. Actually based on a novel (Kiss My Firm But Pliant Lips - what kind of lame novel would that be?) this one sees a bored Elvis holed up with a "comedy" dog and a nympho. Within 90 seconds of meeting him, Michele Carey asks "would you like to make love to me?" Quite a fast mover by any standards I'm sure you'll agree.I do seem to recall that some of Elvis's early movies - most notably Jailhouse Rock and King Creole - weren't too bad, but this is just identikit hillbilly cobblers. Being fired from a newspaper job can lead to a five minute karate fight with a couple of gingernuts, causing a motorway pile up is good for a laugh, and models dress as pink mermaids. There's even a dream sequence for God's sake. Maybe the only dumb stereotype it doesn't conform to is in not having all that many songs. With just four to choose from, including the credits number, you're waiting an average of 22 minutes between tracks. Some movies would become vapid by having too many tunes, but here they might have helped to have numbed the pain. Of the remaining three tracks, then The Edge of Reality isn't actually that bad, though Elvis's dance to it must surely have been called "The Bear Trap".In one sense, for a PG certificate film from 1968 then this is shockingly high on sexual content. Sadly, however, with talking dogs, Middle America sitcom values and the stiffest dancing you'll ever see, Elvis's dignity is obliterated by this movie.

This one's a romp; many Trek fans don't rate this as high as the well-known all-time classic episodes because it lacks the deep meaning or undertone of those really great ones, but this one is so well executed for what it is, so successful as pure entertainment, it always makes my personal list of the top half dozen episodes, no matter what mood I'm in. Several well known future movies ("Westworld") and TV shows (the more bland "Fantasy Island") took their cue from the premise of this episode (then, of course, the TNG show revamped the concept with the holodeck technology). Beautifully filmed (especially evident in the restored version and on DVD) and directed, it takes place in the nice park-like setting of a planet which the Enterprise has just arrived to. It's odd that no animal life, even insects, seems to exist here (how are flowers pollinated, for example), but things turn really odd when members of the landing party start seeing people from their past (Kirk has a people-heavy past, it turns out), as well as figures from other well-known fantasy stories. Sulu even finds an old-style police revolver (adding to his collection of swords, no doubt).By this point in the Trek series (halfway thru the first season), the main characters had pretty much solidified into the old friends we'd come to know over the many proceeding years. Here, we get to really see them relax, converse and work together to figure out this episode's puzzle: the strong narrative is a mystery again, of sorts, and the audience is along for the ride as Kirk & friends seek to unravel a very bizarre series of events which have a decidedly amusing flavor to them. It's almost whimsical, following up on the carefree style established up on the starship as Kirk was finally maneuvered into beaming down after showing definite signs of stress and fatigue (the Enterprise had, it's suggested, just completed a harrowing mission). Then Dr. McCoy is killed by a knight on horseback; yes, this is Dr. McCoy's final episode...just kidding. But, it's no joke to the rest of the landing party at this point in the story. McCoy really is dead for all intents and purposes and, like the best Trek episodes, the 2nd half of this adventure escalates to a more frantic, more desperate tempo of action and suspense. This is all signaled by Kirk's resolute response to Sulu, who voices his lack of understanding about any of these events just after McCoy's death - Kirk will get to the bottom of all this, come what may.But, it doesn't get much easier for Kirk: what follows is probably the longest staged mano-a-mano fight for the series as Kirk tussles with his nemesis from his academy days, a struggle that seems to take place over half the planet. Yet, this is counterbalanced by scenes of extraordinary tenderness, with another of Kirk's past acquaintances. This episode runs the gamut of all human experience, rather fitting in light of what we learn about the actual purpose of this weird planet. It's gratifying that the script really does explain all of what's happened, as opposed to some nonsensical approach which permeates many other fantasy & sci-fi series with similar plot lines (unexplained appearances by persons who could not possibly be there). And there actually is a subtext to the story - that we humans need to 'work' off our tensions and fatigue in a particular fashion, or we just don't function in a 'normal' natural way. Also, note the appearance of the very cute Yeoman Barrows and the sudden absence of Yeoman Rand, who did not return until the first Trek movie in '79. I believe that after this episode, even more Trek fans couldn't wait for the next appearance of all their favorite characters. But I leave this episode with a final, perhaps tantalizing thought: if McCoy was killed (verified by Spock), how do we know it was our real McCoy who beamed back up to the ship? Perhaps this explains why this McCoy was still inspecting starships about a century later and getting along very well with Data.

I've seen a lot of crap in my day, but goodness, Hot Rod takes the cake. I saw a free screening in NY the other night. I can only hope they show the funny version to the paying customers. The big laughs were sparse, the plot was uninteresting, and the characters were one dimensional at best. One highlight is a hilarious dancing scene with Adam Samberg. It was priceless and was the only scene I truly had a hearty laugh at. Other than that, I can only recollect randomness and dead air. SNL & Samberg fans may be disappointed. I know I was expecting more from it. But it short, I definitely would not recommend attending a free screening or paying to watch this film.

So when i was little i got this movie as a present and my sister and i loved it. we would watch it all the time. when our friends came over we would have sleepovers and we'd watch big rock candy mountain and grandpa's magical toys. I'm 21 now and i still love this movie, some old friends and i recently got together and watched it, we knew all the songs and we danced and talked about how much we hated Profster when we were little. One friend actually bought this movie and grandpa's magical toys for her 2 year old daughter because she wants to pass on our love of this movie. This really is a movie you can let your kids watch and feel safe, no violence, no bad language, just lots of great songs and important lessons.

I am not sure who is writing theseglowing reviews for this movie but trust me it STKINKS. I have seen hundreds of horror films and slasher flicks and this one is LAME it is only about 80min long and believe me that is all I could take. Plot is terrible, acting is even worse. And there is no development at all.Even the David Cocteau films are better than this. RUN AWAY from JIGSAW . I expected to hate the acting, which can be forgiven in direct to video movies, if the plot is good.This had no scares, very little Gore,and a truly unattractive cast.I watched this with three other friendswho I hope are still talking to me!They wanted me to fling the disc out the window. I can not believe anyone could havegiven this tripe a good review.

Previous commentator Steve Richmond stated that A Walk On The Moon is, in his words "not worth your $7". I ended up paying a bit more than that to import what is one of the worst-quality DVDs I have yet seen, of this film or any film in existence. Even when you ignore the fact that the DVD is clearly sourced from an interlaced master and just plain nasty to watch in motion, the film has no redeeming qualities (save Anna's presence) to make watching a top quality Blu-Ray transfer worthwhile. Not that this is any fault of the other actors. Liev Schreiber, Diane Lane, Tovah Feldshuh, and Viggo Mortensen all score high on the relative to Anna Paquin acting ability chart. Far more so than Holly Hunter or Sam Neill did in spite of an equally lousy script, anyway. Director Tony Goldwyn's resume is nothing to crow about, but Pamela Gray's resume includes Wes Craven's most dramatic excursions outside of the horror or slasher genre, so one could be forgiven for thinking this is a case of bad direction.As I have indicated already, the sole reason I watched this film is Anna Paquin. In her acting debut, she literally acted veterans of the industry with a minimum of twelve years' experience above hers under the table. While she is not as far ahead of her castmates here, her performance as a girl that starts the piece as a brat and grows into a woman whose world is crashing down around her proves her Oscar was no fluke. For some time I have been stating to friends that she would be the best choice to portray the heroine of my second complete novel, and a dialogue seventy-three minutes into this film is yet another demonstration of why. This woman could literally act the paint off walls. Anna aside, only Liev Schreiber comes close to eliciting any sympathy from an audience. Sure, his character spends the vast majority of the film neglecting a wife with an existential crisis, but he plays the angered reaction of a man who feels cheated brilliantly. I should know, even if it is not from the same circumstances here.Viggo Mortensen also deserves credit for his portrayal of a travelling salesman, although perhaps not to the same extent. In a manner of speaking, he is the villain of the piece, but he successfully gives the character a third dimension. Yes, his actions even after the whole thing explodes are underhanded, but not many men would act any differently in his situation. Nobody wants to be the other man in this kind of messed-up situation, so Viggo deserves a lot of credit for giving it a try here. Unfortunately, these are all participants in a story about a woman who feels trapped in a stagnant marriage where Tovah Feldshuh tells us that the Mills And Boon archetype of women being the only ones who feel life is passing by simply does not exist. Either writer Pamela Gray or director Tony Goldwyn thought they could just put this line into the film without thinking of how the audience might receive it. Anna even gets to speak the mind of the audience when she asks Diane who she is to be lecturing anyone about responsibility.That said, the film does have a couple of things besides Anna going for it. Mason Daring's original music, while not standing out in any way, gives the film a certain feeling of being keyed into the time depicted that helps where the other elements do not. Roger Ebert is right when he points out that while Liev is a great actor, putting him alongside Viggo in the story of a woman forced to choose between her marriage and her fantasy is a big mistake. He is also very correct in that when the film lingers over scenes of Lane and Mortensen skinny-dipping or mounting one another under a waterfall, it loses focus from being a story of a transgression and becomes soft porn. The film seems terminally confused about the position of its story. No matter how many times I rewatch Liev's scenes, I cannot help but feel he has been shortchanged in the direction or editing. One does not have to make their leads particularly handsome or beautiful, but taking steps to make them the most interesting or developed characters in the piece would have gone a long way.Ebert also hits the nail right on the head when he says that every time he saw Anna on the screen, he thought her character was where the real story lay. Stories about the wife feeling neglected and running into the arms of a man who seems interesting or even dangerous are a dime a dozen, to such an extent now that even setting the story in parallel with an event as Earth-shattering as the moon landing will not help. In spite of feeling revulsion at the manner in which her character's story is presented, Anna might as well be walking around with a neon sign above her head asking the audience if they would not prefer to see the whole thing through her eyes. While I am all too aware that it is difficult to control exactly which character your audience will find the most interesting from your cast, it is very much as if they did not bother to try with Lane and Schreiber. Fans of these two would be well advised to look elsewhere. Hopefully by now my ramblings about the respective performances will give some idea of where the whole thing went wrong.I gave A Walk On The Moon a three out of ten. Anna Paquin earns it a bonus point with one of her best performances (and that is saying something).

No reason to bother renting this flick. From the opening credits on, I knew I was in trouble.It was filmed as though it was a soft porn movie, but there really isn't anything erotic about it. The look into the world of sex addiction is intriguing, but only to a point.Boring sex scenes, bad plot, and cameos by Ed Begley Jr. and Rosanna Arquette aren't enough to save this film.

I've just lost 2 hours of my life watching this mindless plot. I could make a better movie with my cellphone camera. How do they manage to get actors to play in those movies?? Porn movies have better scenarios and effects... I wish I had those 2 hours back...The only good thing about this movie is the cast. Even though, their acting skills in this one could not lift this movie to passable, the rest was just WAY too bad! It's the type of movie that I'd recommend using to torture prisoners into scaring them straight.Even worse, I saw a translated version of this flick...Imagine, a bad movie...with an even worst translation...Yikes!

Terrfic film with a slightyly slow start - give it a chance to start cooking. Story builds in interest and complexity. Characters and storyline subvert expectation and cliche at all the right moments. Superb New York City locations - gritty, real - are a fantastic antidote to the commercial imperatives of "Sex in the City" - in fact, the entire film is an antidote to the HBO/Hollywood notion of New York City , sex and relationships. It's a rare film that treats its characters so honestly and compassionately. LOVED IT! Great cast with notable performances by Steve Buscemi, Rosario Dawson, and her love interest (forgot his name!).

THE ODD COUPLE (3+ outta 5 stars)Like most people I will always feel that Jack Klugman and Tony Randall are the definitive "Odd Couple". Their incredible work on the TV series from the early to mid-70s was a highwater mark for television at the time... easily surpassing the stage and screen versions of the tale. Nonetheless, how can you go wrong with a Jack Lemmon/Walter Matthau pairing? Matthau is in especially good form as Oscar, the slob. Lemmon takes a bit of getting used to as Felix, particularly if you have previously seen Tony Randall's outstanding performance. The script is good... definitely Neil Simon's best. (I will go on record here as stating that Neil Simon is probably one of the worst, most over-rated playwrights of American theatre.) The storyline is simple: Felix, a neat freak and newly separated from his wife moves in with Oscar, the slob who needs some help saving money for alimony payments. Their living arrangement becomes much like a marriage as well, culminating in some amusing tiffs and spats. Lots of fun and some great one-liners.

I found this a good movie to pass your time, but not by any chance of any historical value. The portrayal of Cleopatra reminded me a cheap soap opera.The twist of the facts is... funny! She gave birth while feeding her people!?!? O please... A pregnant Queen of Egypt (especially this one) would not bother to go from one room to the other for that reason! They tried to make her appear a saint for God's sake! And the way they tried to justify her murdering her own sister... beyond description.Cleopatra was the greatest politician of her time. Her decisions were based anything but her feelings and morals. She did everything for only two reasons: Power and self-preservation! She was borne in a family where she had to straggle for survival, something she did very well. Anything that stood on her way was either murdered (her brothers and sister) or seduced (Ceasar and Mark Anthony).Unfortunately Octavian was too powerful to kill and too... gay to be seduced. So, he was her end...

I had watched (and recorded) this a few years back on local TV and, having been underwhelmed by it, I subsequently erased the tape; however, when it was released by MGM as part of a "Midnite Movie" double-feature DVD of Curtis Harrington/Shelley Winters films for a very affordable price, I couldn't resist giving it a second look (this has since gone out-of-print). Actually, I received the DVD a few months ago but only now, with Harrington's passing, did I get to it; thankfully, this time around I was more receptive to the film and, in fact, now consider it one of the more satisfying WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE? (1962) imitations (with whom, incidentally, it shared screenwriter Henry Farrell).The film offers a splendid evocation of 1930s Depression America - with its child-star craze and sensational murders (exploited during the fake newsreel opening); it's stylishly made (kudos to Lucien Ballard's cinematography and the set design by Eugene Lourie') and boasts an effective David Raksin score. Shelley Winters, Debbie Reynolds and Michael MacLiammoir deliver excellent performances; the latter is especially impressive as the larger-than-life and vaguely sinister diction coach (though he ultimately proves a mere red herring!). Also featured are Dennis Weaver and Agnes Moorehead (hers is only a cameo, really, as the evangelist she plays is mostly heard over the radio).Many seemed to regret the inclusion of musical numbers by the kids (including an amusing Mae West imitation), but I personally wasn't bothered by them; the film does slightly overstay its welcome due to an unhurried pace and (perhaps needlessly) convoluted plot. Reynolds - a musical star herself - is ideally cast as the dancing-school owner and, despite their on-set rivalry, she and Winters work well together. The latter, in fact, gives a more balanced depiction of paranoia and insanity than in WHOEVER SLEW AUNTIE ROO? (1971); the narrative, then, comes up with a number of ironic twists that lead up to the expected Grand Guignol-type denouement. Apparently, the film was toned down (it originally contained more gore and even a suggestion of lesbianism!) by producer Martin Ransohoff - against Harrington's wishes - in order to get a PG rating...

This movie is very good. The screenplay is enchanting. But Meryl Streep is most impressive. Her performance is excellent. She brings me to go into the heart of her role.

Peter M. Cohen has a winner satire on the mating game, twisted around and turned inside out. The critical bashing of the movie in mainstream media publications as "offensive" and "raunchy" only serves to underscore its intensity as a refreshing and concentrated dissection of people's sexual pursuits and passions. It is in the tradition of what I call "reality based" satire following in the footsteps of "In The Company of Men," "Chasing Amy", "Your Friends and Neighbors" and "Two Girls and a Guy". Cohen's dialogue is hilarious and I was continually intrigued by how perfectly he captured the real pace of today's conversations. Brian Van Holt, Zorie Barber, and Jonathan Abrahams are three distinct, unrelenting sex-obsessed predators who along with the foil of their recently married buddy (superbly played by Judah Domke) are turned upside down on their own terms by a female predator (Amanda Peet). Underneath the satiric surface lurks a romantic comedy far more satisfying than most sugar-coated studio products.

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